Logistically, how does one go about making such a demand? Send a fax to the White House?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Rightwing Extremist and Rightwing Terrorists (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Team Legacy
- Start date
rockaction
Footballguy
This is exactly what I asked. Precisely how does one do this?
His response was: "For people posting about it on a message board, I'd say a message board would be a reasonable start. Let's keep the scope to that for now."
I don't think President Trump reads this forum, so that's less of a demand than a public profession of opinion -- which is perfectly fine, but probably not necessary. "Trump's racially provocative statements are bad" should be the default supposition, understood to go without saying unless expressly repudiated. That will save people a lot of typing.
rockaction
Footballguy
That's sort of what I'm getting out of this and part of my protestation, though I've been unable to sit and put it into words. To force people to make some sort of public disavowal of the President's more racially provocative statements is an odd default position to have to take before being accused of having "blood on one's hands," so to speak.
Their language, not mine.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
I joined in 2011. I don't go back as far as the Clintons. And I felt sympathy for the guy who peddled the Seth Rich conspiracy and am actively in that thread both disavowing it and realizing that the person who believed it might actually be human. You can go read the thread for a back and forth with GM I had about laughing at Quez, who seemed sick to me.
rockaction
Footballguy
Honestly, he seemed ill and didn't deserve my condemnation, unlike you guys who I am quite certain aren't ill, but fulminating about the President way, way too much.
whoknew
Footballguy
From my interaction with Trump supporters on this board, that doesn't seem like a fair assumption to me.
And the unfairness is not that the Trump supporters here support racist or racially provocative statements. Its that we can't agree on whether what Trump says and writes fit the category of racially provocative statements. And certainly not racist ones.
Last edited by a moderator:
cosjobs
Footballguy
so a political internet message board is an inappropriate place for me to vehemently protest our president's tacit approval of racism?
rockaction
Footballguy
No, it's not an inappropriate place to make or vehemently protest our president and his policies. But accusing another human being of being actively sympathetic with the shootings or implying that his supporters are okay with the shootings is a bridge too far, and that's what got my dander up. It crosses the line of decent debate, in my opinion. It's a smear tactic based on conjecture and shouldn't be used.
Last edited by a moderator:
cosjobs
Footballguy
Then the extension of my fulmination toward my fellow citizens who lend him credence by actively approving of or outright denying his conduct should also be acceptable in this format.
rockaction
Footballguy
I edited my post before your response. I hope it clarifies my position. I think framing things like positing that one's support of Trump means one tacitly supports racism and/or the shootings is a bridge too far. That sort of guilt by association is a blurred line, and a smear tactic, IMO. I think stuff like that is the original definition of "smear tactic," which is to blur a category so badly as to lump somebody in with a group of people they have no business being lumped in with. That or to make an unfair charge against somebody that places them on the weirdly defensive to the outrageous charge. That's what I think that kind of posting does.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
And I'm trying to deal with a lot of lines here, so pardon my editing, please.
This is a fine-toothed argument.
This is a fine-toothed argument.
cosjobs
Footballguy
It isn't so fine. If your tacit approval of this behavior encourages and perpetuates it, you are a large part of the problem and you need to own it.
Or say something about it to differentiate your views.
Otherwise I consider you a part of the problem and its a problem that is going to rip this country apart.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
You’re a good dude rockaction - i’ve read enough to know that you aren’t a hateful racist even though I disagree with you politically and have a hard time understanding why someone like you, who is far more intelligent than I am, doesn’t see the harm Trump is doing. That said, when you spend more time attacking Trump critics than Trump and his policies themselves, you take the risk of being perceived as a Trump apologist.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
I'm going with understanding you to be saying "tacit" and that you got auto-corrected.
Personally, and for the millionth ad nauseam time, I don't support President Trump and never have. Not in his candidacy nor his ascendancy to the position in the Executive that he holds today -- President.
I also disagree that supporters must say something to differentiate their views from the President. His supporters do not bear the burden of his public equivocations on matters about race. This seems like an unfair charge for the other side to make. To try and differentiate one's self from views which can be seen as cryptically insensitive at best is an arduous task. I see nothing in his statement about El Paso that I even personally disagree with, and I think he could do more. But I'm not asking people to take a sort of loyalty or fealty oath on the grounds of non-racism. I don't see that as the burden that anyone has to bear. You may think differently, but the charges people are making in this thread and in other places are way over the top, and unjustified. I guess we may have to agree to disagree.
cosjobs
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
National Review Editors: “Crush This Evil”
>>In America, as abroad, we see our fair share of inexplicable violence. But the patterns on display over the last few years have revealed that we are contending here not with another “lone wolf,” but with the fruit of a murderous and resurgent ideology — white supremacy — that deserves to be treated by the authorities in the same manner as has been the threat posed by militant Islam.<<
>>In America, as abroad, we see our fair share of inexplicable violence. But the patterns on display over the last few years have revealed that we are contending here not with another “lone wolf,” but with the fruit of a murderous and resurgent ideology — white supremacy — that deserves to be treated by the authorities in the same manner as has been the threat posed by militant Islam.<<
rockaction
Footballguy
I'm hyper-sensitive to that and have typed out in almost every debate that I do notYou’re a good dude rockaction - i’ve read enough to know that you aren’t a hateful racist even though I disagree with you politically and have a hard time understanding why someone like you, who is far more intelligent than I am, doesn’t see the harm Trump is doing. That said, when you spend more time attacking Trump critics than Trump and his policies themselves, you take the risk of being perceived as a Trump apologist.
- Support the President other than to respect the office
- Actively endorse or feel complicit in his rhetoric, which, contrary to the bolded up top, I do think is harmful and don't support either
- Wish his re-election bid well, provided a reasonable alternative
- Judicial appointments at the S. Ct. level
- Ability to win WI, OH, PA, and MI
To see these two things in his favor are not mutually exclusive with me not supporting him on the whole. I hope people see that.
rockaction
Footballguy
Sure. That's fine. If you think the President, given the evidence, actively supports the shootings and that his supporters deserve blame for them, there's really nothing I can say, is there?
zoonation
Footballguy
cosjobs
Footballguy
If you put false quotes in my mouth there is even less I can do.
Trump's tacit approval of racism supports and perpetuates it.
Your (or other supporter's) tacit approval of Trump and not calling him out on his blatant racism, exponentially supports the racism.
All you have to do is admit what he says/does is inappropriate and racist. and disassociate yourself from that poisoned fruit of his ideology.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
What does it say about conservatism that according to you, the only person who could win is someone bold enough to openly embrace racist and nationalist rhetoric in order to galvanize the conservative base?
At what point do these facts cause a decent human like yourself to self reflect and wonder why survival of your worldview politically depends on successfully persuading uneducated poor white people to demonize people of color?
cosjobs
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
That was not my intent. The part where the President actively supports the shootings is what I called treasonous or disgraceful. I have no idea if you feel that way. I'm trying to explain myself.
If one believe that, then there is not much to say.
Northern Voice
Footballguy
Northern Voice
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
This has bothered me since his election. I have no answer for it other than that it would take a healthy dose of economic populism in non-racial terms to do the same. That's the only answer I have, is that free-market economics at the international and global level have left enough people behind where they will no longer vote for a libertarian-style candidate.
cosjobs
Footballguy
I believe the president's tactic approval of racists and their actions condones and perpetuates their actions.
krista4
Footballguy
I was out for a while and am just catching up, but I think ilov80s is the voice of reason as usual. It really is difficult to understand tone or intent. rock, you are a friend of mine, but Orton and Bart are, too, and I've had the pleasure to know them personally, having even met Bart in person. They're two of the best people I know. So understandably I know their motivations, or lack thereof, so have a different perspective on their posts. I do feel like you're "looking" for issues sometimes when they aren't there, looking for something to rail against, and I totally get that these are two posters who say things you often don't agree with so you're more likely to take their postings negatively. I do think we're all on the same team with respect to this particular issue, when it comes down to it. Or at least I hope we are. If you are on the "the President has done nothing to exacerbate these issues" team, then maybe not. But I don't think that's what you're saying.
cosjobs
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
That’s the problem - the fruit of Trumpism, Supremes and Federal Court judges, are apparently worth all the racism and fascism.
rockaction
Footballguy
cosjobs
Footballguy
Pretty sure we're going with perpetuate here. And throw in fulminate, tacit and/or foment if you can.
zoonation
Footballguy
You’re right. Trump should denounce the El Paso murders as racist attacks.
But he won’t. Because he can’t. It would upset his base. And upsetting his base would be bad for him politically (however trivially). And Trump only cares about Trump. So there is no chance he will display any leadership here. Not that he ever does.
cosjobs
Footballguy
DON'T FORGET THE 20% BUMP IN MY IRAThat’s the problem - the fruit of Trumpism, Supremes and Federal Court judges, are apparently worth all the racism and fascism.
rockaction
Footballguy
No, you're right, I'm not on that team. I think his rhetoric is over-the-top and does more harm than good, and that's not even on balance. He does a disservice to his own stated goals with his rhetoric.
eta* Come to think of it, that's too generous. His own "stated goals" were to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it. I should say "what I hope are his real goals," though sometimes face value is all one has.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
It becomes fruit from the poisoned tree only to the extent that it implicates racist policies on the part of judges, if we're using poisonous tree doctrine. In other words, if an event happens in the procuring of evidence -- even in bad faith -- that has no effect on the trial, the evidence is still allowed.That’s the problem - the fruit of Trumpism, Supremes and Federal Court judges, are apparently worth all the racism and fascism.
The judges are an ancillary effect of Trump; they are not racist themselves.
krista4
Footballguy
Oops, sorry. I was behind, as mentioned. I was out having dinner at a restaurant where three women decided they were my new BFFs because I was wearing a "Hey Jude" t-shirt, and they forced me to dance with them and vow to come back every Sunday because they are there for Bingo night (I wish I were making this up).
ETA: "foment" is a great word.
Last edited by a moderator:
cosjobs
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
I would argue that American conservatism has historically been, and continues to be inherently racially biased. Tying it back to my earlier post, it’s not a coincidence that the vitality of American conservatism is dependent upon the ugliness we’re seeing today, and we’ve seen for 2 hundred years.
krista4
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
Whoa. Very quickly. I read this far. He didn't deserve a laugh at all. That was my problem. People were laughing at him and I thought he was a genuinely sick individual from some of the other stuff he had said. There is absolutely no way I thought the conspiracy accusation was worth a laugh, promptly condemned it here, and wished that the thread be a whole lot different in tone.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Ivanka tweeted that. Would be nice for something this strong from the POTUS.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
You sure do deserve my consideration. I've considered you not only highly intelligent, but admirable in restraint and accomplishments in your personal life, and often simpatico with me on many occasions, to the point where I stated the other day that I liked one of your posts that wasn't flattering in the least to the President, but appreciated it for calling an aspect of policy out eloquently.
zoonation
Footballguy
You had dinner somewhere bingo is played?
Best bring your dabber next time. Two if you want be competitive.
cosjobs
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
I will just say that I immediately checked Esquire and PNAS links and found what is to be expected in the first paragraph of the Esquire article and also serious peer dissent from the causal claims made in the PNAS paper.
Just because it's "Esquire" or "science" doesn't make it not biased or flat wrong according to peer review, which was asserted by a peer reviewer. Not only that, but causal conclusions drawn from social science and panels and surveys are much less reliable than causal conclusions drawn in the hard sciences.
Just because it's "Esquire" or "science" doesn't make it not biased or flat wrong according to peer review, which was asserted by a peer reviewer. Not only that, but causal conclusions drawn from social science and panels and surveys are much less reliable than causal conclusions drawn in the hard sciences.
Last edited by a moderator:
zoonation
Footballguy
The job of president is so out of Trump’s league. He is totally ill equipped to have the faintest clue about how to lead people. This is what happens when you elect a raging narcissist as President.
America needs incredible leadership to get out of this mess. The social fabric of the country is coming apart. And there is nothing available in the White House. It is tragic. He needs to go.
America needs incredible leadership to get out of this mess. The social fabric of the country is coming apart. And there is nothing available in the White House. It is tragic. He needs to go.
Similar threads
