HawkShack.com

I've generally supported proposals for insisting on positive identification prior to casting a vote in a public election. After all, nearly every adult has either a driver's license or some other form of government-issued identification. If you have to produce it to buy alcohol or prescription drugs, what makes proving your identity at the ballot box any less important? However, during a debate with a friend over this issue, it was pointed out that the insistence that a prospective voter first obtain a government issued photo ID might be in violation of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution that prohibits the levying of a poll tax. Obtaining a government issued ID in this state (not a driver's license) costs $54, not an insignificant cost to a poor person or one on fixed income if all they ever needed the ID for is to cast their vote. It could very easily be a major impediment to a number of people, enough so to skew a close election.

So I've come to the conclusion that unless the federal government wants to provide free government issued photo ID's that the voter ID proposals are likely unconstitutional.

Which brings up another point: What about mail in voting (which I hate)? How do you insure that the person casting that vote is a legitimate voter? Could insisting on buying a $.50 postage stamp also be considered a poll tax (never mind the cost)?

Anyhow, I thought it an interesting topic.

Another game to undermine our voting system. I guess Russia election tampering bad, but a bunch of non-citizens voting is ok to the left. Such BS.

Proof of citizenship should be required for voting. Just like foreign donors can't support candidates, foreign citizens shouldn't be voting either.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Another game to undermine our voting system. I guess Russia election tampering bad, but a bunch of non-citizens voting is ok to the left. Such BS.

Proof of citizenship should be required for voting. Just like foreign donors can't support candidates, foreign citizens shouldn't be voting either.

I agree with you, but that wasn't really the question. I believe that we should all produce ID before casting our vote, but unless they start providing government issued ID for free, it's essentially a poll tax.

One of my biggest beefs with the all mail voting is the potential for fraud. What's stopping my neighbor from signing the envelope and handing me the ballot in exchange for $10? That and I feel that if you are too lazy to get off your butt and experience a moderate amount of sacrifice to cast your vote that I don't want to be led by the ignorant/uncaring masses.

Republicans will always seek to suppress the vote of the poor because they vote Democrat. This is just another tool to that end, just like gerrymandering (which yes both sides have done, but that R's have mastered).

c_hawkbob wrote:Republicans will always seek to suppress the vote of the poor because they vote Democrat. This is just another tool to that end, just like gerrymandering (which yes both sides have done, but that R's have mastered).

No different than the Democrats wanting to enable convicted criminals with the vote as they would tend to vote Democratic.

But that really wasn't my point. What I'm asking is whether or not you think that requiring government-issued ID in order to vote is constitutional? I don't think it is, unless they at least have some sort of program to provide low income individuals with free ID.

No I don't think it's constitutional. Voting is a right of every citizen, regardless of their ability to afford the proper ID card. I tend to agree with you that if they are going to require a state issued ID the state should be obligated to supply one without charge, or just use of a birth certificate, which you'd have to have to get the card in the first place. Of course, while I don't know how it is up there, I'm asked to show my ID when I vote here in Kentucky, although I can't say that I couldn't if all I had was a birth certificate.

As for convicted felons, I believe there are states that allow them to vote now, even from their cells ... although I don't think they should until their obligation to society is satisfied.

Thinking about this, I don't think a government issue ID would ensure citizenship identity unless the ID requires it. Some states do not require proof of citizenship to obtain an ID. They need to come up with some reasonable method of ensuring citizenship at the polls at this point.

As far as an ID being a poll tax, I don't think so. It's a reasonable method of ensuring people vote in the right areas. It's already highly subsidized pretty much being produced for cost by the taxpayer. An ID is for all intents and purposes required for life in the United States. I don't think it is an unreasonable requirement. Not sure how the law will see it, but how else can the system ensure voting isn't abused.

At this point with the taxes we pay, they could just require a government issue ID be provided to every citizen upon request. Maybe have more info on it like citizenship and criminal status along with the other info it requires. I love the idea of complete open freedom, but the reality is we have 330 million plus people to manage. A good ID system would be very helpful in that regard.

I wish they would remove race and include skin coloration as a physical characteristic like hair or eyes. I'm completely tired of being an American divided up by the ridiculous notion of race created a long time ago for the sole purpose of creating a sickening hierarchy to divide and subjugate using one group against another. We don't need the race construct any longer. We can go by ethnicity and physical characteristics.

c_hawkbob wrote:No I don't think it's constitutional. Voting is a right of every citizen, regardless of their ability to afford the proper ID card. I tend to agree with you that if they are going to require a state issued ID the state should be obligated to supply one without charge, or just use of a birth certificate, which you'd have to have to get the card in the first place. Of course, while I don't know how it is up there, I'm asked to show my ID when I vote here in Kentucky, although I can't say that I couldn't if all I had was a birth certificate.

As for convicted felons, I believe there are states that allow them to vote now, even from their cells ... although I don't think they should until their obligation to society is satisfied.

Birth certificates aren't proof of ID. They do not have a photo associated with them. In WA, all voting is done by mail, which I am steadfastly opposed to and for the same reason: Potential fraud.

It wouldn't cost that much for the government to provide free ID's to those citizens that do not have driver's licenses. In Washington, the cost to the individual is $54. It's a small cost when you consider that there aren't that many adults that do not have driver's licenses.

My comment about convicted felons voting was a counter point to your statement about Republicans and gerrymandering. Democrats are the ones advancing those proposals (Sanders being one of them), not surprising when surveys show that the majority of felons would vote Democratic if given the opportunity. Bottom line is that both parties are shameless when it comes to building their constituencies.

Having said that, I agree with you, that once a felon's their sentence has been completely satisfied...and that means clear of probation...they should be allowed to vote.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Thinking about this, I don't think a government issue ID would ensure citizenship identity unless the ID requires it.

That's a separate issue. You're talking about requirements for registration. I'm talking about proving your identity at a polling place. It's been so long since I've registered that I've long forgotten what it took. I suppose that I had to produce a birth certificate.

Aseahawkfan wrote:As far as an ID being a poll tax, I don't think so. It's a reasonable method of ensuring people vote in the right areas. It's already highly subsidized pretty much being produced for cost by the taxpayer. An ID is for all intents and purposes required for life in the United States. I don't think it is an unreasonable requirement. Not sure how the law will see it, but how else can the system ensure voting isn't abused.

You're asking people to provide something of value to vote. There are a lot of poor people that would be hard pressed to justify $50 just to vote once every couple of years. My wife as a nurse in a nursing home used to have as residents people that were virtually penniless.

Aseahawkfan wrote:At this point with the taxes we pay, they could just require a government issue ID be provided to every citizen upon request. Maybe have more info on it like citizenship and criminal status along with the other info it requires. I love the idea of complete open freedom, but the reality is we have 330 million plus people to manage. A good ID system would be very helpful in that regard.

Agreed. With the way technology is progressing, they're going to have facial recognition devices at airports very soon (I had one take a look at me in London) and it won't be too long before businesses start buying them as part of a security system. Although there's some privacy issues that needs to be addressed, a good, solid system of identification would be very helpful.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I wish they would remove race and include skin coloration as a physical characteristic like hair or eyes. I'm completely tired of being an American divided up by the ridiculous notion of race created a long time ago for the sole purpose of creating a sickening hierarchy to divide and subjugate using one group against another. We don't need the race construct any longer. We can go by ethnicity and physical characteristics.

Although I agree with you in the sense you are posing your statement, I don't think that's ever going to work. When I see a person with Asian features, a non-European name, or even an accent, I'll ask as an icebreaker question what nationality they are, and to a person, they all enjoy talking about it because they sense that I have a genuine interest in them. Asking everyone to subject themselves into this one homogenous mass dehumanizes us.

I think the dems will rue the day they didn't allow the citizenship question on the census. After the government puts together their new plan to use data points that are already collected to determine a "more accurate" census they'll use that same system to verify the vote. I am not totally convinced that this was the goal all along, too. The ham handed way they botched the court case for the question almost certainly guaranteed the Supreme court to turn that down.

idhawkman wrote:I think the dems will rue the day they didn't allow the citizenship question on the census. After the government puts together their new plan to use data points that are already collected to determine a "more accurate" census they'll use that same system to verify the vote. I am not totally convinced that this was the goal all along, too. The ham handed way they botched the court case for the question almost certainly guaranteed the Supreme court to turn that down.

That's not what I was after. My question was specific to initiatives that would require voters to produce a government issued photo ID before casting their votes. My position is that I'm all for it so long as a registered voter that doesn't already have an ID can obtain one at no cost and relatively conveniently. IMO Absent that provision, a voter ID law would be unconstitutional under the 24th amendment.

RiverDog wrote:Although I agree with you in the sense you are posing your statement, I don't think that's ever going to work. When I see a person with Asian features, a non-European name, or even an accent, I'll ask as an icebreaker question what nationality they are, and to a person, they all enjoy talking about it because they sense that I have a genuine interest in them. Asking everyone to subject themselves into this one homogenous mass dehumanizes us.

They do not like talking about their "race." They like talking about their nationality as in what country they came from. Race is BS. Nationality is not. Nationality is your culture. It's very different from the race trash. There is not a Korean race. So lumping all Asians or all Latins together is rubbish. Mexicans are very different from Argentinians. Koreans are very different from Japanese. Ethiopians are very different from Kenyans. Yet in this simplistic crap construct of race we see them as Hispanic, African, and Asian. It's dumb and needs to go.

If you want to have nationality or historical nationality, so be it. When you ask a guy where he's from and he talks about it, I'm pretty certain he tells you his nationality/ethnicity and not his race. He doesn't say, "Hey, I'm Asian. We're all the same. So if you talked to one Asian, you've talked to them all."

Race is what I want removed, not nationality or cultural identity. Race has nothing to do with that. If a guy who looks a certain way decides to simply call himself American and says he's been here for generations and knows nothing else, he can do that as well.

But race needs to go. it's useless. The current race system has done nothing but make us all stupider and more intolerant. I'm glad you're one of the people to dig deeper than just assume someone is Hispanic or Asian, because many folks do like talking about their national identity or culture whereas race tries to lump people into overly broad units that aren't accurate and I would argue dehumanizes people.

idhawkman wrote:I think the dems will rue the day they didn't allow the citizenship question on the census. After the government puts together their new plan to use data points that are already collected to determine a "more accurate" census they'll use that same system to verify the vote. I am not totally convinced that this was the goal all along, too. The ham handed way they botched the court case for the question almost certainly guaranteed the Supreme court to turn that down.

RiverDog wrote:
That's not what I was after. My question was specific to initiatives that would require voters to produce a government issued photo ID before casting their votes. My position is that I'm all for it so long as a registered voter that doesn't already have an ID can obtain one at no cost and relatively conveniently. IMO Absent that provision, a voter ID law would be unconstitutional under the 24th amendment.

I know what your position is, but what I'm saying is that after the collection of the data for this census including the DB mining that is going to happen, we won't need a voter ID card to verify your right to vote in an election. They'll already have it. Before you reply, please think about the data that is already available through DMV, Social Security and dept of Labor dbs and then match that up with the facial recognition software that is now available and cross check it with those who wire money through the banking system and those who are registered through the IRS. How long has it been law that babies get a SSN card when they are born? The data is there, the residency info is there, the facial recognition is there, it just has to be mined and assembled and automated into a verification system.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm glad you're one of the people to dig deeper than just assume someone is Hispanic or Asian, because many folks do like talking about their national identity or culture whereas race tries to lump people into overly broad units that aren't accurate and I would argue dehumanizes people.

Years ago, we had an incident where my managers wanted to talk to a Vietnamese associate and decided it would be best to bring in an interpreter. The guy on the 'hot seat' started talking like mad to the interpreter, with the interpreter nodding his head, seeming to agree or understand. After a period of time, the managers asked the interpreter "so what's he saying" and the interpreter said "I don't know, I don't understand this language." It turns out that the guy on the hot seat was Vietnamese and the interpreter was Laotian, and even though the two countries border each other, their language is completely different and don't even share the same alphabet. The managers didn't bother to ask the interpreter or the guy on the hot seat what nationality they were or what language they spoke. It was a quite human mistake as the managers weren't bad people, but it was a good lesson regarding making assumptions about people based on their looks.

I get what you're saying about race vs. nationality, and I tend to agree.

RiverDog wrote:
Years ago, we had an incident where my managers wanted to talk to a Vietnamese associate and decided it would be best to bring in an interpreter. The guy on the 'hot seat' started talking like mad to the interpreter, with the interpreter nodding his head, seeming to agree or understand. After a period of time, the managers asked the interpreter "so what's he saying" and the interpreter said "I don't know, I don't understand this language." It turns out that the guy on the hot seat was Vietnamese and the interpreter was Laotian, and even though the two countries border each other, their language is completely different and don't even share the same alphabet. The managers didn't bother to ask the interpreter or the guy on the hot seat what nationality they were or what language they spoke. It was a quite human mistake as the managers weren't bad people, but it was a good lesson regarding making assumptions about people based on their looks.

I get what you're saying about race vs. nationality, and I tend to agree.

Even in Vietnam there are a couple of languages, too. The Montagnards (mountain people) speak a different language than the Vietnamese from major cities and then the Vietnamese in Cholon mostly spoke Chinese. Then again, Chinese has how many dialects? It is common that the one guy wouldn't tell you that he didn't understand him though as he was trying to understand the guy on the hot seat so he could do a good job for you.

My wife translates at the hospitals, schools and for the courts here in Boise for Vietnamese language. It is quite a surprise to them when she talks to them since my wife has blue eyes and blond hair and has no "hard mouth" (a term the Asians use when describing most westerners who speak their language). (my wife was one of the few American children allowed in Vietnam during the war and since there were no other American kids or an American school, she went to school with the other Vietnamese kids and learned the language at a very young age. When she talks Vietnamese on the phone you would never know she was born in Long Beach, CA.)

Quite interesting example you gave.

idhawkman wrote:Quite interesting example you gave.

Yup, and it's an example of racism. My managers made the assumption, based on the two employee's common physical appearance, that they understood the same language. It's very similar to the racism that exists in Trump's tweet when he made the assumption, based on the non-European names, that The Squad was not born in the USA. It's very similar to the same racism that Trump exhibited when he assumed that an Indiana-born judge with a Spanish name was a "Mexican."

The difference is that my managers were not being mean spirited in their racism. They were simply naïve, showing their misunderstanding of the various cultures within our work force. Trump was being mean spirited in his racism as he was seeking a way to put those women in their place.

Another difference is that my managers learned from their mistake, even laughed at their own ignorance. Trump doesn't recognize when he's made a mistake, so he keeps repeating them. Otherwise, he might have learned something when he made the incorrect assumption that an American born judge was a Mexican and not repeated the very same mistake 3 years later when he mis-characterized The Squad as being foreign born.

RiverDog wrote:
Yup, and it's an example of racism.

No it is not. It was a mistake made out of ignorance. They are not "Hating" on Vietnamese by making an assumption based on their world experiences up to that point. Its amazing how off the rails people are about claiming racism when it is nothing of the sort.

RiverDog wrote:Yup, and it's an example of racism.

idhawkman wrote:No it is not. It was a mistake made out of ignorance. They are not "Hating" on Vietnamese by making an assumption based on their world experiences up to that point. Its amazing how off the rails people are about claiming racism when it is nothing of the sort.

In the case of my managers, it depends on your definition of the word. As you noted, they made an incorrect assumption due to their ignorance of other cultures/races, ie all Asians speak the same language. It's a biased viewpoint based on nothing but a person's race and without regard to country of origin. IMO it was a sort of benign or subconscious soft racism, rather innocent and quite human, but racist all the same.

You don't have to be "hating" on someone or some race in order for a remark to be racist. Sportscasters for years used phrases to describe black players such as "gifted athletes" or "natural born, or "raw talent" while white athletes were described as "scrappy", "heady", and "crafty". They were not being intentionally mean spirited or hateful, but they were still expressing a biased POV based on race.

In Trump's case, it was IMO without a doubt racist, as he was consciously trying to use a person's race, or perceived race, as a means of discrediting or embarrassing them. Now if you want to play burrton's game of semantics by splitting hairs, you could argue that Trump's go back to where you came from tweet was not race-based, but rather country of origin based and therefore xenophobic, which is synonymous with racism, then have at it. But in my book, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck. The emotional context is the same. It was a hateful, mean spirited remark about a personal characteristic over which the subject has absolutely no control over.

RiverDog wrote:In the case of my managers, it depends on your definition of the word. As you noted, they made an incorrect assumption due to their ignorance of other cultures/races, ie all Asians speak the same language. It's a biased viewpoint based on nothing but a person's race and without regard to country of origin. IMO it was a sort of benign or subconscious soft racism, rather innocent and quite human, but racist all the same.

You don't have to be "hating" on someone or some race in order for a remark to be racist. Sportscasters for years used phrases to describe black players such as "gifted athletes" or "natural born, or "raw talent" while white athletes were described as "scrappy", "heady", and "crafty". They were not being intentionally mean spirited or hateful, but they were still expressing a biased POV based on race.

In Trump's case, it was IMO without a doubt racist, as he was consciously trying to use a person's race, or perceived race, as a means of discrediting or embarrassing them. Now if you want to play burrton's game of semantics by splitting hairs, you could argue that Trump's go back to where you came from tweet was not race-based, but rather country of origin based and therefore xenophobic, which is synonymous with racism, then have at it. But in my book, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck. The emotional context is the same. It was a hateful, mean spirited remark about a personal characteristic over which the subject has absolutely no control over.

And yet again, you left out the important part of that tweet where he tells them to come back and share their knowledge. And as we are talking about splitting hairs, I could take your remarks as racists (by your definition) for not wanting those four ladies to get the education that Trump has suggested to them. Why are you advocating holding them back from learning? Do you want to keep them down through lack of knowledge?

See how that works. If you want to, you can make anything a racists statement by your definition.

The other day I heard a report where the Colorado State University has listed a number of sayings as "racist". They include but not limited to:

"Hold down the fort."
"America an Americans"
"cake walk or takes the cake"
"basket Case"
"freshman"
"Hispanic"
"Eeny, meany, miney, moe" (Really?)
"hip hip hooray"
"Long time no see"
"no can do"
"peanut gallery"


I hope you get the picture here. I'm sure you've used some of these slogans or words in your vocabulary and at no time when you used it did you intend or commit a racist act. Its just ridiculous.

https://collegian.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Inclusive-Language-Guide_10_30_18.pdf

idhawkman wrote:And yet again, you left out the important part of that tweet where he tells them to come back and share their knowledge.

It doesn't matter what he subsequently told them to do. The "go back to where you came from" remark was racist. Period, end of discussion.

What you're suggesting is that a somewhat conciliatory subsequent remark cancels out the former blatantly racist one. It's like saying "You're a N" then adding "but I love you anyway", rendering the former comment acceptable. Besides, the "share your knowledge" comment was dripping with sarcasm. You don't start out a cordial conversation by making a racist remark then in the same breath, make a genuine appeal for their input.

RiverDog wrote:It doesn't matter what he subsequently told them to do. The "go back to where you came from" remark was racist. Period, end of discussion.

Ahhh, you have the left's move down pat. Someone doesn't agree with you so you state your position without any room for consideration. The come back part was part of the same tweet so yes, it does matter. Its not like he waited days afterwards to say it. That shows current intent when he said it. Again, I have no idea why you want to hold those ladies back.

What you're suggesting is that a somewhat conciliatory subsequent remark cancels out the former blatantly racist one. It's like saying "You're a N" then adding "but I love you anyway", rendering the former comment acceptable. Besides, the "share your knowledge" comment was dripping with sarcasm. You don't start out a cordial conversation by making a racist remark then in the same breath, make a genuine appeal for their input.

I'm glad you can separate out sarcasm in a written word like that which could actually have multiple meanings depending on tone.

Sorry but you are just plain wrong on this. The definition of the word is not what people are using it for these days. Just saying that something is racists is racists in the terms in which they are using the word. I'd argue that it is even more racists since the intent of the word is to smear someone else even if their original comments were not racist in the least. E.g. claiming someone as racist when they clearly are not is a racist act in and of itself.

idhawkman wrote:Ahhh, you have the left's move down pat. Someone doesn't agree with you so you state your position without any room for consideration. The come back part was part of the same tweet so yes, it does matter. Its not like he waited days afterwards to say it. That shows current intent when he said it. Again, I have no idea why you want to hold those ladies back.

Now you're claiming this is some tactic of the left when you do exactly this all the time. You never consider evidence. You state your opinion using some confirmation bias article absent any sold supporting evidence and keep on believing you're right.

Everyone does this. It's an incredibly weak argument.

I'm glad you can separate out sarcasm in a written word like that which could actually have multiple meanings depending on tone.

Sorry but you are just plain wrong on this. The definition of the word is not what people are using it for these days. Just saying that something is racists is racists in the terms in which they are using the word. I'd argue that it is even more racists since the intent of the word is to smear someone else even if their original comments were not racist in the least. E.g. claiming someone as racist when they clearly are not is a racist act in and of itself.

Trump is not a KKK racist which both I and RD have made clear. He's got some racist thinking in him that comes out on occasion. I don't think that makes him some extreme racist like a Nazi. He definitely looks at different looking people as "the other" and believes them to be inferior as in they should shut up and return to the crappy places they came from. Of course, that's only if they disagree with him does that come out. If they agree with him, then they're great people. Yeah, riiiight. Trump's talk is annoying and counterproductive.

Too bad the Dems are worse to swing voters with this group of clowns they have running. I still don't see any of them beating Trump. They are every bit as awful as Hilary playing to a base that is taking America in a direction most do not want. Their smarmy political correctness, disdain for religious freedom, and constant attacks using identity politics all ring false. They just stink of a weak America only concerned with science when it supports their viewpoint and against it when it doesn't. Look at climate change. They are all on board with science for climate change. These same clowns are against science when it comes to gender differences and transgender differences or obesity. They toss out the science when it doesn't fit them, use it like a club when it does.

It's why no matter how much I dislike Trump, I will never vote the scumbag Democrats. I despise them and their use of mob political correctness, disregard for science, and general lack of civility, sense, and awful governance. They deserve Trump. He's less a president and more a force of anger sent to pummel the Leftist establishment by all those enraged by the the strangling social environment they have created. They don't believe in liberty. They want 1984 like control of language.

idhawkman wrote:I'm glad you can separate out sarcasm in a written word like that which could actually have multiple meanings depending on tone.

Trump was reading them the riot act in his tweet. He was intentionally trying to embarrass them and used whatever verbal weapon he could think of. There is no other way to take a subsequent comment other than sarcastic.

idhawkman wrote:Sorry but you are just plain wrong on this. The definition of the word is not what people are using it for these days. Just saying that something is racists is racists in the terms in which they are using the word. I'd argue that it is even more racists since the intent of the word is to smear someone else even if their original comments were not racist in the least. E.g. claiming someone as racist when they clearly are not is a racist act in and of itself.

I don't care if you want call it racist, bigoted, biased, prejudiced, xenophobic, or what ever. He was intentionally highlighting a characteristic of their backgrounds of which they had no choice or control in a blatant attempt to embarrass them.

When Clinton was impeached, in various arguments about the issue, I used to use as an analogy what would happen to me at my place of work if I had sex with a subordinate on company property then lied about it in a company investigation. I can use the same logic regarding Trump's tweet. There is no doubt in my mind that if I had a disagreement with some fellow employees and told them to "go back to where you came from", I have no doubt that I would be fired, and unless it was accompanied by a heart felt apology, it would not make any difference if I tried to qualify the remark by telling the to come back and share their experience, and even then, it might not save my job.

What Trump tweeted was mean spirited, inaccurate, and wrong.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Trump is not a KKK racist which both I and RD have made clear. He's got some racist thinking in him that comes out on occasion. I don't think that makes him some extreme racist like a Nazi. He definitely looks at different looking people as "the other" and believes them to be inferior as in they should shut up and return to the crappy places they came from. Of course, that's only if they disagree with him does that come out. If they agree with him, then they're great people. Yeah, riiiight. Trump's talk is annoying and counterproductive.

I agree, Trump is not a KKK racist. We all have at least a tiny bit of racism within our souls, some more than others. If you smile at a joke, you're showing that you have at least a tiny bit of racism. If I were to put Trump on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 representing a KKK member, Trump is probably at a 7. Reagan seems to have had a higher degree of racism in him than I had realized.

Racism isn't always an unnatural thing. Some of us were exposed to it growing up and had it passed down to us by our parents. Others have had some type of event occur to them that caused them to acquire a bias. I'm pretty sure that if Reagan were alive, he would be embarrassed at the revelation of his remarks and would have asked forgiveness. He was not a mean spirited man. The differences in Trump's racism is that he IS mean spirited and never admits or apologizes for his quite human failings and rather he and/or his supporters try to justify them.

RiverDog wrote:I agree, Trump is not a KKK racist. We all have at least a tiny bit of racism within our souls, some more than others. If you smile at a joke, you're showing that you have at least a tiny bit of racism. If I were to put Trump on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 representing a KKK member, Trump is probably at a 7. Reagan seems to have had a higher degree of racism in him than I had realized.

Racism isn't always an unnatural thing. Some of us were exposed to it growing up and had it passed down to us by our parents. Others have had some type of event occur to them that caused them to acquire a bias. I'm pretty sure that if Reagan were alive, he would be embarrassed at the revelation of his remarks and would have asked forgiveness. He was not a mean spirited man. The differences in Trump's racism is that he IS mean spirited and never admits or apologizes for his quite human failings and rather he and/or his supporters try to justify them.

If you replace racism with prejudice, I could agree.

Aseahawkfan wrote:If you replace racism with prejudice, I could agree.

I guess it depends on your definition of racism. I feel that racism does not require mean spiritedness or self awareness. If I encounter a tall, slender black man and assume that he must be a basketball player and do not make the same assumption when I see a tall, slender white man, then that's a form of racism. It's a bias based on race. Sometimes it can be helpful. If I hear someone with a heavy accent, my racism causes me to assume they're foreign born and not likely to understand my American slang.

Trump's racism, or xenophobia, bias, bigotry, prejudice, or what ever term you want to substitute, was brought out in his tweet to "the squad". He assumed from their names, skin color, complexion, etc, that they were foreign born, and he was using what he assumed as a fact as a way of putting them in their place as he considers immigrants from 3rd world countries 2nd class citizens ("why are we taking in people from shithole countries?"). It wasn't KKK level racism, but it wasn't an innocent, passive thought that provoked those comments, either.

Trump did the exact same thing with Judge Gonzalo Curiel by questioning his patriotism when he called him a "Mexican" based on nothing but his name even though Curiel was native born and as a prosecutor on a narcotics task force once required protection when LE got credible information that Mexican drug cartels were planning to assassinate him. It's an unmistakable pattern of behavior.

That's what I despise about Trump. I've seen that form of racism for most of my adult life, not directed at me, rather directed at hard working, honest friends and co workers, and now we have it on full display in the highest elective office in the world.

Racism, xenophobia, bias, prejudice, nationalism ... look at this room full of right wing snowflakes arguing about the politically correct term for the ugliness their President has got them hip deep in!

The irony is rich, even though mostly unappreciated as 90% the left among our little on line family has been chased out of this forum.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
Now you're claiming this is some tactic of the left when you do exactly this all the time. You never consider evidence. You state your opinion using some confirmation bias article absent any sold supporting evidence and keep on believing you're right.

Everyone does this. It's an incredibly weak argument.

Well at least you admitted your argument was weak.

Trump is not a KKK racist which both I and RD have made clear. He's got some racist thinking in him that comes out on occasion. I don't think that makes him some extreme racist like a Nazi. He definitely looks at different looking people as "the other" and believes them to be inferior as in they should shut up and return to the crappy places they came from. Of course, that's only if they disagree with him does that come out. If they agree with him, then they're great people. Yeah, riiiight. Trump's talk is annoying and counterproductive.

No, Trump is an equal opportunity offender. "IF" he treated the (as you say) "Other" people differently than he does everyone else then that would be racist. But Trump treats everyone the same. If you don't do your job, if you don't produce results, if you attack him, he's going to hit back regardless of how you look. That's fair treatment of everyone.

Too bad the Dems are worse to swing voters with this group of clowns they have running. I still don't see any of them beating Trump. They are every bit as awful as Hilary playing to a base that is taking America in a direction most do not want. Their smarmy political correctness, disdain for religious freedom, and constant attacks using identity politics all ring false. They just stink of a weak America only concerned with science when it supports their viewpoint and against it when it doesn't. Look at climate change. They are all on board with science for climate change. These same clowns are against science when it comes to gender differences and transgender differences or obesity. They toss out the science when it doesn't fit them, use it like a club when it does.

It's why no matter how much I dislike Trump, I will never vote the scumbag Democrats. I despise them and their use of mob political correctness, disregard for science, and general lack of civility, sense, and awful governance. They deserve Trump. He's less a president and more a force of anger sent to pummel the Leftist establishment by all those enraged by the the strangling social environment they have created. They don't believe in liberty. They want 1984 like control of language.

I think you are partially right on this but I think there is more, too. I would also like to say that every candidate for office has their flaws that people dislike.

RiverDog wrote:
Trump was reading them the riot act in his tweet. He was intentionally trying to embarrass them and used whatever verbal weapon he could think of. There is no other way to take a subsequent comment other than sarcastic.

You don't know any of that. You throw around accusations based on your biases and call them facts. How ridiculous is that?

I don't care if you want call it racist, bigoted, biased, prejudiced, xenophobic, or what ever. He was intentionally highlighting a characteristic of their backgrounds of which they had no choice or control in a blatant attempt to embarrass them.

When Clinton was impeached, in various arguments about the issue, I used to use as an analogy what would happen to me at my place of work if I had sex with a subordinate on company property then lied about it in a company investigation. I can use the same logic regarding Trump's tweet. There is no doubt in my mind that if I had a disagreement with some fellow employees and told them to "go back to where you came from", I have no doubt that I would be fired, and unless it was accompanied by a heart felt apology, it would not make any difference if I tried to qualify the remark by telling the to come back and share their experience, and even then, it might not save my job.

Wow!! Your ignorance of the law is astounding. First of all, you work for a private company and abide by their rules. Trump works in the Federal government that has freedom from prosecution for speech. Second, again, he said nothing racists or hateful unlike the sexual assault of what Clinton did was a crime, what Trump said was not. Let alone the fact that it wasn't racist except to people like you who are biased and try to read intent into people's actual words.

What Trump tweeted was mean spirited, inaccurate, and wrong.

Not according to the laws of the US.

c_hawkbob wrote:Racism, xenophobia, bias, prejudice, nationalism ... look at this room full of right wing snowflakes arguing about the politically correct term for the ugliness their President has got them hip deep in!

I think it is rich how you use condescending words like snowflakes and ugliness to try and shame people in here from their participation in this forum.

The irony is rich, even though mostly unappreciated as 90% the left among our little on line family has been chased out of this forum.

They haven't been chased, they left of their own accord. No one is preventing them from posting their opinion in any way.

I post my opinions and counter the arguments made against my opinions. Many of the people in this forum attack my opinion and that is okay by me. I will rebut those attacks as I see fit. I too challenge the opinions in contrast to my own which usually just descends into them personally attacking me. What is really missing here is the acceptance of the other person's opinion and the right to hold that opinion.

idhawkman wrote:I think it is rich how you use condescending words like snowflakes and ugliness to try and shame people in here from their participation in this forum.

The term snowflake has been adopted by the right to do exactly that to anyone on the left trying to use more socially conscientious terminology. Thus the irony. If you really can't see the irony in this obvious role reversal situation I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.

c_hawkbob wrote:Racism, xenophobia, bias, prejudice, nationalism ... look at this room full of right wing snowflakes arguing about the politically correct term for the ugliness their President has got them hip deep in!

The irony is rich, even though mostly unappreciated as 90% the left among our little on line family has been chased out of this forum.

I assume that you're not talking about me unless you're including other subjects like taxes and health care. I agree with you regarding the hair splitting over the proper characterization for DJT. It's a diversionary tactic or smoke screen. I've been around long enough that I know a racist when I see one, and DJT is a racist.

As far as posters being run off, I'm not sure if that's true or not. There were a couple that were banned for their behavior, specifically Largent80 and Seahawks4ever, but you can't say that they were "chased out." Hawktalk probably takes the most flak, most of which he brings on himself with his over the top rhetoric, but he still comes in occasionally. Burrton seems to have taken a LOA, but I suspect he'll be back, too.

I do wish you'd stop by for more than a cup of coffee.

RiverDog wrote:I guess it depends on your definition of racism. I feel that racism does not require mean spiritedness or self awareness. If I encounter a tall, slender black man and assume that he must be a basketball player and do not make the same assumption when I see a tall, slender white man, then that's a form of racism. It's a bias based on race. Sometimes it can be helpful. If I hear someone with a heavy accent, my racism causes me to assume they're foreign born and not likely to understand my American slang.

Trump's racism, or xenophobia, bias, bigotry, prejudice, or what ever term you want to substitute, was brought out in his tweet to "the squad". He assumed from their names, skin color, complexion, etc, that they were foreign born, and he was using what he assumed as a fact as a way of putting them in their place as he considers immigrants from 3rd world countries 2nd class citizens ("why are we taking in people from shithole countries?"). It wasn't KKK level racism, but it wasn't an innocent, passive thought that provoked those comments, either.

Trump did the exact same thing with Judge Gonzalo Curiel by questioning his patriotism when he called him a "Mexican" based on nothing but his name even though Curiel was native born and as a prosecutor on a narcotics task force once required protection when LE got credible information that Mexican drug cartels were planning to assassinate him. It's an unmistakable pattern of behavior.

That's what I despise about Trump. I've seen that form of racism for most of my adult life, not directed at me, rather directed at hard working, honest friends and co workers, and now we have it on full display in the highest elective office in the world.

I generally try to use the dictionary definition of racism.

That's putting everything under one umbrella. I don't agree with that. Racists are a very specific group with a very specific agenda. Stereo-typing isn't necessarily racist, just prejudicial or ignorant.

I feel things need to be clear so you know how to interact with someone. A guy engaged in some minor stereotyping with no belief in the superior or inferiority of the races or using some off-color word like colored because that person is older is far different from some guy not hiring people because they believe a racial group is inferior or promoting some racial segregation because they believe the purity of the white race must be preserved. Racism shouldn't become a replacement word for general prejudice or some minor ignorant behavior.

c_hawkbob wrote:Racism, xenophobia, bias, prejudice, nationalism ... look at this room full of right wing snowflakes arguing about the politically correct term for the ugliness their President has got them hip deep in!

The irony is rich, even though mostly unappreciated as 90% the left among our little on line family has been chased out of this forum.

Anyone can post on here that wants to, no one ran anyone off. Some folks just don't enjoy debate. Who cares. I do this mostly for entertainment. We're all screwed as far as I'm concerned. Democrat or Republican. We're already socialized. Our tax level is basically a more productive level of socialism with the illusion of capitalism. The only thing that will save this planet is one that will be horrific: that will be depopulation.

Why you take this trash as seriously as you seem to, I have no idea. It's talk on a forum from people you barely know save for a few you've met in person. It's mental exercise and competition.

Donald Trump will be done within 18 months to a 6 years. America will be fine for all the pent up whining and stupidity of both sides. Trump's just some loudmouth jerk that will pass like a fart if the wind. As long as he doesn't start any illegal wars, his time as president will be remembered as not so bad other than all his ignorant, stupid, racist, combative yapping and tweeting. For the most part, life in America is the same as before.

idhawkman wrote:Well at least you admitted your argument was weak.

At least you admitted to your lack of ability to comprehend a written or spoken statement without including your personal bias, which makes all your arguments weak.

No, Trump is an equal opportunity offender. "IF" he treated the (as you say) "Other" people differently than he does everyone else then that would be racist. But Trump treats everyone the same. If you don't do your job, if you don't produce results, if you attack him, he's going to hit back regardless of how you look. That's fair treatment of everyone.

No, he isn't.

He doesn't tell Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren to go back to their crappily run countries. If he were an equal opportunity offender, he wouldn't have included any reference to their ethnic backgrounds or assumed they came from other nations. That's what makes his comment stand out as racist and why he's getting properly drilled for it by all those who aren't his sycophants.

I think you are partially right on this but I think there is more, too. I would also like to say that every candidate for office has their flaws that people dislike.

That's all part of being weak. Trump has huge weaknesses. He's a giant, tweeting, yapping asshat. Yet these Dems are so far away from center with their messaging that Crazy Uncle Racist Trump is looking better than reparations giving, medicare for all, tax the rich, political correctness gone mad, we blame white people for all our problems, socialism is our new face Dems. It's hard to hide all the stupid from the various Dems even when you have so much stupid coming out of Trump. And that is very weak.

idhawkman wrote:No, Trump is an equal opportunity offender. "IF" he treated the (as you say) "Other" people differently than he does everyone else then that would be racist. But Trump treats everyone the same. If you don't do your job, if you don't produce results, if you attack him, he's going to hit back regardless of how you look. That's fair treatment of everyone.

Aseahawkfan wrote:No, he isn't.

He doesn't tell Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren to go back to their crappily run countries. If he were an equal opportunity offender, he wouldn't have included any reference to their ethnic backgrounds or assumed they came from other nations. That's what makes his comment stand out as racist and why he's getting properly drilled for it by all those who aren't his sycophants.

Trump has probably surmised that Sanders and Warren were native born because they are white with Anglo names and no accent so he doesn't evoke what he perceives as their country of origin. It's when they have a Spanish name and a complexion that fits his preconceived image of a Hispanic immigrant as does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that triggers his bigoted mind into using his opponent's ancestory as a wedge.

This all goes back to his "shithole countries" and his more recent "rat infested" remarks about conditions in his adversary's home, or perceived home. He is linking them to a situation over which they had little if any control over so as to inflict as much psychological harm as possible and to discredit anything substantive that they may have to offer, in other words, to put them in their place as a 2nd class citizen not worthy of being on the same playing field with him. He's like the king telling the peons to just scurry away and not to bother him. Spoiled rich kid syndrome.

c_hawkbob wrote:Racism, xenophobia, bias, prejudice, nationalism ... look at this room full of right wing snowflakes arguing about the politically correct term for the ugliness their President has got them hip deep in!

The irony is rich, even though mostly unappreciated as 90% the left among our little on line family has been chased out of this forum.

RiverDog wrote:I assume that you're not talking about me unless you're including other subjects like taxes and health care. I agree with you regarding the hair splitting over the proper characterization for DJT. It's a diversionary tactic or smoke screen. I've been around long enough that I know a racist when I see one, and DJT is a racist.

No of course not, you've been pretty effectively making my point in this thread. What strikes me as so amusing is the hard line Righties that in most other situations decry political correctness as the wussification of America so completely immersing themselves in it now in defense of their hero. It really is a delicious irony.

RiverDog wrote:As far as posters being run off, I'm not sure if that's true or not. There were a couple that were banned for their behavior, specifically Largent80 and Seahawks4ever, but you can't say that they were "chased out." Hawktalk probably takes the most flak, most of which he brings on himself with his over the top rhetoric, but he still comes in occasionally. Burrton seems to have taken a LOA, but I suspect he'll be back, too.

I don't necessarily mean run off in a literal sense, but turned away by the distastefulness of the tenor in here. There is a whole lot of vitriol and way too many ad hom attacks for me to want to hang much, I can see why others would just ignore this sub forum completely.

RiverDog wrote:I do wish you'd stop by for more than a cup of coffee.

I still have difficulty composing intelligent responses, they're there, they just don't want to get themselves in order on paper (so to speak) I keep losing my train of thought and having to read back over everything I've written to regain mt. It's taken me 20 minutes to make this response presentable.

That's why I'll save most of my posting for the Seahawks stuff that matters.

c_hawkbob wrote:I don't necessarily mean run off in a literal sense, but turned away by the distastefulness of the tenor in here. There is a whole lot of vitriol and way too many ad hom attacks for me to want to hang much, I can see why others would just ignore this sub forum completely.

Perhaps, but we don't know that for sure. I don't think it's nearly as caustic in here as it is on social media, especially since Trump was elected. I've tried my best not to retaliate or answer in kind when I've been attacked, but it does test the limits of my patience. I have to keep reminding myself that it's only text and not to take my politics or myself that seriously.

RiverDog wrote:I do wish you'd stop by for more than a cup of coffee.

c_hawkbob wrote:I still have difficulty composing intelligent responses, they're there, they just don't want to get themselves in order on paper (so to speak) I keep losing my train of thought and having to read back over everything I've written to regain mt. It's taken me 20 minutes to make this response presentable.

That's why I'll save most of my posting for the Seahawks stuff that matters.

You're not alone. I'll frequently edit my responses multiple times, either to fine tune my grammar or add to or modify a thought as I don't want to look stupid even if no one else reads a word of what I wrote. I can do that and get away with it in here because this forum isn't very heavily trafficked, which is one of the things about this venue that appeals to me. Nevertheless, even though I don't always agree with your takes, I always look forward to them and would welcome more frequent participation from you.

RiverDog wrote:
I assume that you're not talking about me unless you're including other subjects like taxes and health care. I agree with you regarding the hair splitting over the proper characterization for DJT. It's a diversionary tactic or smoke screen. I've been around long enough that I know a racist when I see one, and DJT is a racist.

Interesting. Those are words you normally would see come from a racist especially if you substitute racist with any other human attribute.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
No, he isn't.

He doesn't tell Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren to go back to their crappily run countries. If he were an equal opportunity offender, he wouldn't have included any reference to their ethnic backgrounds or assumed they came from other nations. That's what makes his comment stand out as racist and why he's getting properly drilled for it by all those who aren't his sycophants.

Why do you think he has to offend people with the same offense? I claimed him as an equal opportunity offender and you chose one comment that he then must use on everyone? Did he not call Bernie "Crazy Bernie?" Does he not call Warren "Pocahontas?" Is he not offending them when he does that?

That's all part of being weak. Trump has huge weaknesses. He's a giant, tweeting, yapping asshat. Yet these Dems are so far away from center with their messaging that Crazy Uncle Racist Trump is looking better than reparations giving, medicare for all, tax the rich, political correctness gone mad, we blame white people for all our problems, socialism is our new face Dems. It's hard to hide all the stupid from the various Dems even when you have so much stupid coming out of Trump. And that is very weak.

Yeah, as I said, every candidate has their flaws. The dems side of the balance sheet though is much much worse than Trump's as you point out.