Democrats pushing racism

[KingsGambit]

But he often weighed in publicly on matters before the facts were in, with a very prejudiced perspective. He very calmly made things worse, along with his wingman, Eric.

Trump does the exact same thing, but less calmly. I am not defending Obama or claiming he did not divide, but only arguing he was less divisive. Like Adrift, I am surprised this is even a debate.

[Cow Poke]

Trump does the exact same thing, but less calmly.

I thought we knew that.

[KingsGambit]

I thought we knew that.

The debate is over whether saying Trump is more divisive is evidence of TDS.

[Sparko]

But he often weighed in publicly on matters before the facts were in, with a very prejudiced perspective. He very calmly made things worse, along with his wingman, Eric.

Like the whole Trayvon Martin thing. And the whole Furgeson fiasco. He made both of them much worse with his commentary. The reason we even have Black Lives Matter is because of Obama pitting citizens against the police with his comments.

[Cow Poke]

The debate is over whether saying Trump is more divisive is evidence of TDS.

Well, I'll gladly admit that Obama was much better at being divisive and getting away with it.

And Obama had a TREMENDOUS opportunity to be a uniter, and he blew it.

[Cow Poke]

Like the whole Trayvon Martin thing. And the whole Furgeson fiasco. He made both of them much worse with his commentary. The reason we even have Black Lives Matter is because of Obama pitting citizens against the police with his comments.

EGGzackly - but he can't be called out on it because that would be racist.

[rogue06]

Obama didn't constantly use social media to call political opponents names.

He had his praetorian guard (the MSM) do his dirty work for him.

[rogue06]

Now they are doxxing Trump supporters, I'm sure the response will be peaceful...

Brother of presidential candidate Julian Castro releases names, employers of dozens of Trump donors


https://www.theblaze.com/news/brothe...f-trump-donors

Now The Hill appears to be trying to turn Joaquin Castro into the victim in all of this

0000000000000000000000000000jcxx.jpg

They put their focus on him being "criticized" for (merely) "releasing the names" leaving out that he also gave the home addresses in what is clearly an attempt to bully and intimidate donors.

It reminds me of a New York Times story from back when GW Bush was president about some Democrat getting caught red handed concocting something about Bush and the "paper of record" decided to report it under the headline that this duplicitous deceiver was being "attacked by Republicans"

Meanwhile MSNBC host Joe Scarborough is also targeting donors falsely claiming that the crowds at his rally are chanting "shoot them"

0000000000000000000000000000000js.jpg

I've said it before and I'll say it again, when you find yourself having to fabricate things out of whole cloth in order to support your position you are acknowledging that your claims are weak at best since even you don't think that the truth is sufficient.

[rogue06]

I think Michael Gerson has some very important points to share ragarding the points you make here:

The pollster Frank Luntz recently noted that these attempts to label anything and everything Trump says or does as "racist" is backfiring big time on those doing it. I believe that's a type of reaping what you sow.

[One Bad Pig]

The pollster Frank Luntz recently noted that these attempts to label anything and everything Trump says or does as "racist" is backfiring big time on those doing it. I believe that's a type of reaping what you sow.

Linky?

[rogue06]

Linky?

He was on Laura Ingraham's program the other day.

[One Bad Pig]

He was on Laura Ingraham's program the other day.

Ok. I assume that observation will get written up as something more formal at some point.

[mikewhitney]

hmmm - I agree with the bolded part but ... no, the blame lies first and foremost at the President's feet. The president regularly engages in racist rhetoric in one form or another, and the Democrats push back against it. Pushing back against racist and hateful rhetoric may indeed result in heightened divisions in this country, but the CAUSE is he that issued the racist comments in the first place, followed by his frenzied followers that simply will not face the fact that is the sort of person they have allied themselves with, or who actually support his racist and hateful words but want to call them something other than racist because of the obvious negative repercussions.

This web site is a very good example. The truth here is often valued only if it supports an agenda. When the truth, even say basic facts concerning global warming, is uncomfortable, then those posts are mocked or dismissed without any regard for the data presented, or any coherent arguments presenting an alternate.

The truth is that Donald Trump incites hatred. The Truth is Donald Trump is a bully - as he has shown in his attacks on Sessions, Cummings, 'the squad' and scores of not hundreds of others in the last two years. The truth is DT uses racist references and inuendo in his speeches and his tweets. But the truth is not valued by many here on that count and post after post is devoted to the mockery or denial of the truth in these matters.

Jim

I'm glad to see that you acknowledged one of the main points of the original post (that you had bolded):

There is nothing as hateful and harmful in this country right now as the promulgation of politicized racist remarks by the media and the House. The Democrats seem to be focused on promoting this division; it seems the Democrats seek uprisings.

Good to see some agreement -- even if it was fleeting.

It would have been nice to see you pursue this bolded text rather than talking about the president.

[seanD]

I guess you'll have to diagnose me with TDS as well, since I also agree that things were less divisive under Obama. In fact, I think that's so obvious I find it hard to understand how anyone can even make the claim.

I think our definition of divisive might be different. I don't consider one political group reacting hysterically against a president and bullying his supporters in the same league as what we saw under Obama. What we saw under Obama was actually sociopolitical movements from both political sides, protests, demonstrations, actual riots, etc., and this occurred throughout his two terms. I admit the psychosis we're seeing from the left is highly unusual and inexplicable, and it might be hyped up a lot more in the media (because it gives MSM clickbait rating material) but it ain't in the same league in regards to widespread civil unrest IMO. I think you're just getting caught up in the media hype like everyone else.

[Adrift]

I think our definition of divisive might be different. I don't consider one political group reacting hysterically against a president and bullying his supporters in the same league as what we saw under Obama. What we saw under Obama was actually sociopolitical movements from both political sides, protests, demonstrations, actual riots, etc., and this occurred throughout his two terms. I admit the psychosis we're seeing from the left is highly unusual and inexplicable, and it might be hyped up a lot more in the media (because it gives MSM clickbait rating material) but it ain't in the same league in regards to widespread civil unrest IMO. I think you're just getting caught up in the media hype like everyone else.

No, it sounds like we're pretty much talking about the same thing then. I've never seen people on both the left and right get as agitated as they have been during the course of this administration. I've never seen the nation this divided with so much of the right moving further right, and so much of the left moving further left. If it's just me falling for the media hype, then dang, they're working on a godly level, because I see it spilling over into real life constantly. Then again, if I really am being successfully deluded, I suppose I'd be the last to know.