Without seeing how he said it, what was said before, and his history of racial comments, it would be difficult to presume what he meant. Plus he lies so often, and deliberately, so that no one can clearly discern what he means when he says something. Leaving his aides to backtrack and try to translate what he "really meant" on so many occasions. What Clinton intends in that conversation was clear, IF you listened to the conversation. Once again, taking a few seconds video of a comment, out of context and then blowing it up into something it wasn't.
Silverstarqueen wrote:Without seeing how he said it, what was said before, and his history of racial comments, it would be difficult to presume what he meant. Plus he lies so often, and deliberately, so that no one can clearly discern what he means when he says something. Leaving his aides to backtrack and try to translate what he "really meant" on so many occasions. What Clinton intends in that conversation was clear, IF you listened to the conversation. Once again, taking a few seconds video of a comment, out of context and then blowing it up into something it wasn't.
Silverstarqueen wrote:Without seeing how he said it, what was said before, and his history of racial comments, it would be difficult to presume what he meant. Plus he lies so often, and deliberately, so that no one can clearly discern what he means when he says something. Leaving his aides to backtrack and try to translate what he "really meant" on so many occasions. What Clinton intends in that conversation was clear, IF you listened to the conversation. Once again, taking a few seconds video of a comment, out of context and then blowing it up into something it wasn't.
Thats what I thought. Its not what is said. Its who says it.
It's how they say it, and whether they have a history of speaking honestly in public, Clinton had a serious speech going on about diversity in the Democratic party, then the interviewer made a gaffe, confusing who made a particular comment, then Clinton made a sarcastic remark. If she had not laughed, and had made it sound like she really believed it, then it would have had a totally different effect. Now have you ever heard Trump make a serious (truthful) speech about the vast diversity of religion, or race in his party or administration , and how great it was , where he was not lying? No because he has virtually no Black people, and I would bet very few muslims, for instance in his administration. Does he have a habit of communicating oddly, that is saying one thing one day and the opposite thing another day? Yes, often. So how would we know what he intended when he makes any speech? Absolutely no way of knowing. He can say one day that "I don't know why it would be the Russians interfering in the election". and then next day exactly reversing that. Not the first or the last time he has ever done that. So if you can tell when he really truly believes what he say, you are the only person on earth who can do that. Does he have a history of racist comments? Yes, often. so what could he mean when he says "They all look alike"? No one can say, because he never speaks the truth consistently anyway.
Re: Modern Intersectional Definition of a Racist
Posted: Aug 18th, 2019, 11:26 am
by fvkasm2x
Silverstarqueen wrote:Clinton had just spoken about the diversity in the Democratic party, and why it is welcomed. Then the interviewer confused who had said a particular comment (Holder vs. Booker). Clinton's comment was clearly sarcastic humor, making fun of the interviewer's confusion over who said the comment. That *some* cannot see this showsremoved how desperate to take a sarcastic comment and try to pass it off as Clinton's actual belief.
While I do agree that she was making a joke...
My question to you would be "Where do you draw the line?"
What I mean is...
Trump was clearly calling MS13 gang members rapists and criminals. He's clearly said that not everyone entering with children are actually family members, they often traffic children and/or pay families handsomely to use their kids as smugglers or beards. HOWEVER, you (and many many others) take snippets of what he said and distort it to fit your narrative.
People do the exact same thing about Hillary (or other Dems/libs) and you all lambaste them over it. Like the time she called blacks super predators. Or when Hillary has went on predominantly black fan based radio/tv interviews and said things like "I can't live without hot sauce" or chicken... which is probably just BS pandering and stereotyping that all black people like hot sauce and chicken.
Intelligent people can look at the whole scenario and not cherry pick or lie about what was said.
I'm one of the first to insult Trump on a myriad of things he's done. The man is a complete ignoramus. However, your bias and lack of intellect shows when you say one thing is alright, but not the exact same thing from the other side or when you twist things to fit your narrative.
Re: Modern Intersectional Definition of a Racist
Posted: Aug 18th, 2019, 12:16 pm
by the truth
fvkasm2x wrote:
Silverstarqueen wrote:Clinton had just spoken about the diversity in the Democratic party, and why it is welcomed. Then the interviewer confused who had said a particular comment (Holder vs. Booker). Clinton's comment was clearly sarcastic humor, making fun of the interviewer's confusion over who said the comment. That *some* cannot see this showsremoved how desperate to take a sarcastic comment and try to pass it off as Clinton's actual belief.
While I do agree that she was making a joke...
My question to you would be "Where do you draw the line?"
What I mean is...
Trump was clearly calling MS13 gang members rapists and criminals. He's clearly said that not everyone entering with children are actually family members, they often traffic children and/or pay families handsomely to use their kids as smugglers or beards. HOWEVER, you (and many many others) take snippets of what he said and distort it to fit your narrative.
People do the exact same thing about Hillary (or other Dems/libs) and you all lambaste them over it. Like the time she called blacks super predators. Or when Hillary has went on predominantly black fan based radio/tv interviews and said things like "I can't live without hot sauce" or chicken... which is probably just BS pandering and stereotyping that all black people like hot sauce and chicken.
Intelligent people can look at the whole scenario and not cherry pick or lie about what was said.
I'm one of the first to insult Trump on a myriad of things he's done. The man is a complete ignoramus. However, your bias and lack of intellect shows when you say one thing is alright, but not the exact same thing from the other side or when you twist things to fit your narrative.
exactly................
Re: Modern Intersectional Definition of a Racist
Posted: Aug 18th, 2019, 12:19 pm
by Silverstarqueen
Here's what he said, not a ten second snip:
" When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.
It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably— probably— from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast."
He has made similar speeches other times. He has defended this type of speech repeatedly, so this was not a ten second mis-representation of what he says. Intelligent people are not fooled by interpretations that claim he's not making blanket accusations about latinos in general who are coming to the U.s., the vast majority of which do not fit his description of them.
Re: Modern Intersectional Definition of a Racist
Posted: Aug 18th, 2019, 12:27 pm
by Silverstarqueen
This is not cherry picking, it is a consistent policy of Trump's to try to deny, even people applying legally for assylum. If it was just a one-off comment, why would a court have to shut him down on a policy which probably violates international agreements about handling assylum claims of refugees? Would you say the Courts then are not "intelligent people"?
Silverstarqueen wrote:Clinton had just spoken about the diversity in the Democratic party, and why it is welcomed. Then the interviewer confused who had said a particular comment (Holder vs. Booker). Clinton's comment was clearly sarcastic humor, making fun of the interviewer's confusion over who said the comment. That *some* cannot see this showsremoved how desperate to take a sarcastic comment and try to pass it off as Clinton's actual belief.
While I do agree that she was making a joke...
My question to you would be "Where do you draw the line?"
What I mean is...
. HOWEVER, you (and many many others) take snippets of what he said and distort it to fit your narrative.
People do the exact same thing about Hillary (or other Dems/libs) and you all lambaste them over it. Like the time she called blacks super predators. Intelligent people can look at the whole scenario and not cherry pick or lie about what was said.
. However, your bias and lack of intellect shows when you say one thing is alright, but not the exact same thing from the other side or when you twist things to fit your narrative.
She did not call blacks super predators.That's okay, easy mistake when saddled with low intelligence. I showed the entire video to show what she really said, she never mentioned blacks as predators in that video. Yet you refer to it again as if she did. That's not twisting to fit a narrative, that is correcting a false narrative. Trump said he was talking about "mexicans" he also was talking about Latinos in general.
I am surprised no one has talked about this situation that was caught on video:
The video, which initially circulated on the social media platform WeChat, shows two cars parked with their front bumpers touching outside the Richlea Square Shopping Centre.
One of the cars had crossed over the painted, white parking lines. When confronted about it, the driver of the car parked over the lines gets angry.
"You don't know a damn thing, go back to China where you belong,"
the driver, a Caucasian woman, says in the video. She swears numerous times and hurls several racist slurs toward the group filming as she gets into the vehicle.
"We hate you people, go back,"
she says.
This woman also raspberries the person whose car she hit/nudged (whatever) before she tells her to "go back". Imagine: a grown woman in her 60s or 70s behaving in such a manner!
Then.... and THEN:
CBC News spoke with a woman by phone who identified herself as ...xyz... and said she encountered a woman in the parking lot after grocery shopping. She confirmed her car was touching the other woman's licence plate, but said she does not regret the racist language she used in the video.
"I do not regret anything I said to her because she was a very mean person,"
xyz woman said.
"I don't care what they're calling me. I am not a racist person."
I removed her name from this post, but in looking her up, I see that she is a retired teacher.... yep, a teacher. I hope she is truly retired and doesn't sub.
I believe that certain political figures and their supporters have emboldened the wing nuts to let their inside voices out.
Re: Modern Intersectional Definition of a Racist
Posted: Aug 26th, 2019, 12:52 pm
by Scorp
Um, how could she have gotten her certificate without passing this course?
"Teaching at the Intersections (101)
Honor and teach about your students’ multiple identities."
