Trump tells congresswomen of color born in America to "go back to their crime infested country"

That red meat lmao!!! Come on progressives take a bite, I know you want too.

Boy, what a wall of useless apologist bullshit that missed the point and is utterly useless. Seems to me a "good racist" holds an alt perhaps, as this smells awfully familiar in flavor and the post count measures up. Or perhaps it's just my imagination....

Let's be real. Trump isn't playing master level 4D chess. This isn't some grand plan by him, he is blurting out what he feels without considering the repercussions (apparently he was surprised at the reaction) and your guys' attempt at revisionism doesn't change that. I don't disagree that he tries to divide, and he may be making attempts to divert, but the manner in which he does so isn't by made by anyone with an inkling of forethought or plan. And fail under any logical examination? Under any deductive logical examination by those who actually are capable of grasping the fundamentals of logic, race (if not racism) can be attributed to the forefront of his statement.

1) Trump states to three women who are native born Americans to go back where they came from. Explain to me on what basis he made this statement? What made him automatically assume they came from anywhere but the U.S.?

2) He is insinuating that where they came from are broken and crime infested. Again, explain to me on what basis he made this statement? He didn't even identify where they came from (because, well, they come from the U.S.), only that the places they supposedly did are broken and crime infested. Based on what is he making that assumption?

"A concept you know will fail under any logical examination". No, they don't fail, and logical deduction leaves no room for interpretation aside race in this instance. Articulate to me how do the above two logical deductions in coming to that conclusion fail under logical scrutiny? It would be one thing if these people were actually immigrants who came from places that have serious problems (which is why I'm not including Omar here), then I wouldn't be arguing with you because while crude in his commentary and while I'd suspect racial motivations, I couldn't necessarily claim it was a factor because he'd actually have other legitimate grounding to stand on to grant him the benefit of the doubt. In this instance he doesn't. These are American citizens, born here. Thus, the only thing left that drives Trump's ignorant statements and assumptions in claiming they come from elsewhere and that where they came from is broken and crime infested are race.

Argue to me how it's not, and I'm not interested in hearing simple assertions, denials and rejections while arguing he's some master manipulator as you've been doing. You think logic stands on your side? Then argue it point by point, and stop stating it simply is in your favor. Can you answer 1 and 2, or can't you? People aren't conflating nationality with racism, they are looking at those who arenationals being told to go back to where they came from, and as seeing that they are born Americans, they are LOGICALLY coming to the conclusion that as nationality is not at contention, the only possible reason left that Trump said what he did is because the color of their skin.

His comment absolutely implied race, read my above comments and answer #1 and 2 if you don't believe so. I'd love to hear your speculation as to what drove his comments.

Trump would never use the comments towards whites, and until he does so, I'll believe that. If he did in fact use it towards whites, it would be to go back to where they came from and bring back the prosperity in their lands to the U.S.

Identity politics are poison, no disagreement here, but that shouldn't obfuscate racism. Trump is depending upon people becoming tired of political correctness to further his own bigotry. He's leveraging it brilliantly, and you and your ilk are apologizing for it.

@MirkoS77: i apologize for nothing, He mentioned no race. The phrase has and can be said against anyone.

Your assumption of it being racist is because omar and aoc are minorities, thats why your mind jumps to racism

1.) Omar is a US citizen, not native born, born in Somalia. The others are native born. Is it possible Trump just grouped these people together with Omar, not based on race, but based on that they are all the most polarizing dems on the left currently. "The squad" are probably the most anti american politicians i've seen in my life time. They act as tho they are oppressed, while all are in high places of government within the country..

They are all the most famous on the left in congress and for all the wrong reasons. None of them have any grand achievements, they are just polarizing, all 4 built their political ideology around identity politics. Then theres the weird anti Israel comments by the 2 muslim woman in congress...

Look im not even religious but this is messed up.. how are you serving in the US government and refuse to recognize Israel as a state..https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190107-rashida-tlaib-removes-israel-from-the-map-in-her-congressional-office/

Her career kicked off with a buzz after she called the president a mother fu**er right as she took office. Nice.

Pressley referred to border security agents of color as being simply "a cog" in a machine of oppression.

Omar compared Israel to a "Slave owning America".

AOC's new green deal, has less to do with the environment and more with socialist and Marxist ideology that would completely destroy the economy, thank god the other dems immediately shot it down because of how ridiculous it was. It would destroy america. Meanwhile shes protesting amazon bringing jobs to the state..

Cenk is over his head with these Justice democrats hes pushing. I believe they are doing more damage than good for the democrats imo.

I think Trump knows they are polarizing, not sensible and wants to make them the face of the party to increase his odds in 2020.

Not at all do i find these comments true bigotry, I do think Trump is playing with his food tho.

2. He is insinuating that where they came from are broken and crime infested. Again, explain to me on what basis he made this statement? He didn't even identify where they came from (because, well, they come from the U.S.), only that the places they supposedly did are broken and crime infested. Based on what is he making that assumption?

He doesn't have to give specifics, he kept it vague on purpose. It does relate to Omar more directly imo than the others. Somalia is an extremely corrupt and crime ridden place.

But like i said, Trumps just grouping them together. He wants them to have the spotlight.

Take a good look at who he said it to and what racial characteristics they share. It's pretty obviously intended to be racist. But, it also comes across as nationalistic, which, well... Anyone can see what I think of that up above.

To me, this is just evidence Trump has a negative number of working braincells. Because if he meant that as a strategy, he would have targeted a lot more than just those four; that way, he could point out to the exceptions to the general implied racism that some would assume and use it to troll Democrats about a lack of ability to tell the difference.

He's not fooling anyone.

Nice try but how you feel does not make anything a fact.

When you look at Trump´s past behaviour and look into the motives behind the comment, the motive is clearly not racist but simply anger at someone who opposes him.

So no what you mean "Trump is not "fooling" anyone who has a preconceived opinion"

It is definitely your imagination. And I fail to see how "this is the strategy of someone with no operating braincells" is somehow being apologetic towards the person using the strategy or implying they are some kind of master manipulator. You're just so caught up in your "this conclusion must be true!" mindset that you don't realize how chasing that conclusion is leading you down a path of defeat.

Plus, your counter-arguments against the conclusion you are chasing are pitifully ineffective and only make it clear you're not thinking so much as reacting. From, your wording and capacity to cite sources, you are definitely not an idiot; you've just let reaction to a statement overwhelm your sense and then let me use that against you to manipulate you with my needling comments (mostly, I was testing to see if it was pure reaction on your part). And when you're purely reacting, you've already lost the discussion and it really doesn't matter what you say; the other person controls your actions and what arguments you make. So, please, quit reacting and spend some time thinking through what I've said. Read the following carefully, think about it, and delay reply until you've fully considered everything I'm saying and have had time for your initial reaction to pass. Trust me, you'll be much more effective in how you reply when you do.

And, no, he's not doing anything masterful. Did you notice where I said this isn't a particularly new strategy or how none of the results I cited from it are recent developments?

Also, did you not notice how I never disagreed that racism was the forefront of what Trump was saying? But, instead, I accused that mindset of originating from a head completely devoid of intelligent thought? That should be a big clue to you where I stand on the issue.

Now, to critique your numbered statements...

1) You are never going to win using this start. In particular, there's plenty of room to argue that he did know, as several of his supporters have already done.

2) The United States is broken and crime-infested. It's rather well-known, and the tough-on-crime politicians all use it as a cornerstone of their campaign strategy. Hook this in with #1, pull up some crime statistics to support it, and you can argue the places in the U.S. they come from are crime-riddled dens of inequity with ease. It's a strategy the Republicans have used thousands of times before.

In terms of effectiveness for argument, those two numbered statements you made were not worth the electrons used to display them on the screen or the time you spent thinking or writing them. You wasted your time and the money you spent on electricity and internet with that effort. In particular because it was so easy to lead you down that path.

Now, for the rest of your tirade: Have you noticed I have not said anything that actually defends Trump at any point in this thread? That, when examined with clear thought, nothing I say actually makes Trump look that intelligent or innovative? Feel free to search every page on it. I critiqued the idea that nationality must equal race, but at no point made any attempt to argue Trump is anything less than racist or operating without a central nervous system. Did it ever occur to you that, maybe, what I was critiquing was the "thought" pattern that Trump used to form his comments?

The fact he targeted people of particular racial background, instead of targeting far more who anger him, with that says that it wasn't just anger. Trump shoots his mouth off without thinking; if this was just anger and not racist, he would have already said such to someone else without that racial background.

His history backs the stance.

Trump was not referring to the US and it's damn disingenuous to try and spin it that way. You're absolutely full of shit if you're trying to explain away his comments in this fashion.

Go back, reread the entire post, and use some reading comprehension.

I understood it completely. You're simply reaching.

You apparently failed at reading comprehension, then.

I was pointing out how Mirko's second item isn't that effective of an argument against Trump's supporters and how they can spin it. Which should have been obvious from how the first one was written.

Again he is not targeting anyone of a particular race, he is angry at 4 people who are in the media, his strongest opponents and who keep getting a ton of media spotlight.

Like with Mccain or anyone else who opposes him and who get media coverage.

This is nothing but a politically motivated statement and someone can try to make it about race, but that says more about the person who claims it than Trump.

Why are all four of those people of the same racial background? Why did he not say that to Pelosi, McCain, Dean, Mueller... You know, any of the white enemies he has?

No amount of trying to deflect is going to change the truth, so you might want to quit.

@baelnergal:

“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, “now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run.”

 “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.”

I'm not seeing the point of quoting this to me. I outright called this statement racist multiple times.

@baelnergal:

Keyword is "originally".

The media will spin anything trump says into a negative. Hes defending the US, and that this woman despises it, and that if she finds the country so bad, to go to another country, fix their government, and live there.

Is there a group of people in the US that did not originate from someplace else?

Martin Luther King in his famous I Have a Dream Speech, stated, " he wanted to be judged by the content of his character, not the color of his skin". That is what Trump did with the four congresswomen. Unfortunately they are Democrats and the media has to turn everything into a race issue where none existed. Biden and Clinton made racists comment that were ignored by the media.

When you look at trump and his bast behavior it certainly aligns with racism. You're being dishonest.

No. Judging on character does NOT result in references to country.

Look, you go to all this extent to edify me of how people view the sqaud. Thanks, but I'm not ignorant of it. But it makes me wonder why you bother. Are you implying that if none of that were present you'd be more willing to admit that it was driven by racism? If not, why bring all of it up? It seems to me you are using these examples as a justification to excuse Trump's words for no other reason that you disagree with these people and not predicated upon the merits of the exchange itself, and if you didn't have them, in your mind you'd not have such backing to feel he was justified in what he said.

And what do you mean by Trump "playing with his food"? Pushing the boundaries? Then how can you, and any other Trump supporter, hold blame to those who hold him to account for it?

Furthermore, you claim that he remains vague on purpose. All the while I have to deal with this other ass alt on this board replying to me that we're the ones watering down what racism is. How convenient for Trump to keep it vague, eh?

He doesn't NEED to mention race, it is fully, explicitly implied. Christ, it's like you people exist in a world where racism does not exist, it cannot exist, unless it comes out and states its textbook definition to your faces. It's unbelievable the extent that you will bend over backwards to excuse it. What's even sadder is you guys don't even understand how dangerous it is.

Jesus. Grow a fucking backbone and take a position for crying out loud.

Stop pretending that you are some all-wise objective metric that arrogantly presumes to know precisely fully under what impetus and motivations statements were made and under what impression they were interpreted, then see fit to condescend (and further insult) others who take them as such because they don't align in your eyes to that 'objectiveness'. This is a debate, nothing is known. Take a side and stop attempting to pass off your nonsense that you're not on one.

People in here may be vehemently passionate in what they believe is this case, but you go a step further in unbelievable arrogance in thinking you know the truth and you hold the right to correct people who don't agree with the all-wise and enlightened baelnergal. You present an argument, then recede and cower in agnosticism when really confronted, using it to not have to take account for your positions while believing you still hold the right to correct others in the errors of theirs. As if you're simply an innocent, blameless, indifferent messenger edifying all us misguided plebes. I was going to make a long reply to you, but this is the gist of it.

You don't know, and you have no grounds to say what you are. I'd lend a hell of a lot more credit and respect to your feet if you took a position to substantiate the unknown and debatable instead of posturing in pretending the assurance of the known. Get over yourself, this wins you no points.

And how is accusing a group of people with the same racial background of coming "from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe" and then telling them to "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came" anything less than racist?

Look, I agree with this concept: Discriminating against a nationality isn't racism. It's still discrimination, but it's not racism.

But assuming people must come from other nations just because they share certain racial characteristics with people who have a perceived likelihood of having come from other nations is racism. And it's very rare for a race to be native to only one nation.

Scroll up and read what I said to Heirren.

Stop pretending that you are some all-wise objective metric that arrogantly presumes to know precisely fully under what impetus and motivations statements were made and under what impression they were interpreted, then see fit to condescend (and further insult) others who take them as such because they don't align in your eyes to that 'objectiveness'. This is a debate, nothing is known. Take a side and stop attempting to pass off your nonsense that you're not on one.

What makes you think I am pretending anything of the sort, or that I presume anything beyond what I can see as likely based upon presented evidence? And it's quite hypocritical of you to say that to me, given how much effort you put into presuming I was a Trump supporter. But, then, it's also hypocritical of me to contest that reading, given the way some of my prior posts were worded.

Also, I think my side would be well known to anyone who paid attention. Notice how at no point the actual Trump supporters confused me for one of their number?

Several things are known if you read over the thread and pay attention, and from those things that are known certain logical conclusions can be reached. For example, Zaryia used the term "colored" while seemingly being aware of its general perception as being a racist term; this suggests Zaryia has encountered the term in its nondiscriminatory usages when referring to people often enough, and with enough regularity, to default to the nondiscriminatory meaning. Quite possibly, Zaryia is older than one would expect (you see this kind of slip on occasion from people of certain generations, even when they are not racist). General style of typing and speech, as well as capacity to research and cite quotes, suggests someone both highly educated and quite experienced with hunting down quote after quote to support a position. And Zaryia used to be a Republican, if what I've heard on here is accurate; quite likely, Zaryia is an older, possibly retired, academic who spends their free time arguing on the forum.

And that's the information I've gained with barely interacting with them and not paying much attention at all. Zaryia stands out quite a bit.

Now, note I could be wrong. But, that estimate does fit the evidence at hand.

You, from my observations, are easy to sidetrack through precise needling. You take offense to it, right? Which is why you're trying to call me out for it now, right?

People in here may be vehemently passionate in what they believe is this case, but you go a step further in unbelievable arrogance in thinking you know the truth and you hold the right to correct people who don't agree with the all-wise and enlightened baelnergal. You present an argument, then recede and cower in agnosticism when really confronted, using it to not have to take account for your positions while believing you still hold the right to correct others in the errors of theirs. As if you're simply an innocent, blameless, indifferent messenger edifying all us misguided plebes. I was going to make a long reply to you, but this is the gist of it.

Okay, this one is far too funny.

I admitted to manipulating you with needling. What part of that sounds innocent? I admit to playing the villain, and you accuse me of thinking I'm some kind of savior.

In fact, here's my exact words from that post where I admitted it: "let me use that against you to manipulate you with my needling comments"

This is what I meant when I said you're reacting instead of thinking. Your accusations against me don't stand the test of evidence I can pull from my own posts because you're too busy being angry to properly examine them and see what you can really hit me with or what weaknesses I've shown in this thread.

@baelnergal:

Did you not read what i had said?

Also it is not about choosing sides. Im on neither side. Im just pointing out what the comment meant.

I did read. I'm not seeing if there is any other point, though.

Could you explain in more detail if there is?

Then what else needs to be said? At least you can take some responsibility for how your posts are construed instead of blaming everyone else. Take heed and bear that in mind in your future postings, and don't leave things in such ambiguity. You didn't manipulate me in any way whatsoever, no matter in which condescending manner you claim. It's nothing but a transparent attempt to posture as someone who's so much wiser, superior, and ahead of the game.

What you basically are doing is arguing, then when it gets to a certain point, you come out and claim, "well, I was just needling you in manipulation to see where you'd go, and it was exactly where I expected."

Well isn't that convenient? That's not transparent in the least. Are people actually stupid enough to buy into your bullshit?

Again, get over yourself.

@baelnergal:

So you understand that its not racist.

You're giving the wrong person advice to get over themselves. I owned up to what I did in two posts on here... while you simply sit there and prove you're the bigger hypocrite.

After all, let's not forget which of the two of us started the insult fight between us. Or which one had to make a point to assume without any evidence beyond their own mistaken belief. This entire argument between us was because of what you thought you knew and my lack of backing down.

Dude, grow up and stop trying to be right all the time. Learn to admit and own your faults. Because, right now, all I'm seeing is someone who doesn't realize just how badly they've been owned by their own ignorance. And I'm disappointed because I expected better.

As for posturing as wiser? No posturing to it. You prove the lesser with your own lack of ability to own up to your mistakes.

No. I fail to see how it's not.

@baelnergal:

Take race out of it. America is a home which welcomes everyone and theres a plethora of people now living in this home, which came from other, maybe more broken down places. Trump is the head of this free home. What trump is essentially saying is, if you dont like this home, go back to your busted up home and fix that if yoy have all the answers.

Such mental gymnastics to apologize for trump's racism.

Then why say that to a group of people where three were born in the United States? This is their home.

@LJS9502_basic:

Are you delusional? When did i say i was a trump supporter and why oh why would i need to even apologize? Lol cmon now. Its basic communication. These people try to attack, amd he defends, and this throws the media off guard so they retaliate by making extreme accusations.

Also that is not mental gymnastics, its common sense.

You don't have to say you're a trump supporter when all your posts show that.

@baelnergal:

Key word is "originally".

@LJS9502_basic:

Im not. And all my posts do not show that. My comments are neutral.

While a lot of peoples are not originally from the U.S., most of the current population is. So, I fail to see why they would need to leave when, realistically, this is where they are originally from, even if their ancestors are not.

No your comments are not neutral.

@baelnergal:

Its whats being implied. People still maintain their culture within the states. Its more racist of the media to make accusations. The same comment could be applied to a scenario where Trump is speaking to someone of the same nationality as him. Race is irrelevent.

@LJS9502_basic:

Yes, they are.

Only some people maintain their culture, some assimilate, and some form their own culture.

But Trump was not speaking to people of his own race. He was speaking to others of a different race.

@baelnergal:

Why would that matter?

Lets say Trump was second generation mexican and he made the exact same comment towards another second generation mexican. Same exact thing.

Remember you have to keep the context of what was being said, and why the comment was made.

It matters because, in this case, race is part of the context. We can't just ignore that aspect of it.

@jeezers said:

That red meat lmao!!! Come on progressives take a bite, I know you want too.

I think you forgot this isn't 4chan or TheDonald.

Being impressed by the President trolling isn't that cool outside of there.

Why didn't Trump go back to Germany or whatever and fix their issues when he complained heavily during Obama?

P.S. 68% of Americans think you are wrong.

That specific phrase is a commonly used racist trope. Even federal guidelines say so. 68% of Americans agree with that as well.

You lost this debate.

Why are we still having it? It's over.

The regressives trump apologists are still trying to defend this?

Well, these didn't age well. /shrug Both sides say stupid crap all the time. Both sides need to grow up honestly.

Nope. Praising trump and making snotty comments about other candidates is not neutral.

@LJS9502_basic:

Im very neutral.

You are basing this off of what? Dont assume so much.

@baelnergal:

Yet it makes no difference.

People have become too influenced by the media.

The more proper responce, if taken back by trumps comments, would be to ask "what do you mean by that?" It wasnt trump which escaladed the situation. The media tries to do this, not just with the president but any big public figure.