Project Veritas Nails Andrew Gillum Staff in Florida ?

1. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   His Head campaign staffer calls florida voters old "crackers" ?
   Disses voters ?
   

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      More race baiting, eh, Mr. Ed?
      
      It is stuff like this that continues to substantiate my views of conservatives and the rabid right.
      
      Tell me again what legitimate source is identified in this latest bit of rubbish posting?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Speaking of race baiting:
         
         https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … smsnnews11

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks, Scott, and yet everyone is saying that I am the one that is unhinged and guilty of paranoia.
            
            I go with my gut, and my instincts are accurate most of the time.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Oh, gosh, look at the stuff they throw at me, Aime, Pretty Panther, etc. You are certainly not alone.
               
               Your instincts are just fine with half of the posters here.

               replyreport
         2. 89

            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Why would you cite that as "race baiting" promisem?
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 0

               promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               GA, that's an astonishing response. A TV commercial blames Democrats for murder by letting evil Hispanics into the country. If you don't see race baiting, you are not as purple as you claim.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  That would only be correct if I were mistaken promisem. But remember, I did not comment on the content of the commercial. My comment was related to you calling a nationality, (the guy was identified as a Mexican), a race.
                  
                  Are you criticizing my response as wrong, and my perspective as not what I proclaim because I don't agree that a nationality is a race? That would seem astonishing to me.
                  
                  To be fair - to both of us, if I misunderstood your claim of race-baiting, then tell me what you really meant.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     You have misread my comment. I used the word Hispanic, not Mexican. Hispanic is a race. Mexican is a nationality.
                     
                     The fact that he is Mexican is irrelevant to the point of the race-baiting video.
                     
                     Misdirection suggests a subtle support of this kind of politics. You are really reaching for an argument. 

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        I think a previous reply covers this comment also promisem, with the exception of your claim that Hispanic is a race. So once again your charge of "misdirection" is pointed the wrong way.
                        
                        What is your support for your claim that Hispanic is a race?
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           I'll repeat my own:
                           
                           The fact that the video is about Hispanic race baiting and the nationwide outcry is about Hispanic race baiting makes the issue about Hispanics. The video, the outcry and my comments have nothing to do with nationality.
                           
                           Regarding Hispanics as a "race", it's an irrelevant argument because it misdirects the entire debate about the video to something that has nothing to do with the original point.
                           
                           That said, I defer to IslandBite's excellent comment on the subject:
                           
                           Cambridge Dictionary
                           
                           C1 [ C or U ] a group, especially of people, with particular similar physical characteristics, who are considered as belonging to the same type, or the fact of belonging to such a group.
                           ​
                           [ C, + sing/pl verb ] a group of people who share the same language, history, characteristics, etc.
                           
                           Merriam Webster DIctionary
                           
                           2a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
                           b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
                           
                           3.: a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits
                           
                           "So, yeah, race baiting." - IslandBites

                           replyreport
                           1. 89

                              GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              I should have seen this before I posted my last response to you promisem.
                              
                              Considering you see "...Hispanics as a "race", it's an irrelevant argument..." , and that was my entire point - I could have saved myself the effort.
                              
                              Apparently accuracy is irrelevant to you too. So have at it.
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 The dictionaries are inaccurate? Does believing them make me inaccurate?
                                 
                                 Regardless, this latest reply built around a smear still evades the major point. The video and uproar are about race baiting. It's not about whether Hispanics are a race.

                                 replyreport
      2. 0

         promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Odd. I can't find anything online indicating where the video was taken or anything about the speaker, other than he is wearing a Gillum T-shirt.
         
         Until there is some actual proof of who he is, saying he speaks for Gillum is like saying the synagogue killer speaks for Trump.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I have been following the dialogue here, Scott, and I am being overwhelmed by semantic games and those that I thought knew better are deep in its engagement.
            
            The point rather than being concerned about what constitutes race and what does not, is the "dog whistle" being employed by Trump and the Republicans to bring all this fear in the hearts of his followers that they are to be invaded by all these brown people. After you cut through the crap, isn't that what we are talking about?
            
            Who is going to call this out for what it is rather than engage in amusing diversions?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Credence, I agree with you on this.  While it is technically incorrect to term the video "race baiting" since an ethnicity is not technically a "race," the tactics are exactly the same.  One can quibble over whether those tactics (fear and negative stereotyping of a group of people who are "the other"and different from the intended audience) are about race or ethnicity, but the effect is the same either way. The effect is to gin up fear in those who are already predisposed to think those seeking asylum are a massive invasion of criminals, rapists, freeloaders, and diseased low-lifes.  Trump knows his base isn't fired up by tax cuts or a booming economy.  Oh no, they get enraged and motivated by fear and loathing of the other.  He has peddled that fear and loathing from the beginning of his political career, so it isn't anything new.
               
               I think that quibbling over the accuracy of the term, rather than focusing on the fear mongering and negative stereotyping evident in the video, is only furthering the cause of those who think this type of craven political fear mongering is acceptable.
               
               All that said, it is my opinion that GA is technically right, but functionally wrong.   :-)

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  With due respect to you, he is technically wrong according to IslandBite's posting of the definitions from the Cambridge and Merriam Webster dictionaries.
                  
                  However, I understand his concerns about how the word race is being used. GA seems to oppose "race baiting" because of the way we define race versus ethnic groups. But "race baiting" is commonly used to include both including this case.
                  
                  Which is why we don't hear anyone use "ethnicity baiting". 

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Right on.

                     replyreport
               2. 89

                  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  "All that said, it is my opinion that GA is technically right, but functionally wrong.   :-)"
                  
                  Ha! I am so close to agreeing with that statement. And I do agree with what you said before it.
                  
                  But, consider what you said:
                  "...  those tactics (fear and negative stereotyping of a group of people who are "the other"and different "
                  
                  "... to gin up fear in those who are already predisposed to ..."
                  
                  "... the fear mongering and negative stereotyping ..."
                  
                  All those things can be actions of racism; prejudice, discrimination, and antagonism, if they are based on a belief of superiority, or, inferiority. Without that base, they are just prejudice, discrimination, and antagonism,
                  
                  As you mentioned, the tactics are the same, but one is not the other. One case is being demonized, (the ethnicity) whereas the other, (the race), is being diminished.
                  
                  The line between the two is thin, but it is there. Could it be considered that calling something it isn't, (like what the ad does by inference), for the purpose of supercharging the negativity of the label, is crossing that line?
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     I've given your question considerable thought and the answer I've come up with is "maybe."
                     
                     i get your point about the technical differences between race and ethnicity. However, for this particular caee, I think using the term is an accurate description of the purpose and function of the video. To me, this type of political fear mongering needs to be identified and condemned for what it is and if using the term "race baiting" is the most direct way to do it, I'm for it (even as I acknowledge it is technically incorrect).
                     
                     I realize that you might consider that unnecessarily contributing to the cultural divide, and I do struggle with that assessment, which is why my answer is "maybe." I lean toward believing it is a legitimate response, though.

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        I understand what you are saying PrettyPanther. Tactics like this ad are true gutter-level politics. But it is not new. Remember the Willy Horton ad of George H. Bush in 1988?
                        
                        I suppose I was drawn into my replies because I think a charge of racist is one of the worst there is. So if you are going to make it... you should be right. Otherwise, it looks bad on the one making the claim, and even worse, if the charge is deserved for other reasons, it gives the one charged a break, (by pointing out the error), they might not deserve.
                        
                        Just as you described, the ad was pure fear-mongering. It imitated the tactic race-baiters use.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
            2. 0

               promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Thanks, Credence. I'm trying to call this out, but as you say, all I'm seeing is semantic games that attempt to misdirect the debate.

               replyreport
            3. 80

               Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               How about we speak some plain old fashioned truth?
               
               We are a handful of days from this mid-term election being over, and so everyone that feels even mildly vested in politics has become 'sensitive'.
               
               I don't particularly blame anyone for feeling such, our news media and our politicians on BOTH sides have done their very best to inflame the situation, especially along racial lines.
               
               I do not watch the news, but I have seen clips and read comments, if the things being said in the media aren't full out racially inflammatory then nothing on earth ever was... the fact that much of it is directed at 'white men' may be PC in todays media world, but that does nothing to lessen the racial divide.
               
               Now, I believe I understand why the media has worked at this for years now, and why the bile and disrespect keeps getting worse... it is because they are masking something greater that our 'intellectual elite / ruling class' is 'evolving' for the Western world, without giving the populace any say in the matter.
               
               Credence, you used to harp on me constantly for positions I took, because you felt they were racially charged, because I didn't support Obama, so you went straight to the 'white guy is racist mindset'.
               
               I didn't support Obama because I didn't support subordinating America to the UN, to Globalism, and Obama was clearly supportive of moving the country away from Sovereignty to being subjugated to international powers.  Same with Bush before him, and Clinton.
               
               I support Trump not because of any of his racially charged statements but because he is a Nationalist, he was willing to speak out as to why we had lost millions of jobs, and why our economy had been stagnant for so long...  a person who puts Americans ahead of the needs of other nations.
               
               Trump harmed globalist efforts and platforms, pulling the U.S. out of the TPP and the Paris Accord, out of the UN's Global Compact for Migration, eventually Trump will be gone, and the Globalist agenda will be back on track, but for a few more years America will thrive and remain free from being lorded over by an international body.
               
               Politicians and media playing the race card covers up all that, it hides who is behind the curtains pulling the strings, buying up elections.
               
               That's the one nice thing about Trump, you don't have to worry about him being anybody's puppet, being a billionaire himself makes him immune to someone throwing him a few million dollars to buy him, they can't.
               
               I am not going to support someone who is saying the PC things, while they sell out the future of my children for a few extra bucks.
               
               I do however look forward to being a minority in America (which should happen in just a few years) it will be interesting to see how the race card is played when the majority is 'Non-Caucasian' it will be even better when they term the majority of 'Hispanic' descent.
               
               As for Gillum, I wouldn't support anyone I felt were bought and paid for by Soros.  But besides that, he wants to raise taxes, and is very critical about what is an excellent (at least in my county) police force, compared to De Santis and his Veteran status and Conservative fiscal positions.
               
               Race has nothing to do with that, but I doubt you'd buy that at this juncture, with political tensions so inflamed.

               replyreport
   2. 80

      Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know what is funnier, that statement or the photo you attached to it.
      
      Gillum is funded by Soros, I believe he met Soros himself before being anointed as his 'chosen one' the next Obama, or whatever foolishness I read in some article a couple months back.
      
      Gillum is supported by Bernie Sanders, he opposes ICE, he supports Open Borders, and he has promised to raise taxes.
      
      What else do you need to know about him?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         What exactly is wrong with Soros giving money to Gillum? Do you also oppose the Koch brothers giving money to Ron DeSantis?

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I would, and you made me go check, so kudos to you.
            
            It seems he accepted money from a PAC that is funded in part by the Koch brothers.  Not thrilled to find that out, but being supported by a PAC is not on the level of meeting with Soros and being funded by him.
            
            May 7, 2018 - Combine that with two six-figure donations in 2017, and Soros' contributions to Gillum now total $450,000. The Soros family has given half a....
            
            Aug 23, 2018 - Andrew Gillum is getting some major last minute help from billionaire donor George Soros .... Andrew Gillum gets another $650,000 from billionaire donor...
            
            Aug 29, 2018 - Surprise Democrat primary winner Andrew Gillum in Florida had support from ... In return, he received millions from the two billionaires and their allies.
            
            Gillum, nothing more than a puppet for Soros, a man on strings.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Thanks. So by that logic, DeSantis also is nothing more than a puppet for the Koch brothers.
               
               That's true for the entire political system of unlimited campaign contributions by billionaires who want to control our laws for their benefit.
               
               We can thank Citizens United.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  There you go, that's the promism I remember, ignoring what is actually typed (ignoring facts) and just putting the spin on it you want.
                  
                  So when I said "Not thrilled to find that out, but being supported by a PAC is not on the level of meeting with Soros and being funded by him."  you just ignore that part, because that would recognize that there IS a difference between being in the back pocket of someone to the tune of MILLIONS of dollars, and getting a couple hundred thousand in support from a PAC.
                  
                  
                  Let me tell you what I think is going to happen in the next two years.
                  
                  Starting with this election's results, you will have more Republicans in the Senate, and you will have the Democrats barely holding control in the House.
                  
                  So for two years, we are going to get obstructionism from the Democrats in the House, for two years we will have Pelosi and Waters headlining in the news along with Trump.
                  
                  That is Trump's dream scenario.  Now instead of the Republicans standing in his way of ACA reform and more tax cuts, the Democrats can take the blame... just like the Republicans in the House took the blame in 2012, which greatly helped Obama squeak by in re-election.
                  
                  And of course during these next two years we will get plenty of news coverage about migrant waves crossing the border, and violent extremists acting out, and two more years of CNN and their like pounding away at the racist, sexist, anti-Semite angles.
                  
                  By this time, the Russian collusion angle will have been put to sleep, as they won't be able to carry it for 2 more years, and the poor fools that bought into that dribble will be sadly disappointed that Trump isn't impeached over it, but that's reality, it was just a political ploy and nothing is going to come of it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     So Ken , Are you really saying the above is the perfect storm for 2020 reelection .................?
                     
                     
                     he he he..................

                     replyreport
                  2. 0

                     promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     That has absolutely nothing to do with my point, which is quite specific in response to yours. Nor does it answer my question.
                     
                     If you really want to get into the irrelevant details:
                     
                     1. You make claims without citing any sources
                     2. You admit the Koch brothers have made contributions.
                     3. You think that a meeting with a contributor is immoral or illegal.
                     
                     If you want actual facts about both candidates and not propaganda from right-wing blogs, here's a credible source:
                     
                     https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politi … -governor/
                     
                     And "there you go" again, Ken. Getting personal. Democrats all bad. Republicans all good.

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Here are some facts.
                        
                        https://thecapitolist.com/andrew-gillum … right-now/
                        
                        If he wins, he won't be the sitting Governor for long.
                        
                        I am done responding to your posts, I know your penchant for having people suspended that disagree with your politics, and your ability in finding offense in opposing opinions.
                        
                        Have a nice day

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Watch them try having us suspended after they get creamed next week ,   Gonna be some verwy , verwy angry lefties here ..................

                           replyreport
                        2. 94

                           Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Ken,
                           
                           Thank you, thank you, thank you. Very well stated.

                           replyreport
                        3. 0

                           promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Deleted
2. 60

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   So you think it will matter? Look at Don Lemmon. You think his racist comments on the air will do anything to damage him?  Not a chance.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   Sorry Credence ,No ,  I am pointing out that which Democrats willingly and totally ignore for pointedly political purposes ,  Your party  always turns whatever the issue in politics is - to "Racism ",    I'm not sure I've ever seen a thread where the left doesn't eventually turn to that much used falsehood for political capital.
   
   I am simply pointing to this and saying , Here ! Is the REAL party of representative political racism .  I'm not sure where Project Veritas originated but God bless them for going against the party of political correctness and hypocritical flag waving and show exacting  media truths for once and for all to see .
   
   Live with it .

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      By the way, I tell you what I live with, how is it that a Grand Wizard like Rep. Steve King of Iowa is allowed to comfortably break bread within the GOP for so long?
      
      Any entity that can cozy up to this type in 2018 is no friend of mine

      replyreport
4. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   I'll wait for anyone to defend this act and say this IS NOT racist ...........?

   replyreport
5. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   Ken , I have not paid enough attention to Project Veritas ,  but I know that THEY are doing what our ethically absent news media is/was  supposed to be doing  ALL ALONG ,  I just love it when the absolute reflections from the 1960's radicals  is put on display for all to see in America . 
   
   I guess ole' political "Hayduke Lives "and he lives within the upper echelons  of the Democratic / Socialist party .

   replyreport
6. 70

   Aime Fposted 5 years ago

   Project Veritas is a right-wing “news source” that edits their videos to promote a particular narrative and lacks credibility. But you will of course completely ignore that because the narrative they promote jives with your own.
   
   That said, he should be fired for the racial slurs and for clearly being an unreliable member of the campaign he is supposed to be a part of. Done deal. One person is not representative of everyone.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know if you've noticed or not,  but racist slurs against those who identify as, or are identified as, white don't count negatively on the resume.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I don't know if you've notice or not, but you're wrong.
         
         Andrew Gillum’s campaign has cut ties with a campaign vendor and volunteer, Omar Smith, who was caught on undercover video by the conservative Project Veritas group...
         
         “These comments don’t reflect the mayor or what our campaign is about. The campaign has no tolerance for the comments made in the video and we have severed ties.”
         
         https://www.politico.com/newsletters/fl … ord-337306

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you. I restrained myself hoping someone else would do it.  :-)

            replyreport
         2. 0

            Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Sure it doesn't , "....reflect the mayor or what our campaign is about  .........
            
            Sure .

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               http://floridapolitics.com/archives/278 … or-florida

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  What's your point?

                  replyreport
   2. 0

      Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Would you repeat that last line please Aime ?

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Aime Fposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Sure.
         
         One person is not representative of everyone.
         
         A very important point that people frequently ignore.

         replyreport
7. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   Credence , No , let's return to your quote "......more race baiting hey Ed ....." ...... .    See Credence doesn't like it when  I have pointed out all along the hypocrisy of these politically inspired 'racist' claims , Modern day racists don't  liked it that we have pointed out what some know as reverse racism , I understand that this inside activist is not only a democrat ,   a political activist and a racist ,  but you are twisting my  O.P.[s]  to your liking . Did you even watch the video ?  That's still no excuse for your mark Credence my friend .

   replyreport
8. 90

   IslandBitesposted 5 years ago

   They cut ties with the guy, good call. But I must have missed your outrage about the several racist robocalls targeting Gillum. You know, to denounce racists and all.
   
   "Well hello there. I is the negro Andrew Gillum, and I be asking you to make me governor of this here state of Florida," the prerecorded phone message begins, with a man speaking in a caricature of a black dialect.

   replyreport
9. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   GA. Haven't you noticed , eeevvvrrryyything by the left becomes racism . I think a lot of people have forgotten or never learned political debating skills.
   
   And then personal .

   replyreport
   1. 89

      GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That is your point Ed. Mine was about viewing a nationality, or ethnicity, as a race - no matter who is doing it..
      
      GA

      replyreport
10. 89

    GA Andersonposted 5 years ago

    Et tu, Brute? Your gut says Mexican is a race?
    
    GA

    replyreport
11. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    GA . my point exactly , there are races and there are ethnicities correct , yet in immigration Trumps called a racist ?

    replyreport
    1. 89

       GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       You found a bright spot, Ed. Relative to immigration, you have a good argument against that racist label. At least with regards to Mexicans and Muslims.
       
       GA

       replyreport
       1. 0

          promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Really? Isn't this beside the point of the inflammatory and misleading OP?
          
          Veritas is a great source of non-biased videos? No history of abuse, manipulation or bias?

          replyreport
          1. 89

             GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

             You are really reaching for an argument promisem. I would not quote or rely on anything from Project Veritas - as a sole source. And I did not here. Nor did I comment on the OP. But, I think my comment to Ed is factually correct. Neither Mexican nor Muslim is a race.
             
             So you might be right, if I knew what your point was. You have left me guessing.
             
             GA

             replyreport
             1. 90

                IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Since biological "race" does not exists, there's only the use of the word race to define X.
                
                That definition is not an absolute, meaning it has change through time.
                
                "The word race itself is modern and was used in the sense of "nation, ethnic group" during the 16th to 19th century, and only acquired its modern meaning in the field of physical anthropology from the mid 19th century."
                
                The term is used now for more than "white"and "black" if that's what you mean.
                
                But, if we want to get technical, let's check the definition according to some dictonaries:
                
                Cambridge dictionary:
                
                Race
                
                C1 [ C or U ] a group, especially of people, with particular similar physical characteristics, who are considered as belonging to the same type, or the fact of belonging to such a group.
                ​
                [ C, + sing/pl verb ] a group of people who share the same language, history, characteristics, etc.
                
                Merriam Webster:
                
                Race
                
                2a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
                b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
                
                3.: a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits
                
                
                
                So, yeah, race baiting.

                replyreport
                1. 89

                   GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                   "... only acquired its modern meaning in the field of physical anthropology from the mid 19th century."
                   
                   It appears that your point is that what has been accepted for 200+ years is now changing. And, that the four defined races, (of course I don't need to list them), plus the self-defined 'other', are no longer valid.
                   
                   Considering that in these "modern" times even the biological definition of man and woman is being denied - I should just accept that nationality now defines a race. But I won't. I will continue to rely on ethnicity for those distinctions.
                   
                   Are there black or white Hispanics? What race are Swedes? Can someone now be multiple races? What about cultures - does a culture now define race? Short people - are midgets now a race, they share a common physical trait? How about Jews or Muslims; they certainly share, (among their group), shared interests, habits, and in many cases characteristics?
                   
                   Like sex determinations, you may accept that race can be whatever you want it to be, but I will stick by the commonly understood categories.
                   
                   Don't mistake this for a disingenuous reply, I make it seriously. Just how wide do you want your definition of race to be?
                   
                   Racist serves a purpose in the comments I replied to, and I think that purpose is the one that is disingenuous. Prejudice is the proper description for the point made, but it doesn't carry nearly the weight of negativity that the writer wants to attach.
                   
                   A final note about quoting dictionary definitions ... I always feel a twinge when I see them, because we can all look up dictionary definitions if we are unsure what a word means. So what does pasting one say other than another negative inference?
                   
                   In this case Islandbites, I do think I know what I am talking about. And I say calling an ethnicity a race for the purpose of claiming "race baiting" is an incorrect usage.
                   
                   GA

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                      ++++++++Thank you for that .

                      replyreport
                      1. 0

                         Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                         GA.To clarify my posts about this   ,".......racist serves a purpose in the comments I replied to .........prejudiced is the proper description ........."                                      You can explain that so that the my lesser intellect can understand  it better or not , as for my point in all of this ;  I have grown so sick and tired of these phony accusations of racism that it has become clear to others and myself that to stand here on the right and NOT defend ourselves against these accusations is both accepting of leftist hypocrisy and damning as a decent people .

                         replyreport
                         1. 89

                            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                            Was that a statement or request Ed?
                            
                            GA

                            replyreport
                            1. 0

                               Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                               A request .

                               replyreport
                   2. 90

                      IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                      It appears that your point is that what has been accepted for 200+ years is now changing. And, that the four defined races, (of course I don't need to list them), plus the self-defined 'other', are no longer valid.
                      
                      
                      No. My point is that for 300+ years the word was used with other definitions. For the last 100+ years, the main use was the so mentioned "four races" (but not the only one). That -main- use it's being changing because that's the nature of language.
                      
                      Biological race doesn't exists. But the use of the word with that definition does. In fact, I quoted both definitions (of several btw). The use of the dictionaries was to show that is not one, or two or a few people misusing a word. It is a fact that the race has other (correct/accepted) definitions, whether you like it or not.
                      
                      You're free to use just one and to agree or not with other uses. That doesn't make other definitions or their uses wrong.

                      replyreport
                      1. 93

                         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                         Have to go with GA here, although it IS only a matter of semantics; we all know and understand what was being meant.  From your post with definitions:
                         
                         Cambridge dictionary:
                         
                         Race
                         
                         C1 [ C or U ] a group, especially of people, with particular similar physical characteristics, who are considered as belonging to the same type, or the fact of belonging to such a group.
                         ​
                         [ C, + sing/pl verb ] a group of people who share the same language, history, characteristics, etc.
                         
                         Merriam Webster:
                         
                         Race
                         
                         2a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
                         b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
                         
                         3.: a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits
                         
                         All depends on where the bolding is, then.  As far as other definitions being wrong:
                         
                         air noun, often attributive
                         \ˈer  \
                         Definition of air (Entry 1 of 2)
                         1a archaic : BREATH
                         b : the mixture of invisible odorless tasteless gases (such as nitrogen and oxygen) that surrounds the earth
                         also : the equivalent mix of gases on another planet
                         … the thin, frigid air of Mars.
                         — Stefano S. Coledan
                         c : a light breeze
                         2a : empty space
                         b : NOTHINGNESS
                         vanished into thin air
                         c old-fashioned : a sudden severance of relations
                         She gave me the air.
                         3 [ probably translation of Italian aria ]
                         a : TUNE, MELODY
                         a lilting air
                         b Elizabethan & Jacobean music : an accompanied song or melody in usually strophic form
                         c : the chief voice part or melody in choral music
                         4a : outward appearance of a thing
                         an air of luxury
                         b : a surrounding or pervading influence : ATMOSPHERE
                         an air of mystery
                         c : the look, appearance, or bearing of a person especially as expressive of some personal quality or emotion : DEMEANOR
                         an air of dignity
                         d : an artificial or affected manner
                         put on airs
                         5 : public utterance
                         He gave air to his opinion.
                         6 : COMPRESSED AIR
                         7a(1) : AIRCRAFT
                         traveling by air
                         
                         (2) : AVIATION
                         air safety
                         air rights
                         
                         (3) : AIR FORCE
                         air headquarters
                         
                         b(1) : the medium of transmission of radio waves
                         also : RADIO, TELEVISION
                         went on the air
                         (2) : AIRTIME
                         
                         8 : a football offense utilizing primarily the forward pass
                         Trailing by 20 points, the team took to the air.
                         9 : an air-conditioning system
                         a house with central air
                         10 : the height achieved in performing an aerial maneuver
                         a snowboarder catching big air
                         also : the maneuver itself
                         in the air
                         : being felt or expressed by many people : in wide circulation
                         There was a sense of anticipation in the air.
                         up in the air
                         : not yet settled
                         a question that's still up in the air
                         air verb
                         aired; airing; airs
                         Definition of air (Entry 2 of 2)
                         transitive verb
                         
                         1 : to expose to the air for drying, purifying, or refreshing : VENTILATE —often used with out
                         He opened the windows to air out the room.
                         2 : to expose to public view or bring to public notice
                         aired their complaints
                         3 : to transmit by radio or television
                         air a program
                         intransitive verb
                         
                         1 : to become exposed to the open air
                         The blankets were left outside to air.
                         2 : to become broadcast
                         a program that airs daily
                         
                         If you say you're going to air a TV show, it doesn't mean that "air" does not refer to "the mixture of invisible odorless tasteless gases (such as nitrogen and oxygen) that surrounds the earth
                         also : the equivalent mix of gases on another planet"  One must pick which definition is in use, usually by looking at the context in which it is used.

                         replyreport
                         1. 89

                            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                            And here you nailed it Wilderness; "...  although it IS only a matter of semantics; we all know and understand what was being meant."
                            
                            With that I agree. It really can boil down to semantics. And I did know what was meant. But ... As bad as the intended effort was, (the ad), it was not correct to call it race baiting. It was playing on people's prejudices, and should have been described as such. I read no inference of superiority in the ad, a necessary component to be true racism, as I understand the term.
                            
                            GA

                            replyreport
                            1. 0

                               Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                               GA, after reading through this discussion about race, the most common usage for the word, and changes in language that promote other, less frequently used definitions, I'll stick with using the word as I've understood it for decades.

                               replyreport
                               1. 89

                                  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                  That was my thought also Hxprof. At least as it relates to this issue.
                                  
                                  GA

                                  replyreport
                      2. 89

                         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                         That works for me Islandbites. It seems there are new definitions of racism also. I will keep the same perspective I held onto concerning calling someone a 'they.'
                         
                         GA

                         replyreport
             2. 0

                promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Ah, more feigning as a rhetorical tactic. Again, "Isn't this beside the point of the inflammatory and misleading OP?"
                
                An argument is justifiable on moral grounds. Guilt by association.
                
                My objection to your posts is the subtle and underlying support of posters on here like Ed who defend race baiting. This entire thread is filled with his extremist views about the subject.
                
                More to the point, Hispanic is a race. Mexican is a nationality. Shifting the terms to weaken widespread objection to the racist video is subtle support for race baiting in politics.
                
                Anyone who isn't against race baiting is for it.

                replyreport
                1. 89

                   GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                   promisem, you can see what would be my response to this, in my reply to Islandbites, but for the content of your comment I would add "bullhockey!"
                   
                   There is no "feigning," and as for guilt by association - I think if you go back and actually read what I said , instead of what you took it to be just because it disagreed with you, you will have a tough time finding any "association" with Ed's thoughts - other than the point relative to ethnicity not being a race.
                   
                   As for "Shifting the terms ..." - you are the one that did that when you inserted Hispanic into the conversation to serve your own purposes. The man was clearly noted as a Mexican in your link - not an Hispanic.
                   
                   And just what does "An argument is justifiable on moral grounds." mean? Since I previously noted - to you, that my comment did not address the message of the video, what moral grounds did I argue?
                   
                   A final note; you sure get testy when your views are challenged, and in this response I took several negative inferences from your words. If they were unintended - fine. But "feigning" and "guilt by association" ... I don't think it was unintentional. I think your confidence in your position is misplaced, which also means your inferences are also misplaced.
                   
                   GA

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                      Did you read the article?
                      
                      Obviously, the fact that the video is about Hispanic race baiting and the nationwide outcry is about Hispanic race baiting makes the issue about Hispanics. The video, the outcry and my comments have nothing to do with Mexicans.
                      
                      To claim otherwise is simply and clearly false.
                      
                      "Feigning" and "guilt by association" have nothing to do with being testy. I'm quite at peace with my comments. They are objective observations about repeated behavior patterns.
                      
                      You used "I have no idea what your're talking about" twice on here and in more often in the past. That's "feigning" for rhetorical effect, as I said.
                      
                      Guilt by association clearly means you are associating yourself with Ed by your positive comments toward him instead of condemning him for his support of race baiting.
                      
                      I'm sorry you found those observations objectionable. But I'd say you are much testier about getting challenged for your views when you read something personal into my words that doesn't exist.

                      replyreport
                      1. 89

                         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                         Could I be as guilty of reading things into your words, as I think you are to mine? I don't think so promisem, but I will try a more direct approach to see if that question can be answered.
                         
                         No, I had not read the article - at first, because I was not addressing the content of the article. Your comments, by my comprehension, are all about the content of the article - rather than the content of my comments.
                         
                         I think it is correct to say that you are the one that brought Hispanic into the conversation as a race, and as the validation for your charge of race baiting. Do you disagree?
                         
                         I do know that the article, (that I have now read), identifies the man as Mexican twice, and as an illegal immigrant once. And as a repeat illegal entry offender once. But, there is no mention of Hispanic anywhere in the article. I am not denying that the guy is, (or at least appears to be), Hispanic, but it was your words that introduced Hispanic. As I read your comment, you did so to introduce your charge of race baiting. Do you disagree with this?
                         
                         If so, then your first "Obviously, the fact that the video is about Hispanic race baiting ..." may be obvious to you because you choose to abide your own definitions, but it is not obvious to folks that don't agree with your definitions.
                         
                         To be clear, my comments have consistently been about what I see as a misuse of the term race, as applied to a nationality and not about the content of the article.
                         
                         Why do you ignore that and continue to push your claim that I am supporting the article's contents?
                         
                         "They are objective observations about repeated behavior patterns."
                         
                         Like this one?
                         "You used "I have no idea what your're talking about" twice on here and in more often in the past. That's "feigning" for rhetorical effect, as I said."
                         
                         That one is so wrong that I will hold the hammer and nails for you, (so you can publicly nail me to the wall), while you step up and show where I have ever, (for safety, maybe I should confine that to this thread with you, but I will take a gamble anyway),  said; "I have no idea what your're talking about"
                         
                         To be fair, I did say: "To be fair - to both of us, if I misunderstood ...", and, "...  if I knew what your point was..." - but that was a direct reference to you speaking of "... the inflammatory and misleading OP", when my comments had nothing to do with the OP, so what point - relative to your response to my replies was I feigning to not understand?
                         
                         Another chance for you to step up and support your " objective observations about repeated behavior patterns", and illustrate my "guilt by association"  is for you to show where I have supported Ed's comments on this thread - that was not relative to the thrust of my point.
                         
                         Lastly, I did not find your observation "objectionable," I just found it wrong - as applicable to my responses. Also, hopefully I can safely say I never get "testy" when my views are challenged. That is why I participate here. I enjoy such challenges. As, I think, is clearly shown by our exchanges here. I welcome such challenges - because I try hard to be sure of what I am addressing, and because, within that parameter, I am usually right. ;-)
                         
                         I only get "testy" when my honesty, intent, or integrity are challenged. Which, by your use of "feign," and "guilt by association," and insistence that I was speaking to something I clearly told you I was not, I did feel those were a bit personal, and as such, a challenge - yet, I still gave you the benefit of the doubt.
                         
                         Here is your chance to prove me wrong on all counts;  just address the points in this response.
                         
                         *As a preemptive note, consider my reply to Islandbites - regarding nationality as a race, when you support your contention that a nationality, or ethnicity is a race.
                         
                         GA

                         replyreport
                         1. 0

                            promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                            This is becoming a baffling conversation. I don't see any point in continually being dragged into a debate about whether Hispanics fit a dictionary defintion of a race when it has nothing to do with the original post.
                            
                            I'll say without meaning offense that you are the only person I know who seems to have consistent trouble understanding me. That's why I can't help but think it's intentional as  rhetorical tactic.
                            
                            Once again, "feign" also referred to a rhetorical tactic. I don't know why you are trying to claim it has anything to do with honesty or integrity.
                            
                            And again, "guilt by association" was in regards to your positive responses to someone who favors race baiting.

                            replyreport
                            1. 89

                               GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                               I agree you and I should just let this one go - concerning the race baiting part,  promisem.
                               
                               However, I do have a last word on your last two points. Regardless of your rhetorical tactic attribution, 'feign' is associated with pretension or deception. How can I not take that personally?
                               
                               As for my support of Ed - your guilt by association claim*, you were asked to show proof of that, yet didn't. Why?
                               *that shouldn't be taken as agreement with your characterization of Ed
                               
                               GA

                               replyreport
12. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    Personally , I've been near that border in the desert a few times , in summer and winter and to me it is neither about racism or nationalism ; It's about the costs to the more unfortunate of humanity for one  ...........
    
    
    But hey , what does a conservative know about what's good or bad
    for humanity ?

    replyreport
13. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    Now some people on the left are arguing about the difference between skin color and screaming about racism too ? Oh my how predictable . I don't suppose the laws of the land care about either one .   Promisem , the last I knew this post was about  the impending Gillum defeat because of his campaigns inherent racism and moral criminality , How is it " inflammatory and misleading" to point out that racism is as prevalent in your party and in your candidates AND In many of it's defenders - as is in the party that you constantly accuse ?
    
    The moral  definition of racism ?    When one , especially an entire  group or party , points it's fingers at a people who aren't and accuse something that isn't  ALL for political capital .
    
    Welcome to the democratic party .

    replyreport
14. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    Promisem ,  My post is definitely in response to race baiting !   I have said that before and as usual you're one , either missing that point or and this is what I believe , you are unwilling to admit your party's war on decency by a constancy of "racism " as an accusatory campaign trick .
    Period.

    replyreport
15. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    By the way "race baiting " is as clear a democratic political strategy as any losing party has ever seen .   It is a losers choice to punch low and win by a KO . but that is the modus operandi of your party , those of us on the right are tired of that and have chosen to point out such negative hypocrisy , and it seems that it's working here .
    
    Don't like it much do you ?

    replyreport
16. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    Oh thanks everyone , When am I finally just going to "get it "  that racism accused from the left is an absolute  Einstein truth no matter the circumstances and yet when it is brought up , accused  or simply defended by the right -it becomes "dog whistle " right racism material ?

    replyreport
17. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    I admit only one questionable negative thought of my own guilt for all the above , when I saw this video I reveled for a moment in the "There take that ......" for my O.P..
    
    Overall , I truly feel that the only thing worse than the outright racism of all our collective pasts is that It is just as horrible a situation TODAY when racism is accused when it is not justified  .That is a call that truly burns my butt , As to any other questions about my posts , anyone can ask me anything about my opinions without accusatory attitudes  and I will return with an answer.   As I have been blatantly accused of racism by a couple here , as anyone would,   I will only return the an attitude .

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       "Overall , I truly feel that the only thing worse than the outright racism of all our collective pasts is that It is just as horrible a situation TODAY when racism is accused when it is not justified"
       
       Do you really believe that wrongly accusing someone of racism is worse than  "the outright racism of all our collective pasts"?
       
       I'm hoping that was a misstatement.

       replyreport
18. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    Prettypanther ,Yes ,  It is the reinvention of the same racism on the cheap isn't it in one way or another ?    Of all the healing a nation of all our people have done and then to turn full it around 180 degrees and for what ? Racism is probably the most horrible invention of man and we all know that  .
    
    So let's bring it back to life ?
    
    Think about that .

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       So, you're saying being wrongly accused of racism is as terrible as the enslavement and persecution perpetrated in "our collective pasts," as you call it.
       
       Wow.

       replyreport
19. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    So you're saying you're somehow shocked that to essentially keep the meaning of racism alive even by false accusation isn't as bad ?
    Racism is racism isn't it ? I'll give you that the violence and hate of original slavery was horrible .   But for our reality today which is worse , That violence that none of us experienced personally , Or this hatred  which we create for our cultures today?
    
    It's something to think hard about .

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       "It's something to think hard about ."
       
       Actually, no.

       replyreport
20. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    Well I know one thing , most people alive today know little or appreciate the human sacrifices of the past ,except that is to USE it , for the party of the left however: 
    
    "If it gains political mileage in any way , we will use it and we will use you too ".

    replyreport