Trump's Racism...Is that All it is?

[Revoltingest]

Let’s give Senator Durbin the benefit of the doubt and say for argument sake that he sincerely but mistakenly remembers things his way. That means we have one person testifying that President Trump said something. But on the other hand we have testimony of the President Trump himself denying it. We also have an absence of corroboration from any of the other many people present. Such lack of evidence would make this charge to be laughed out of any court of law. But in the court of public opinion you can always find those that will fervently believe that which they already are predisposed and crave to believe, as we see happening in this case.

For many, new evidence confirming their hatred for Trump is fresh meat.
Just as I hear NPR misquoting Trump in ways which enhance their bias
that he's a vile racist, I'm sure they believe what they say.
What comes up far less often is the actual proposed change in immigration
policy, ie, basing it more on merit than family connection. This makes good
sense, but covering it as such goes against their bias against Trump, which
explains their ad hominem approach to news.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

For many, new evidence confirming their hatred for Trump is fresh meat.
Just as I hear NPR misquoting Trump in ways which enhance their bias
that he's a vile racist, I'm sure they believe what they say.
What comes up far less often is the actual proposed change in immigration
policy, ie, basing it more on merit than family connection. This makes good
sense, but covering it as such goes against their bias against Trump, which
explains their ad hominem approach to news.

It's not really an ad-hominem to attack someone for saying things that are obviously bigoted, small-minded or offensive.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not really an ad-hominem to attack someone for saying things that are obviously bigoted, small-minded or offensive.

It's an ad hom when designed to distract from real issues.
Don't see much discussion of changes in immigration policy,
do we? But we sure hear about Trump possibly using a bad
word....& aggressively inferring racism, which then becomes
the sole topic.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's an ad hom when designed to distract from real issues.

But that's not how an ad hominem works. An ad hominem is when you use personal remarks or insults unrelated to the given issue to dismiss an individual's opinion on said issue. Since the issue at hand is "What Trump said", the fact of what he said (or, at least, what he is alleged to have said) is relevant and the invocation of that is not an ad hominem. It would only be an ad hominem if it were brought up in a discussion specifically about his immigration policy, used as the sole means to dismiss his policy.

Don't see much discussion of changes in immigration policy,
do we? But we sure hear about Trump possibly using a bad
word....& aggressively inferring racism, which then becomes
the sole topic.

So, when people, say, accuse Clinton of rape, it's an ad hominem because to do so detracts from discussion of his policies?

 

[Curious George]

It's an ad hom when designed to distract from real issues.
Don't see much discussion of changes in immigration policy,
do we? But we sure hear about Trump possibly using a bad
word....& aggressively inferring racism, which then becomes
the sole topic.

I thought Trump's behavior was the topic. So discussing Trump's behavior with respect to immigration certainly falls under the behavior category. Now if theverything discussion was regarding immigration and the tangential argument regarding behavior was introduced, then you might be a point.

Do you not think the behavior of people who represent the U.S. is a valid concern?

 

[Shaul]

You realize the definition of ************ varies from culture to culture. Though I have not heard that particular used about the USA I have heard very derogatory terms used for our culture in some very advanced countries.

Three areas mentioned to me:

• lack of affordable health care
• gun violence
• rising rate of death of women during childbirth

Please define your understanding of the term for me.

Its advisable not to throw rocks when you live in a glass house.

That’s why no one wants to immigrate to the United States. Wait... never mind.

 

[Revoltingest]

But that's not how an ad hominem works. And ad hominem is when you use personal remarks or insults unrelated to the given issue to dismiss an individual's opinion on said issue. Since the issue at hand is "What Trump said", the fact of what he said (or, at least, what he is alleged to have said) is relevant and the invocation of that is not an ad hominem. If would only be an ad hominem if it were brought up in a discussion specifically about his immigration policy, used as the sole means to dismiss his policy.


So, when people, say, accuse Clinton of rape, it's an ad hominem because to do so detracts from discussion of his policies?

If the personal attack serves to distract, then yes, its the ad hominem fallacy.
(A difference is that Bill Clinton is irrelevant to policy now. His sexual predation
is stand alone news, particularly in the Havey Weinstein era.)

Trump is a jerk, a boor, & arguably a bigot.
This is the major subject of so many threads here.
It's big news...all over the mainstream media.
But actual policy coverage is relatively thin.

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought Trump's behavior was the topic.

Sure, of this thread.
But looking at the larger picture, why so much coverage of this,
yet so little of the proposed immigration policy changes?

But since you pointed out the topic, I realize that I'm derailing
the thread with question begging. And having addressed it
about all I can anyway, I'll stop before I get my knuckles rapped.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If the personal attack serves to distract, then yes, its the ad hominem fallacy.

No, it isn't.

(A difference is that Bill Clinton is irrelevant to policy now. His sexual predation
is stand alone news, particularly in the Havey Weinstein era.)

Just as Trump's comments are now a stand alone issue. The issue IS his comments and how they reflect on his character and mindset - discussion and debate of immigration policy is still ongoing, this particular discussion is a separate (albeit connected) issue.

Trump is a jerk, a boor, & arguably a bigot.
This is the major subject of so many threads here.
It's big news...all over the mainstream media.
But actual policy coverage is relatively thin.

But that doesn't make the mention of Trump's issues non-related to actual policy fallacious.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it isn't.


Just as Trump's comments are now a stand alone issue. The issue IS his comments and how they reflect on his character and mindset - discussion and debate of immigration policy is still ongoing, this particular discussion is a separate (albeit connected) issue.


But that doesn't make the mention of Trump's issues non-related to actual policy fallacious.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sure, of this thread.
But looking at the larger picture, why so much coverage of this,
yet so little of the proposed immigration policy changes?

Because it's more sensational and a blunt display of Trump's attitude and character. This is like asking "Why is there so much coverage of the Dalai Lama punching a baby in the face at a birthday party and so little coverage of how well the Dalai Lama cut the cake?"

 

[Curious George]

Sure, of this thread.
But looking at the larger picture, why so much coverage of this,
yet so little of the proposed immigration policy changes?

But since you pointed out the topic, I realize that I'm derailing
the thread with question begging. And having addressed it
about all I can anyway, I'll stop before I get my knuckles rapped.

What is the bigger picture? Might be a good thread...

Trump's behavior is certainly something that is relevant. Is it more relevant than his policies? More relevant than whether or not Obama was a Muslim? More relevant than whether Bush 2 was vacationing too much? More relevant than whether Clinton lied about having "sex" or smoking pot?

Everyone cares about different things. And no one who is well educated about current politics believes the important issues are getting the coverage they deserve. There will always be issues some feel less relevant discussed.

Are you starting threads about what you feel are the relevant political issues?

 

[Revoltingest]

Trump's behavior is certainly something that is relevant. Is it more relevant than his policies? More relevant than whether or not Obama was a Muslim? More relevant than whether Bush 2 was vacationing too much? More relevant than whether Clinton lied about having "sex" or smoking pot?

Everyone cares about different things. And no one who is well educated about current politics believes the important issues are getting the coverage they deserve. There will always be issues some feel less relevant discussed.

Agreeing to disagree.
I have brought up immigration changes.
No response.
But perhaps a new thread is the way.

 

[Curious George]

Agreeing to disagree.
I have brought up immigration changes.
No response.
But perhaps a new thread is the way.

You are agreeing to disagree that Trump's behavior is relevant?

 

[Revoltingest]

You are agreeing to disagree that Trump's behavior is relevant?

Dang, yer like a dog with a bone...just won't let go.
I already answered.

 

[Curious George]

Dang, yer like a dog with a bone...just won't let go.
I already answered.

I am just trying to pinpoint what the disagreement is. You may feel it is less relevant, but that does not mean that it is not relevant. So where is the disagreement?

 

[Revoltingest]

I am just trying to pinpoint what the disagreement is. You may feel it is less relevant, but that does not mean that it is not relevant. So where is the disagreement?

I've addressed it as clearly as I could.

 

[Curious George]

I've addressed it as clearly as I could.

LOL. I have read over your posts and still do not think the issue is clear. I can only laugh while writing this because I imagine you will want to "agree to disagree" on whether you have clearly explained what you agree to disagree on in the first place.

I will just assume you do not care to explain or elaborate and your agree to disagree did not in fact mean that you agree to disagree but was merely a metaphor meaning you no longer wanted to continue the discussion.

Cheers

 

[Revoltingest]

v
I will just assume you do not care to explain or elaborate and your agree to disagree did not in fact mean that you agree to disagree but was merely a metaphor meaning you no longer wanted to continue the discussion.

You're on the right track.
When things are repetitious, why bother?
And thread derailment should be temporary.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That’s why no one wants to immigrate to the United States. Wait... never mind.

Reality check.

I am one of many American expatriates in my new country that has no interest in returning to America for even a visit, even though I have an American passport. My mother died in 2011, which was my last visit.

What for? To have my wife patted down or imaged by strangers in the airport, to be treated with arrogance and disrespect by customs. That would be our first hour there.

What does America have to offer us? The great climate, great prices, great access to affordable health care, the happy people and the friendly culture?

Maybe for the police and the guns. Or the rampant racism.

Sadly, for some it is worse than that in the countries of their birth, which the American president so eloquently and compassionately called ****holes..

That's who America appeals to now - people from ****holes. The Norwegians apparently aren't very interested in Trump's America. The Hatians are. The Hatians would be trading up, the Norwegians and my wife and I would be trading down.

Because it's more sensational and a blunt display of Trump's attitude and character. This is like asking "Why is there so much coverage of the Dalai Lama punching a baby in the face at a birthday party and so little coverage of how well the Dalai Lama cut the cake?"

Really. This is an unfair treatment of Trump, just like the press was with Dahmer. They never mentioned how many boys he didn't pork, kill, then eat. How about a little balance and perspective?