(07-16-2019, 10:03 PM)Bullseye Wrote: Their status as freshmen members of Congress or their place on the political spectrum does not, in any way, mitigate their rights to voice dissent. 

No one suggested they don't have a right to say what they want.  We're just pointing out they also have a right to pursue other options of residency that better fit their values and lifestyle.  

There have been others with whom the President has disagreed, but his most persistent targets have been persons of color. 

The man called the white female Dem Nominee for the presidency a "Nasty" woman on national television.  He told the white female captain of the U.S. Soccer team to shut her mouth.  He just went off on a tirade on the White male Ambassador to the US from the U.K. addressing him by name and calling him an ignorant fool.  He's ripped Paul Ryan a new [BLEEP].  He insulted John McCain.  He belittled Jeb Bush to the point that an entire wing of the party still hates him.  Are we still really going to seriously sit here and keep up with this "it's only black people stuff?"

It is noteworthy nobody else (read: white) has been urged to leave the country by this president. 

That's because they are the ones spewing the "Toilet" "Concentration Camp" Garbage.  In light of the attacks over the weekend against detention facilities, they are the ones that should have been censured by congress.  

The whole "come back" argument is quite silly.  Three of the four congresswomen were born in this country. The fourth (Omar) is a U.S. citizen, and has been since she was a teenager. 

True, and if any of them need a visa sponsor to go bother the countries they feel more confidently in then I am happy to volunteer.  

Why should she be urged to go back to Somalia because she disagrees with this president's policies? 

You're absolutely right bullseye.  It's nothing to do with Anti-American Sentiment or trashing entire departments of the government, or anti-semetic comments.  It's because they think that his tariff policy has inflationary risk.  Way to read the stitches on the fastball.  

Why should she have to split her time between the country to which she has pledged allegiance when she became a citizen and a country she no longer calls home?  Why does she have the burden of fixing all of Somalia's ills before uttering policy disagreements with Trump?  Not one white male congressmen was ever required to fix all of the problems in their state before voicing disagreements. 

Actually that's not true.  Any politician aspiring higher office is usually examined on their record.  So if the governor of California wants to become president one of the first things people look at is if California is still a mess.  And if their state is a mess, that has a bearing on their credibility to run the country as a whole.  Same for house members that are supposed to be Senators or anyone aspiring to leadership in just about, well, anything.  In this instance you have four congresswomen who are fundamentally hostile to the concept of limited government and the founding of the country, that's a lot bigger than any one policy disagreement.  IF you want to proceed with fundamentally terraforming a country doesn't it make sense that a.) you show us a success story (in the case of socialism there are none.) and b.) if you don't have a success story then you should go run your social experiments in a country other than the worlds last super power?  

For that matter, Trump didn't fix ANY problems in New York as a private citizen, yet that didn't preclude him from attempting to impugn and delegitimize former President Obama with the birther thing and the query into his college qualifications. 

I know you're not that ignorant, so I take it you are lying for affect.  Creating Jobs, growing a business, and even taking over failed public works.  IF you want to B.S. me please, try harder next time.  

On the issue of how the freshmen congresswomen conducted themselves, Trump is the very last person to lecture anyone on how to conduct themselves.  If Trump truly had no racial animus driving his comments, tweets on this matter, had any leadership traits and instincts, and had a legitimate interest in having a unified country, he would make it a point to clarify his comments and urge unity.  Conservative whites threw a hissy fit when Obama said the cop acted stupidly for arresting professor Henry Louis Gates for breaking into his own home.  Obama brought professor gates and the cop for the beer summit and spoke repeatedly on the need for unity.  Trump has never come close to doing that.

Spoke repeatedly for the need for unity before inviting Black Lives Matter to the White house, "If I had a son...  He would look like Treyvon," and letting cities burn while his Justice Department had concurrent evidence to support the fact that HANDS UP DON'T SHOOT didn't happen.  I'll send someone over for the rest of your credibility later.  

[font=tahoma,helvetica,arial,sans-serif][b]Is this really what you are arguing?  First off, it doesn't answer the question of where Trump gets off telling legal US citizens to leave the country. 

First amendment applies to him too.  He didn't order them, he didn't send the marshalls out.  He made a suggestion.  

Secondly your argument about the immigrants in cages absolutely boggles the mind to a ton of different levels.  They are not being held against their will?!?  You mean to suggest they traveled thousands of miles-some by foot for the "privilege" of being locked in overcrowded cages with no cots or access to showers, changes of clothing, etc?  THAT was their plan?!?  They can return to their country of origin at any time?  Really?  How are the children, ranging in age from toddler to teenager, separated from their parents, supposed to accomplish this?  Keep in mind, this completely IGNORES the very reasons many of them left their countries of origin in the first place.  How desperate do you have to be to leave the only place you've known, uproot your family, walk throughout Central America and up the length of Mexico to reach this country?!?  Their journeys here was every bit as courageous as those of the Pilgrims who fled England.If life for them were tenable in their countries of origin, they wouldn't have come here.  Also consider many of those detained-toddlers or otherwise-have been moved to facilities around the country away from the border.  How are they supposed to return to their country of origin?  Even if you opened the door to the facilities and told them see ya later, they'd still have to walk back to the borders, potentially extending their stays here for months.  I am straining to avoid personal invective here, I really am.  But this argument on this topic epitomizes the "distasteful, misguided, myopic and bigoted" views I referenced.  What of the people who emigrate from ostensibly "non [BLEEP] countries"

1.) Immigration policy isn't about virtue signaling, it's about economics.  We can't assimilate the other 7 billion people on the planet.  So that means that by simple logic we have to have an immigration policy.  It's true, there is a human cost to the mass incarceration of a million plus people illegally crossing the border per year, but the alternative you seem to espouse (just releasing them into the country) is the abolition of American sovereignty and something completely unpalatable to the American people.  In reality, the only thing we can do is call on our allies at the southern border to increase enforcement and erect a physical barrier to make sure there are far less people to detain in the first place.  

2.) There were orders of magnitude fewer pilgrims than there are illegal migrants from central America, and also the conditions in the 17th century were markedly worse than anything that anyone living in the last two centuries can even imagine.  And out of that muck they were able to build the foundations of one of the great societies in the history of man, those coming now might have a degree of bravery but that's also mitigated by the fact that they are following in their footsteps, not truly tilling the field themselves.  Also, there was no Welfare program for the pilgrims to apply to when they got here, they arrived in the closest thing to the State of Nature that you could imagine.  The trade off of having an advanced society to flee to means obeying the laws that govern that advanced society not just barging in like you own the place.  

[/b][/font]


For the record, I am an African-American, though status as an African American is not required to discern the pernicious impact of racism.  The truly sad part about all of this is if conservatives were not so pathologically anti minority, some of their policies would actually be attractive to minorities.

Pathologically anti minority?  This is the biggest lie in the modern political ethos.  The parting gift of the eugenicists and the segregationists was to imbrue the modern political system with Sangerism.  At current in some Dem run cities like New York the abortion rate for black pregnancies is above 50%.  Think about that for a second.  That's Josh Brolin Territory.  But there isn't any Tony Stark to come in and undo the carnage that has lead to the deaths of approaching 20 million minorities which is about 40 times the amount of slaves brought to the country and 3 ties the holocaust.  Moreover, the structure of the welfare programs lauded by the left as the turning point away from racism actually did what 400 years of slavery couldn't do, destroy the black family.   In some early parts of the 19th century a black child was more likely to have a father in the home than his white counterpart and more likely to be employed in his teen years (the two greatest indicators of future success.)  After minnimum wage and welfare reform now 70 plus % of black Children live in split parent homes and some 40% don't start work until they leave the house.  From 1940 to 1960 you saw a massive drop in the black poverty rate of some 40 points, still one of the greatest economic miracles in history.  Just imagine if the left hadn't been able to convince Otherwise intelligent blacks that big government was the answer, anyone who opposed it were racist don't pay attention to the reality of death, destruction, crime, poverty, and disillusionment that our policies actually cause "Rhetoric over results"

---