Trump has picked a fight with another Congressperson of color. This time, it's Elijah Cummings. Not only that, he basically called Baltimore a shi*hole.
While I would normally just chalk this up to Trump's typically racist ideology, I think there's a more practical reason for the attack, and it speaks not to Trump's racism, but those of his supporters.
By attacking minorities in the way he does, Trump put them on the defensive and forces them to complain about how they are being treated. There is nothing Trump's base hates more than hearing black people and hispanic people complain. When they complain, they often criticize Trump and America and are automatically lumped together as "hating America". By attacking, Trump is quite brilliantly forcing them into this box and appealing to the worst instincts of his base.
His base hears him being attacked, sees him responding, and then is treated to the complaining of people of color who seem entirely unappreciative of all the advantages they've received by simply being American. In many books, there's simply nothing worse than an unappreciative person of color. Look at all Trump's done for you! Look at all America's done for you!
And all you can do is complain.
It truly is a masterful strategy.
Interesting theory, Crank
In reference to your last paragraph, that theme seems to resonate throughout much of American History. Be content to be allotted relative crumbs from the table and stop whining or you could end up with nothing. But, don't let me forget it is ok for the Anglos and the right wingers to complain and gripe about not having the things they want, we don't want to call that hating America, now do we?
Because myself and others are not keen on rightwing BS, now we hate America? If Anglos are so shallow as to not recognize the need for continued progress within this society, then Trump is the best there is.
It would sound like the sort of attitude from people who really don't think that you belong here. Isn't that what Trump is all about?
I don't see any responses, so you must have struck a nerve.
Interesting, huh? Any black person or Hispanic person who make critical comments about how they're treated is un-American. Look at how much better you have it here than if you lived in Mexico, Trump supporters say!
Oh, that person hates America.
It really does appeal to his base.
What really bothers me is that Democrats fall into his trap - over and over and over again. So maybe they just aren't that smart?
Here's Trump, calling an American city a shi*hole and Democrats can't figure how to use his words against him? Talk about somebody who really hates America. He hates the melting pot. He hates black people. He hates American cities.
Trump wants an America that does not exist. He only loves the America that works for him. Therefore, he truly hates America.
What is obvious to us is clearly not obvious to his supporters. They have made it crystal clear that they will accept whatever means are employed by Trump to achieve their (his base) ends. They don't care what he says or does as long as they believe he is fighting for their idea of America. So far, anyway. The big question is, do they have a line that cannot be crossed? If so, he has not even come close in their view.
I don't think that he hates American cities as much as the leftist influence that is a part of them. NYC is the center of his corrupt empire, I am sure that he is more than content.
I think that there are a lot more people in society that resonate with Trump's ideas than people would have you believe. There is no other reason such a clown could be so successful.
Too many Democrats are afraid to assault the great demon and his supporters, for fear of "alienating moderates". They are paralyzed with fear about losing votes from people, having a Republican bent who could not really support us, anyway.
Battle lines are drawn and there is no room for fence sitters and accommodationists in this struggle.
I need candidates with cojones to go and slay the dragon. Those are either Warren or Sanders.
He does resist the idea of diversity, well with changing demographics he will have just that more to hate.
Attacking the people of Baltimore in the way he did is irresponsible and is pure Trump.
Trump is well aware of the ugly nature of his supporters from the gut level, but why wouldn't he know, after all, it is the stuff from which he was created by which he continues to sustain himself.
Not only un-americans, but racists also.
Waiting for the usual offenders here...
Holy cow, the Island girl is back. I was missing your posts Islandbites.
So let me grab your comment to throw myself to the lions.
I would in no way try to defend Pres. Trump's methods, intent, or word choice, but, Baltimore really is a sh*thole of a city. I say this from experience, it is only an hour and a half away and I have been there many times.
For instance; Johns Hopkins is a nationally recognized hospital in Baltimore, and both I and my daughter have spent time there. But, the area around the two-block complex of the hospital is so dangerous that security escorts are provided from the adjacent hotels and Ronald McDonalds House.
The Inner Harbor is a major Baltimore tourist attraction, but once again, the surrounding blocks are so dangerous that pay parking lots offer guarded service from the street shuttle stops to their lots.
Plus, everywhere you choose to look, non-Trump statistics; violent crime rates, murder rates, etc. back-up that assertion.
Of course, it isn't right for a president to say this. His doing so is all of the things most folks are saying; divisive, racially tinted, etc. etc. But is is also true.
Pretty please with sugar on top, don't think I am defending Pres. Trump's or methods, or intent, but his words are true.
ps. I sure hope this doesn't put me on your list of "usual offenders."
Holy cow, the Island girl is back. I was missing your posts Islandbites.
Aww. Being a first-time mom is HARD! We're adopting two sibling boys (5 and 6 yo). And we brought them home for the first time a couple of weeks ago. I have no idea what's happening in the world.
As per the rest of the comment I'll only say there are a lot of sh*thole cities/places. But the important issue is this: "Of course, it isn't right for a president to say this. His doing so is all of the things most folks are saying; divisive, racially tinted, etc. etc."
*You're not on the list. At least I don't remember you calling people racists when they denounce racism.
Two at a time? That is courageous, and since they are siblings, very compassionate. Good luck to you and your husband.
I echo GA's sentiments and wish you and your children the best. :-)
Here is a second non-topic question for you. I am just asking for a personal opinion.
I was tempted to say something like "Good to see you back girl." But, a recent conversation with my oldest daughter stopped me.
She has an issue with a supervisor that addressed her as "girl," (she has a problem with that), and from the context of her explanation, I would not have seen the supervisor's intent as anything more than an informal effort to communicate.
Am I missing the boat here? Is a casual and in my opinion camaraderie-type address of "girl" demeaning and offensive?
At least you're thinking about it, boy.
Ha! I got the "boy" inference. However, my query was a serious one. Although maybe an unnecessary one.
In previous times I would have thought there was absolutely nothing negative to the use of "girl" in my conversations with you. Contrarily, I would have seen it as a validation of camaraderie.
But now, in the PC world, what I would have seen as a positive is a negative. How's a fellow supposed to keep up with all this "new world" stuff? :-)
In case I slip-up, if it is not obvious, and I address a comment with "girl" or "bud" it is intended as a compliment. So if it is taken as an offense than that is on you. This dog is too old to learn all the new tricks.
Most women will just let that stuff go, GA. Now, if the "girl" moniker is also accompanied by other demeaning or condescending behaviors, then it becomes a greater issue. Otherwise, for most of us it's no big deal. At least, for my generation. Maybe the younger generation has higher expectations, as they should.
I gotcha PrettyPanther, I do understand the difference in "times."
I was just saying that I understand that in such instances I may be a dinosaur. What I would have thought to be an innocent compliment is now seen as a definite slur.
Oh well, times change, and I will try to keep up. ;-)
I have no problem with anyone calling me girl. That's not to say that some could have a problem with that and it should be acknowledged and respected.
I don't think you're missing the boat. But something that you (or many of us) do not find offensive could be offensive for someone else.
How is commenting on the sad state of housing in a city racist? Is it your contention that only minorities live in a Baltimore? That isn't factually correct. Are you saying that no criticism can be made of anything which is even loosely affiliated with a politician of color? Isn't that racist?
Edit. If commenting on problems in Baltimore is racist why don't we hear the same complaint when commenting on problems in San Francisco?
So he was just generally commenting on housing in Baltimore? Nothing to do with Cummings? And his tweets this morning had nothing to do with Al Sharpton either?
Jeez, what does it take to convince the blind to see? A child can understand better than some on the Right.
Randy, that's my frustration too. I literally liken some of the responses to children. I don't know what to make of it and it's frustrating. It's just constant denial. I suppose they felt the same way when we brushed off Hillary Clinton's email destruction. Oh, just an accident. I can see that.
The difference was HRC didn't use racism as a tool to divide people like Trump does. The right twists themselves in Knots trying to explain his behavior and tweets about others who criticize him about anything.
He's simply a childish little creep in my opinion.
I haven't seen anything about tweets this morning. Cummings does represent Baltimore. Is there a problem in Baltimore? If so, should we turn a blind eye, because of optics? I saw a news conference where leaders in Baltimore said yes there is a problem and suggested Trump help, not criticize.
I'd love to see help for any area with sub standard housing or homeless. We certainly won't see a need for funds if we don't admit there are problems.
Trump is a jerk but why can't we see issues instead of color? The left screams racist but conveniently forgets Trump is an equal opportunity insulter.
I think I disagree that he's an equal opportunity insulter, but I will agree that the tone of his insults don't change with the color of somebody's skin. I think overall he just looks for whatever he perceives as weakness and if that happens to be skin color, he just goes after it.
However, it's not Trump himself that I'm really aiming at with this post, it's his supporters. If Trump himself is not a racist, he seems to use racist attacks to rile up his supporters because he knows that language resonates with them.
I'm a part of a rainbow family. I'm just curious because I'm not on Twitter. What, specifically, was the racist comment? He said something about being rat infested and no human would want to live there, if I remember what I did see.
Tell me, what human would want to live with rats?
Was there something specific. About race?
I replied below. The very specific use of rat-infested mirrors how the Nazis depicted the Jews as rats. So, unless you believe words don't have historical meaning or just accept this as coincidence. Did he use "rat infested" by accident or is it just in his lexicon because his dad used it all the time to describe people he didn't like. Why is that a go-to term for him and why did he use it?
"....he seems to use racist attacks to rile up his supporters because he knows that language resonates with them."
This is exactly right, though there is mounting evidence that these attacks are costing him some support among working class white women (apparently not those on hubpages) while cementing his support among working class white men.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … en/594805/
Also, Trump used the very specific term "rat-infested", which harkens back to the Nazis use of the rat as a depiction of Jews.
This is not to say that Trump is also an anti-semite, but to say that language actually matters and these words have meaning and they refer to specific things in history.
<bangs head against wall>
Really? When I say my barn is rat infested am I a closet antisemite or racist?
What about a grain silo? Should the farmer avoid terms like rat and use rodent? Little furry creature?
Just need some clarification because, thus far, if that is the extent of the evidence I'm confused.
I used to work with a black guy from New York and he'd regale us with stories of the size of the rats in Manhattan. Is he racist or antisemitic?
Are you really not smart enough to understand the difference between when the President of the United States uses historical imagery and attacks a group vs. when an average person is describing an actual situation? Either Trump is not smart enough to know what he is doing or he knows exactly what he’s doing.
The people I referenced were all political figures using the terminology, or some semblance, you would call racist.
As stated. I haven't seen the tweet but if rat infested is the verbiage you find offensive I'm just saying that is not racist
"Also, Trump used the very specific term "rat-infested", which harkens back to the Nazis use of the rat as a depiction of Jews."
As my juniors would say; OMG! Where the hell did that come from?
Finding a Nazi connection with the term "rat-infested" is a stretch that I would never have imagined.
Come on Crankalicioius, do you really believe that?
The connection between black people and other races as being dirty is also a common racist stereotype used throughout history.
That is a new thought in this exchange Crankilicious, and it is all yours.
I won't go ''there'." That one is on you.
GA, I hardly made this up. Trump does not have to employ this language to make his points. He's choosing to do so. If you are ignorant of the history of both the country and the world (which I doubt you are) then that's on you.
Minorities have been linked to being dirty for a long time as a way to demean them.
I'm less about accusing Trump of being racist as I am asking the question why he's employing this language. Why does he believe his supporters will respond to it?
The fact that you equate dirty to minority does not mean everyone has to tiptoe around that racist take on a term we've all used in multiple scenarios. None of which are racist.
Wow. I must admit, this post gets under my skin. I imagine if you're a Holocaust denier and Trump says something about gassing all the black people and I remind you that he's making a racist statement related to the Holocaust, your response would be (and probably is anyway): "oh, just because you wan't to gas the Jews doesn't mean we all have to get down in the gutter with you."
It's an actual fact that characterizing people as being dirty is a way people have used racism to rile people up, be it in war or at other times, your inability to understand historical context not withstanding. When you are President of the United States, your words exist within the historical landscape. Your words have meaning. You are part of history. Dirty is a term used to demean races, your ignorance notwithstanding.
When you attack black people for being dirty or living dirty or tell them to "go back home", you do so knowing how those same words have been used in the past OR you do so understanding just how inflammatory those words can sound and how people react to them.
Even a minimal amount of research and/or reading will illuminate this issue for you.
I don't believe any of us are surprised you defend Trump no matter what he says, LTL. In a way you're reassuring us we're on the right track...
I can certainly understand a simple statement that a specific term is not automatically racist would seem, to you, defense of Trump.
Not a coincidence you would say that, LTL. You always find a way to justify Trump's racism. As I said, thanks for your reassurance.
I'm not justifying anything. Show me racism and I'll denounce it. Hating Trump is not justification for a biased take on something.
I shouldn't be biased when addressing a racist? I don't hate Trump, LTL. Accusing some of hating Trump is the latest excuse from the Right wing. I would have to have a modicum of respect for the cretin before hating him.
Try again without resorting to the hate thing. I dislike him because he's a dishonest pervert who's trying to overreach his authority. That's as good a reason as any.
There is so much food for fodder when complaining about Trump. His comments about Baltimore are not among them.
Your bias is peeking out from under your skirt.
Well, it certainly got interesting today. Al Sharpton had come to Cummings defense then Trump attacked Al Sharpton and in so doing, called him a "con man".
Rev. Sharpton came back with (paraphrasing now) if I were a con man, Trump would be appointing me to his cabinet.
It truly is a masterful strategy"
In my opinion, when Cumings went after Trump for what is going on at the borders, Trump came back at him and went for the throat... It certainly has brought attention to the horrible conditions in parts of Baltimore.
Today Trump sent Ben Carson to Baltimore to assess the situation, and come up with how the government can help. Trump complained he felt federal funds were being misappropriated. Hopefully, something positive can come out of Carson's visit. It is clear Trump has pointed out a serious ongoing problem The people that are living in the poor conditions in parts of Baltimore need help, not Trump and Cummings fighting. I am impressed Trump sent Carson so quickly to come up with idea's to alleviate the problem. I am going to keep my eye out for if anything comes of the visit.
Personally, I think Trump planned this scenario. If he points out a problem, and then steps in to help fix it. Well, How does that look to the people that he is helping? The Dem's have not solved the Baltimores problem, and they had tons of cash to work on it. Which due to Trump letting them know that fact. Well, you get the point.
"Over the last five years, Baltimore has received $903 million in federal grants for operating and capital expenses, according to city budget documents. Over the same period, the federal government also provided $1.1 billion to the Housing Authority of Baltimore City, according to USASpending.gov."
As one of Trump's base, you sure can spin a nice scenario, Shar. Yes, Trump is brilliant with his racist rants. What a nice guy!
Just pointed out he is very manipulative in the way he operates. I mean if he comes off as helping the people of Baltimore, Fox will be reporting it. Yes, his base will appreciate his job performance. I have always been a fan of his job performance. I have made no secret of that. After watching Trump over these past couple years, it's easy to see he is always one step ahead of the Dems. And. I would think they would have noted that?
Where do you live, Shar? Fantasyland? No doubt he's very manipulative, but only to his base as he has them completely fooled. You're a good example of it yourself.
Yes, he is a master manipulator. He is a puppet master... And he certainly has a base that loves this trait. He is doing a fabulous job manipulating the Dem's in Washington. I mean he has them jumping through hoops wearing tutus. Just my opinion
I'll take your opinion as if it were directly from Donnie's mouth, Shar.
I would think that you would take my opinion on the smart thing to do. I have repeated this sentiment a couple of times. I can assure you no one puts words in my mouth.
No, I cannot, Shar. I don't believe you know what "the smart thing to do" is. After all, you voted for the Cretin-in-Chief....
Yes, as I have said many times, I voted for Trump, and I am pleased I did. he is doing a good job working on some major problems I wanted to solve. Plus, his economy has the country breaking all-time records. Hopefully, he will continue his quest to fix our broken immigration laws, and I can't forget the unfair trade deals we have been forced to live with due to poor governing. Just two day ago the Trump administration announced that they are outlining two possible ways certain drugs that were intended for foreign markets could be imported to the U.S. — a move that would clear the way to import some prescription drugs from Canada and pass on lower costs to Americans. I could go on and on with things you may not be aware of. Shame you only tune into CNN.
I am going to start thinking positive and post all the wonderful positive accomplishments of the Trump administration. It's my duty... Otherwise, some just won't realize what the hell is really going on. Don't worry I got your back, I won't let you drownd in sheep feed.
Can't wait to see what he has planned for the next 4 years.
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/31/74690550 … ted-to-u-s
I watch many different news sources Shar, including the white racist Fox News. Trump inherited a growing economy from Obama who saved us from a recession caused by the last Republican POTUS.
Did you vote for Dubya, Shar? If so, do you take any credit for the recession Obama inherited? Do you believe Trump could have achieved such a good economy if he inherited as big a mess as the Republicans left for Obama?
I seriously doubt it, in fact Trump lied about the numbers until he became POTUS, didn't he? Why do you suppose he did that, Shar?
Good Lawd - talk about delusional. Trump has done more for people of color than any president before him. Many people, including many black people, are on record saying the same thing about Baltimore. Nobody said they were racist. Cummings is a crook who does nothing for the people he is supposed to represent.
That's simply not true, but anyway, don't you just love it when Donald Trump's retardation ALWAYS comes around full circle to bite him in his obese posterior: If he's worried about Baltimore so much, maybe he should start with his son in law "SLUMMY" Jared: lol, if this clown wasn't such a serious detriment to this once great country he'd be the biggest JOKE on the panet: UNREAL:
"Ask 'slumlord' Jared Kushner: Pelosi criticizes Trump's Baltimore comments"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 893790001/
"Trump has done more for people of color than any president before him. "
That's bullsh@t, and how would you know?
Whatever Cummings has done, he is an amateur compared to Trump.
It wasn't racist when Elijah Cummings called Baltimore drug infested and likened it's residents to zombies.
You guys remind me of a Dear Abby hoopla. She claimed we all have dreams of having sex with our parents. Even if you haven't. She said you did, you just don't remember them.
Labeling people without knowing them shows an arrogance that is just as mind boggling.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Can you explain?
You assume people are racist because they aren't seeing racism, but the only thing anyone has told me is the term 'rat infested' is racist. I've never heard that.
Let me give you another comparison. Jehovah Witnesses say we shouldn't celebrate Halloween because (according to them) it originates from people mourning the dead after the flood. I laugh because that makes no sense. Even if that were true, it doesn't mean that to me so it is still silly.
You're really not making any sense.
All I can say is, if you constantly have to explain to others that you're not racist, you're probably a racist.
Also, racists usually don't consider themselves to be racist. They truly believe their biases are based on truth.
Here is a link where a past mayor of Baltimore was complaining about the rat infested conditions
https://www.theblaze.com/news/baltimore … -last-year
Bernie Sanders compared Baltimore to a third world country.
When no one can explain a scream of racism and just reverts to explanations that it's racist not to see racism but doesn't cry racist when others make the same statement....it really doesn't make you wonder. You already know what is going on.
I think the thing that bothers me the most is how easy it is for some to think so negatively about their fellow man. I guess some just like to dig their heels in other's backs to make them feel better in their made up world. Insecurity. It's a pain.
Sigh....the subject is the president's use of racist attacks to fire up his base. We can agree to disagree that that is what Donald Trump is doing. That I can accept.
But to turn this discussion into this: ""I guess some just like to dig their heels in other's backs to make them feel better in their made up world. Insecurity."
That's just ridiculous. Donald Trump has displayed a pattern of racism for years. He has displayed a pattern of using racist remarks to fire up his base from the very beginning of his political life.
To characterize legitimate criticisms of these tactics as "digging their heels in other's backs to make them feel better in their made up world. Insecurity" is such a ridiculous reach of gigantic proportions as to be richly comedic.
Kentucky counties make up 10 of the 25 worst places to live in the US
I'm waiting for Trump to tell Mitch to go back home and fix the $hitholes in his state.
Then he would at least be one step closer to being an equal opportunity insulter,
If Mich would just attack Trump, he might get that treatment.
This article references 3 areas that was use to determined the worse counties to live in.
If a person has a bachelors degree
and life expectancy.
This is not a good comparison article for the debate being had in this thread which is (I think anyways) areas that are
Horrible living conditions
But, it is true, that the areas in KY need more job opportunities other than coal mines and better options for providing opportunities for higher education. But, that can be said for many areas in many states. And just about every state has areas like that.
There are plenty of people in congress that need to focus on fixing things in their represented areas on both sides of the fence.
As someone who is politically independent and don't agree with how the president presents many things...what I can say, is that Trump tends to attack those who attack him or who's policies "attack" his...and it happens that many of those people happen to be democrat and people of color.
It would be nice if they all could figure out how to work together and fix some of our more pressing issues, instead of just fighting all the time...
I don't ascribe to the "Obama did it". Trump built the economy with his tax cuts and cutting every regulation Obama signed. he was just a do-nothing celebrity president. History will not be kind to him... I told you many times I did not vote for Bush. Trump was the first republican I have voted for. I am now a registered Republican. Six million jobs Randy, 6 million.
Check the numbers, Shar. You're fooling yourself if you believe Trump inherited a failing economy as Obama certainly did. That was the reason Trump said Obama's numbers were false, but they suddenly became real when Trump took office. What a liar you promote...
How many jobs were there under Obama's terms? And what were the unemployment numbers before and after Obama was in office?
You are absolutely right. Obama bought his way out of a recession (a tried and true method), although we didn't get anything for it this time. No new roads, no dams, no big repairs...just giveaways. And he produced the slowest recovery in history, but it was a recovery, and we had a reasonable unemployment/employment picture. Not good, but far from being bad, either.
Since then Trump's actions and policies have produced the lowest unemployment/highest employment in many, many decades. They have produced the highest stock market in history. They brought back thousands of jobs that had been outsourced for lower wages and taxes.
But those results were all due to the high taxes and punitive rules from Obama, right? Nothing Trump did brought manufacturing back from overseas, did nothing for the stock market and produced no new jobs, right?
Trump and his dad have a very long history of racism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_vi … nald_Trump
Wow, downright delusional. "Trump built the economy". Sure. That economy just appeared out of thin air.
Remember, deregulation is fantastic until it stops working, which is what Bush found out.
No, it appeared via cutting stifling regulations, as well as the new tax breaks. The Trump economy has provided 6 million jobs, and the lowest unemployment ever. You can talk till your blue in the face, Obama had nothing to do with the Trump economy. Not even willing to discuss it.
You don't know what you're talking about, like in a profound way. Some new economy didn't just appear out of thin air the day Trump took office. In fact, he pulled the same Keynesian stunt Obama used, which is he took a whole heap of taxpayer money, tossed it into the economy, and claimed the new spending represented growth. It's short-lived. That growth is temporary because the tax cut spending is temporary. The basics of the economy have been the same. It grew under Obama and has continued to grow under Trump. To say Trump deserves all the credit for an economy that already existed is the worst kind of political hogwash. Fake news, as you'd probably say.
And to elaborate just a bit - a tax cut is not spending, but since the government didn't have the money to pay for the cut and didn't cut spending, now they're just spending the same with less revenue, hoping the economy grows to cover it. That could still happen.
Undoubtedly, cutting some regulations will result in growth for businesses. However, it can also result in increased pollution and increased government spending to clean the dirty air and water and whatever else. We don't really know the end result yet. We do though, have a pretty good case study with the Bush economy, where "stifling" regulations were also cut resulting in all kinds of malfeasance that ended up nearly destroying the economy.
A mess, btw, Obama was left to fix, which he did. Still amazes me all you Trump supporters don't give him an ounce of credit for that. He did nothing, as far as you are concerned. Remember when the stock market was hovering around 8000? Up 148% when he left. How much is the stock market up since Trump took office? 30%?
Sorry, we just disagree, and it is very clear or thought the process is at odds. Not willing to expend energy on this subject.
I will agree Obama had a mess to fix, as all presidents as a rule do. As did Trump with the mess with immigration, and the horrific unemployment. As well as the crisis that had our military waiting inline for medical care. Let's not forget the trade mess. H walked into problems that have been kicked under a rug for 30 some years...Trump either solved some of these problems or in the case of immigration he is working on solving. You may not realize it but this president is a fixer. And he works daily around all the hysteria that is thrown in his path.
Sorry, we don't disagree. One of us knows what he's talking about and the other one doesn't. The economy doesn't just start anew when the President takes office. Horrific unemployment? The unemployment rate when Obama left office was 4.8%. It's 3.7% now. It's nearly impossible to tell given the momentum of the existing economy, how far that would have continued to drop, but I give Trump credit there. That's how it works. He's President, he gets credit. Obama was President when the stock market went up 148%, unemployment dropped, jobs increased massively. Under Obama, over 11 million jobs were created.
You seem to be under some serious delusion that because Trump is telling you he's solved problems, they're actually solved. The problems with the VA have not be solved, not even close. And I won't even blame Trump there - that's the job of Congress. They don't want to fund the VA properly. The trade mess maybe worse than ever (though I actually support Trump's stance on China).
The President is a proven liar and if you're post is any indication ("horrific unemployment), so are you, or just completely oblivious to facts.
"Under Obama, over 11 million jobs were created." in 8 years... Trump accomplished 6 million in two and a half years.
"Unemployment rate unchanged at 4.9 percent in July 2016. At 4.9 percent, the unemployment rate was unchanged in July 2016. The number of people who were unemployed, at 7.8 million, was little changed over the month. Both measures have shown little overall movement since August 2015." Please check the chart to obtain Obama's history on unemployment.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2016/mobil … y-2016.htm
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 673906002/
Trump attacking Baltimore is another brilliant move by Trump. His son in law owns 15-20 some odd complexes, housing 20,000+ people, has been deemed a slum lord, with rat & maggot infestations, unlivable conditions, hundreds of citations and is currently being sued. Trump can step in and "fix" the problem and then boast how he's the greatest thing since the wheel.
I took a minute to see if there was any substance to Pres. Trump's Baltimore criticisms.
First, there is no doubt Pres. Trump's comments were crude and politically incorrect. And, they were also a direct assault on Rep. Elijah Cummings. But, were they wrong?
No matter how crude, divisive and attacking Pres. Trump's remarks are, shouldn't a key consideration be if they are correct?
A quick look tells us that:
"Over the last five years, Baltimore has received $903 million in federal grants for operating and capital expenses, according to city budget documents. Over the same period, the federal government also provided $1.1 billion to the Housing Authority of Baltimore City, according to USASpending.gov."
That same look tells us that:
Baltimore had the worst homicide rate among the nation’s 50 largest cities last year and the second-highest violent crime rate overall, according to new data from the FBI.
Then a look at Rep. Cummings efforts:
Resurfaced video shows Elijah Cummings calling Baltimore 'drug infested,' likening residents to 'zombies'
House Of Congressman Elijah Cummings Burglarized: Report
So, if the facts of Pres. Trump's comments are true, then where do we look for the criticism of his making these statements?
The obvious first assumption is that Pres. Trump is striking back at those that criticize him. In this case, it is a strike back at Rep. Elizah Cunnings for his comments about Pres. Trump. being racist for attacking the "squad,"
So Trump hits back. Regardless of the perceived impropriety of the President's tweet. The facts seem to support his statements as being true.
What has Rep. Cunnings done to improve Baltimore? According to his web site. Elijah E. Cummings U.S. Representative 7th District, not much.
So, does the truth of Pres. Trump's tweets mitigate the divisive effect of them? Or, is the truth just a casualty of the Democrat Trump hate?
Oh, come on. If Trump sincerely cared about the condition of Baltimore he would be reaching out to Cummings to help fix the problems. And don't give me some BS about Trump defending himself. He starts these stupid fights with his own childish tantrums.
There is no defense for this behavior from a POTUS. Our nation and our people deserve better than this.
GA's comment, "In this case, it is a strike back at Rep. Elizah Cunnings for his comments about Pres. Trump. being racist for attacking the "squad," is untrue then? Trump started this stupid fight with his own tantrum?
Or did Cummings start by accusing Trump of racism?
Trump started this mess by attacking four congresswomen by criticizing them personally and using a well-known racist statement rather than simply challenging their ideas. Cummings rightly defended them.
Our POTUS is a tantrum-throwing racist toddler and there is no way in hell he actually cares about Baltimore, To suggest that he was merely telling the truth is ridiculous. Yes, from what I'm reading, there are parts of Baltimore that could be described that way, bu I'm pretty confident parts of any large urban are could be described the same way.
Again, Trump doesn't care about Baltimore; he only cares about promoting himself at the expense of everyone else and at the total embarrassment of our country.
So, Trump should have left years ago, given how much he complained during Obama's presidency. Right?
That is such a childish and simple-minded way to look at complex issues.
I think you missed the point...
What these two brothers are talking about...is that "They weren't told to leave, but to go and fix their home countries government and then come back and show us how it is done."
So? It's still a childish and simple-minded remark, especially coming from a POTUS Just because two guys on social media like it doesn't make it any less childish and inflammatory.
So now, "Rat-infested" has become ". . . a well-known racist statement . . ."
It's a 'dog-whistle,' a trope, a codeword?
Why can't it be taken to mean just what it says; rat-infested? That is what interviewed Baltimore residents say it means. They say rat-infested. They speak of hearing the rats gnawing and scurrying in their walls.
There are a couple of links that point to a tweet from CNN's Erin Burnett's Out Front account as the first media presentation that rat-infested was just a racial codeword.
Does that mean that even if it is true you still can't say it? Would a charge of rodent-infested also be a racist codeword slur?
You may be right about your "parts of Baltimore" thought, but you would need to reverse it to parts of Baltimore that are not rat-infested dangerous areas.
I said: "Trump started this mess by attacking four congresswomen by criticizing them personally and using a well-known racist statement rather than simply challenging their ideas. Cummings rightly defended them."
I was referring to Trump telling the four congresswomen to go home.
Oops, looks like I credited you with the wrong racist slur. Sorry.
For the record, I don't think that accurately referring to parts of a city as rat-infested is, in and of itself, racist.
I do think this entire episode was intentionally instigated by Trump as a distraction and as red meat for his base. So what if it's true? Pretty much every large urban area has run-down areas of blight. I don't think Trump was motivated by caring for the poor people who live in those areas. He did this solely to divide and distract.
Does that mean that even if it is true you still can't say it? Would a charge of rodent-infested also be a racist codeword slur?
Yes, you can say it. (Btw, "you" can say it even as a racial slur. Just be prepared to be called a racist.)
Do you think there are statements that although true, are also offensive and racist?
Let's see. "John" is a black man. John likes watermelon. That's a fact. Nothing wrong with that. Now, if someone says call that watermelon-eater, get that watermelon-eater out of here... Do you consider it racist or do you give them a pass because is true?
*How many benefit-of-the-doubt cards you have left?
Hi, GA! (Yes, they're playing!)
I have to give you a new moniker. It can't be Island Girl anymore. It's Island Mom now. I am going to track down your facebook so I can see some pictures.
On the topic; yes, a statement can be true and racist, but like your watermelon example, there is a contextual need in order for that to be true.
Do you see that needed context in the use of Rat-infested?
(I can't post any pictures for now, it is not legal yet. So they are still "government kids". )
Yes, I not only see that needed context (btw, the whole statement was racist, not only the rat infested part) but also a pattern.
I see it, too.
I can understand a genuine belief that this particular attack, as a one-off stand alone attack, is not racist. But in the context of how the conflict started, which is itself within the context of a years-long history of racist rhetoric and actions, I don't. understand how it could be viewed as anything other than yet more racist rhetoric from a life-long racist.
Trump is painting one consistent image in the minds of his supporters about racial differences by the subjects of his attacks: Black, Hispanic, Mexico, Africa, Central America, Puerto Rico, the Squad, Cummings, Baltimore.
He of course never talks this way about Russians.
As President of the United States, he could show leadership on racial divisiveness by making public statements or supporting laws against racism.
But of course he does not.
What he doesn't do says a lot about his strategy.
Yes, it would be humorous if the Right didn't make all sorts of excuses for Trump's running off at the mouth, but they seem to be accustomed to it at this point. He could use the "n" word--and has according to some who know him--and his fans would cook up some kind of unbelievable reason for it.
GA, you ask the question: " . . . were [Trump's comments] wrong?" and you concluded "[t]he facts seem to support his statements as being true".
I have questions.
Trump's first comment was:
"Rep, Elijah Cummings has been a brutal bully, shouting and screaming at the great men & women of Border Patrol about conditions at the Southern Border, when actually his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous. His district is considered the Worst in the USA......"
There are four assertions here:
Cummings has been a "brutal bully".
Cummings has be "screaming" at Border Patrol about conditions on the Southern Border.
Baltimore is "far worse and more dangerous" (than conditions at the Southern Border)
Baltimore is the "worst district in the USA".
1. Exactly which facts support the assertion that Cummings is a "brutal bully"?
2. Which facts support the characterization of Cummings "screaming" at Border Patrol about conditions on the Southern Border (as opposed to simply expressing his grave concerns about those conditions, like many others, in a completely appropriate way, and in-keeping with his Constitutional Duty as a member of Congress)?
3. What is the rate of violent crime along the southern border? If you do not know, how do you know Baltimore is "more dangerous" than the Southern border (assuming crime is the only measure being used to determine the danger)?
4. Which other districts have you compared Baltimore to that allows you to determine Trump's comment that Baltimore is "the worst" is accurate, and what measures did you use?
Trump's next comment was:
"...As proven last week during a Congressional tour, the Border is clean, efficient & well run, just very crowded. Cumming District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place"
Three assertions here:
The border is "clean, efficient, and well run, just very crowded"
Cumming's district (Maryland's 7th congressional district) is a "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess".
Cummings does not spend enough time in Baltimore (implied).
5. Which facts establish Trump's claim that facilities on the southern border are "clean, efficient, and well run" (as opposed to unclean, inefficient and poorly run)?
6. Which facts establish that Trump's description of the district as a "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess" is accurate?
7. How much time does Cummings spend in Baltimore? If you do not know, on what basis have you established that Trump's claim about how much time Cummings spends there is accurate? And what constitutes enough time?
Trump's next comment was:
"Why is so much money sent to the Elijah Cummings district when it is considered the worst run and most dangerous anywhere in the United States. No human being would want to live there. Where is all this money going? How much is stolen? Investigate this corrupt mess immediately!"
The district is the "worst run and most dangerous anywhere in the United States"
No human being would want to live in the district
Money sent to the district has been "stolen"
The areas in Maryland's 7th congressional district are corrupt
8. Again, which other districts have you compared Baltimore to that allows you to determine Trump's comment that this district as the "worst run" and "most dangerous" in the US, is true? And what measures did you use?
9. What facts establish that "no human would want to live there"?
10. What facts establish Trump's claim money sent to the district has been stolen?
One more comment from Trump:
"Elijah Cummings spends all of his time trying to hurt innocent people through “Oversight.” He does NOTHING for his very poor, very dangerous and very badly run district! Take a look...."
Cummings spends all of his time trying to hurt innocent people through oversight
Cummings does nothing for his constituents
11. How much time does Cummings spend on his oversight role? If you don't know, how have you determined Trump's assertion is true?
12. What facts establish that Cummings is trying to "hurt innocent people" through his congressional oversight role?
13. What facts establish that Cummings does "nothing" for his constituents?
There are more Trump comments, but these were the comments made on July 27.
That was a lot of work Don. You must have some time on your hands.
However, as it can be noted in the general context and content of my comment, I was addressing the generality of his statements about the condition of Baltimore and the efforts of Representative Cummings to correct things in his district, (at least).
Do you think a dissection and parsing of the entirety of the president's comments would change the reality of the condition of that city--in general, or show proof of Rep. Cummings' dedicated efforts to make things better?
If you do, then I would certainly be glad to offer a more refined and point-specific response. However, as mentioned, I live in relative proximity to Baltimore and have traveled there and had occasion to stay there many times. My experiences match the experiences of the quoted residents.
I admit I did not dig too deeply into Cummings efforts, but it would seem his own site would be the place to promote his successes and I didn't see much there.
Should I dig deeper into his 37 years of Maryland/Baltimore political achievements?
Generally speaking, the president's statements about the condition of Baltimore, and Rep. Cummings' efforts seem true. I will stick with my general response and leave the parsing of this one to you, Don.
I have to say, I am really disappointed in this response.
Don's elucidation of Trump's remarks brings home how completely unacceptable it is for a president to say such things, but here we are feebly talking about the "general" truth of it.
As I feared would happen when he was elected, Trump has normalized this behavior.
If you are disappointed PrettyPanther it is because you read more into my comment than was there.
I didn't say it was acceptable for the president to say those things:
"First, there is no doubt Pres. Trump's comments were crude and politically incorrect. "
"No matter how crude, divisive and attacking Pres. Trump's remarks are. . . "
And then in reply to Don's response:
"I was addressing the generality of his statements about the condition of Baltimore and the efforts of Representative Cummings to correct things in his district, (at least)."
I didn't defend how he said what he did, I only spoke to two aspects; the truth of the characterization of the city and the Congressman's efforts.
You are shooting the messengers. One because you don't like the messenger, and the other because you don't like the message.
I think you are also misinterpreting my disappointment. I am disappointed that you would take the time to argue the truth of the statements, as though it matters at all within the context of the entire disgusting episode.
I understand your disappointment. Perhaps you can understand mine.
That I see the same hate, disgust, and diminishment of the importance of truth coming from the Trump criticizers as they claim to see from Trump defenders.
You speak of normalizing Pres. Trump's behavior and I am pointing out the weaponization of charges of racism. It seems truth only matters if you, (generic), support the message, (or messenger).
Micro-aggressions, triggers, codewords, dog whistles . . . is there any message that can't be twisted when such definers are considered?
I can find a basket full of what I consider obvious criticisms of the president's manners, methods, character, and messages without having to hunt for secret hidden meanings or dog whistles. Why do the anti-Trumpers need those things to support their criticisms?
When the truth becomes dependent on who is speaking it, or when an effort to determine a truth is a disappointment, then a good look in the mirror might be revealing.
"I was addressing the generality of his statements about the condition of Baltimore and the efforts of Representative Cummings to correct things in his district . . ."
That raises the question, why should 2 assertions out of at least 13 be the "key consideration" here GA?
Why is what you perceive as the "general truth" more important than the many falsehoods, and/or unsubstantiated claims Trump has made in these attacks?
The "crude, divisive and attacking" nature of Trump's attacks are the key consideration here. Even more so, because those comments are perceived by sections of the community as having racial connotations, and I can understand why.
We know black people, especially black men, are often stereotyped as brutes, and lazy, and criminals, by white supremacists. The assertions that Cummings is a "brutal bully"; has done "nothing" to help his constituents; is "hurting innocent people"; is "corrupt", all echo those racial stereotypes. Here is the first definition of "brutal" returned by Google:
synonyms: savage, cruel, bloodthirsty, vicious, ferocious, barbaric, barbarous"
I don't know of any white members of Congress Trump has characterised as "savagely violent" or "barbaric". So when you say Trump is "striking back at those that criticize him" that's not entirely accurate is it. He is attacking people of color in a way that is noticeably different to his attacks on others. Those attacks always relate to being less clean, less safe, more dangerous, less trustworthy etc.
That is not merely being "politically incorrect". It's racism. So you saying, hey two things Trump said might be true, strikes me as being more than a little tone-deaf.
Don, to resort to offering definition cut & pastes is, to me, and following in the vein of the previous two posts; a disappointment.
Did you think I needed the clarification of a definition? Do you think it bolsters your point?
Although I offered this clarification earlier, perhaps like your offered "definition," your response indicates I might need to clarify my point. Did you find anything in my original response that addressed "[T]he "crude, divisive and attacking" nature of Trump's attacks . . . "?
If a singular message is delivered with 13 accompanying descriptors or characterizations, is the message negated by inaccuracy or delivery error in any of those 13 accompaniments?
If a singular message is addressed is its legitimacy negated because 13 other points weren't equally addressed?
If I agreed with you that;
"There are four assertions here:
Cummings has been a "brutal bully".
Cummings has be "screaming" at Border Patrol about conditions on the Southern Border.
Baltimore is "far worse and more dangerous" (than conditions at the Southern Border)
Baltimore is the "worst district in the USA".
. . . are only opinion statements and are factually unsupportable, and are also standard tools of a particular assault method, would that negate the truth of the points I did address?
To follow with more of your original comment would divert to a tangent about the border. That tangent was your introduction, not mine. So I will leave that one with you.
"The "crude, divisive and attacking" nature of Trump's attacks are the key consideration here."
They may be for you and your response point, but they weren't for me, my comment only addressed two aspects. Hopefully, I don't need to re-quote what those two aspects were.
I will also leave "What we know . . . " and what is ". . . perceived by sections of the community . . . " to your perception. I didn't address them - you did.
If I had been discussing all of Pres. Trump's tweets and comments my response would have very different. If I had been discussing the "perceptions" that may have been drawn from his tweets and comments my response would have been different.
Can you dispute the truth of the points I did discuss? I am sure it is possible, but you chose a different road.
Discussions are going to get pretty tough if a demand for totality is the
As an ending note; I am confident I can assure you I am not "tone deaf" I think I am very aware of both tones. The one president Trump is sounding, and the one anti-Trumpers are sounding. Both are full of sour notes.
Cut & paste definitions . . . Really Don?
Do you see the shooting in El Paso as a racist event, Gus?
What the hell does that have to do with this discussion Randy?
I admit I had to Google it to know what you were talking about.
A CNN article that says it was updated "1 minute" ago mentions a facebook-posted "manifesto" but no details of that manifesto.
It also notes a 7:30 pm (ET) press conference that I just turned to.
I will watch the latest news, but what information do you have to so quickly ask me if it was a "racist" event?
The details of the event, GA. It's been on TV all afternoon and I figured you already saw it. Sorry to piss you off, Gus. Geeze, have a martini or something!
Okay bud, I did jump in feet first. Following the tone of this thread, your comment did come across, probably, different than you intended, (you get the same benefit of the doubt I give Trump).
I haven't been watching the news today so I was unaware this had even happened.
A martini sounds like a good idea.
I'll get back to you.
No prob, Gus! An adult beverage is called for this time on a Saturday evening. I don't care who you are...
That martini did prompt me to hold off until today to see if there was any new confirmed information Randy.
Nope, the speculation is stronger, but nothing new, (relative to motive and postings).
But I will go along with the implications of the speculation that seems to have been enough for you.
You get to use a whole handful of labels; Domestic terrorist, White Nationalist, anti-Democrat, anti-immigrant, paranoid nutcase. And racist was even mentioned by CNN once - relative to his anti-immigrant writings.
Almost everyone is calling him a domestic terrorist, and many are calling this a hate crime based on the speculation of his online writings.
But, and I don't know enough yet to say the same, many of the authorities, pundits, and talking heads are treading lightly on the racist label. Except, as mentioned, CNN of course.
And as Islandbites insinuates, it doesn't matter if his racism was directed at immigrants in general. They are mostly brown right, so they qualify.
I have watched the news conference, and the following minutes of CNN coverage . . .
Randy, "... you got some 'splaining to do."
With so little information confirmed about this incident, why the hell would you ask me that question?
A guy that kills 20+ people, regardless of his motivation is a nutcase. Whether his motivation is racism, domestic terrorism, or that aliens or God told him to do it, he is a nutcase.
If he is a racist then you are a sharp tack, (is your implication that I would argue he isn't?), but what if he is a psychotic that has grabbed any "reason" he could, are you still so prescient?
And what if he is a psychotic racist, which conditioned is the motivator?
My God Randy! Maybe just label it a crime of hate... Hate is ugly whatever label you put on it or whatever motive.
"Can you dispute the truth of the points I did discuss? I am sure it is possible, but you chose a different road."
I started down that road, but the point others are making is that the truth or falsehood of those things is irrelevant to the harm being done by the nature of Trump's messages. That's a valid point.
IslandBites already made the point that something can be true and still be racist. You both agreed the key factor is context.
And I see others have outlined the context that makes Trump's remarks racist.
PrettyPanther said: "I can understand a genuine belief that this particular attack, as a one-off stand alone attack, is not racist. But in the context of how the conflict started, which is itself within the context of a years-long history of racist rhetoric and actions, I don't understand how it could be viewed as anything other than yet more racist rhetoric from a life-long racist.."
Promisem said: "Trump is painting one consistent image in the minds of his supporters about racial differences by the subjects of his attacks: Black, Hispanic, Mexico, Africa, Central America, Puerto Rico, the Squad, Cummings, Baltimore."
IslandBites said: "Yes, I not only see that needed context (btw, the whole statement was racist, not only the rat infested part) but also a pattern"
I can only add my own voice to that chorus and say Trump's latest comments are part of a pattern that indicates he reserves specific types of insults only for black and brown people both in and outside of Congress.
I'll take your comment about "unsupported opinion" as a clue to your reticence to acknowledge that context (though I could be off base). If that's the reason though, we can transpose it into a matter of fact by simply asking: is Trump directing specific types of insults only at black and brown people? He either is or isn't. If he isn't, we'll see the same types of insults levelled not just at black and brown people, but at all different groups.
So has Trump ever characterized any white members of congress as "savage, cruel, bloodthirsty, vicious, ferocious, barbaric"?
Has Trump ever told any white members of Congress to go back to the countries "from which they came"? Or go "fix" countries from which their families came?
Has Trump ever described any country outside of Africa or South America as a "sh*t hole"?
Has Trump ever used the term "infest", "infested" or "infestation" to refer to anyone other than black and brown people?
If the answers to these questions is no, then evidently he does level specific types of insults at black and brown people only, and it would be remiss to view his latest comments outside of that context. Or perhaps you will be able to show he refers to white people the same way as he does black and brown people. Either way the crime stats of Baltimore will not address any of these issues.
And to give you some further food for thought on the context, here is an excerpt from a statement from the Episcopal church, in the Diocese of Washington:
"These words are more than a “dog-whistle.” When such violent dehumanizing words come from the President of the United States, they are a clarion call, and give cover, to white supremacists who consider people of color a sub-human “infestation” in America. They serve as a call to action from those people to keep America great by ridding it of such infestation. Violent words lead to violent actions.
When does silence become complicity? What will it take for us all to say, with one voice, that we have had enough? The question is less about the president’s sense of decency, but of ours."
https://cathedral.org/have-we-no-decenc … trump.html
A prophetic statement in light of events currently in the news. When does silence become complicity GA?
Once more you have provided a thorough response Don, but the subject of your response(s) was never mine. You chose this road yourself, my original comment didn't direct you to it.
Repeated clarifications of my original intent and subject have failed to divert you from your travels. You are on this road without me Don.
You offer the comments of others to support your contention(s), yet your contentions were never a subject of my comment.
From my first response, I stated that I was addressing the determination of whether the president's statements about Baltimore's condition and Cummings efforts to change that condition had any truth in them.
"I took a minute to see if there was any substance to Pres. Trump's Baltimore criticisms.
First, there is no doubt Pres. Trump's comments were crude and politically incorrect. And, they were also a direct assault on Rep. Elijah Cummings. But, were they wrong?"
Your response then masterfully lays out all of Pres. Trump's related tweets. None of which I addressed, either in my original response or in response to your comment.
Instead, I offered the clarification of explaining the two points my original comment was addressing:
"However, as it can be noted in the general context and content of my comment, I was addressing the generality of his statements about the condition of Baltimore and the efforts of Representative Cummings to correct things in his district, (at least)."
Then when asked; "Can you dispute the truth of the points I did discuss?"
You offered this:
"I started down that road, but the point others are making is that the truth or falsehood of those things is irrelevant to the harm being done by the nature of Trump's messages. That's a valid point."
I agree, my are comments are irrelevant to yours. We have been on different roads all along, yet you insist that my points are wrong, (or irrelevant), because they aren't addressing your points.
My point is that your comments are irrelevant to mine, you have been discussing something other than what I was.
And now, because I haven't detoured to your road you ask if I think silence is complicity?
That is a weak and unproductive tactic Don. To maintain any legitimacy of criticism, the criticism must at least be of a point that was made. Instead, it appears your criticism is for not being a member of the chorus.
"From my first response, I stated that I was addressing the determination of whether the president's statements about Baltimore's condition and Cummings efforts to change that condition had any truth in them."
That's true, but also a little misleading because you also asked: "So, does the truth of Pres. Trump's tweets mitigate the divisive effect of them?"
And: "No matter how crude, divisive and attacking Pres. Trump's remarks are, shouldn't a key consideration be if they are correct?"
And: "Why can't [rat-infested] be taken to mean just what it says; rat-infested? . . . Does that mean that even if it is true you still can't say it? Would a charge of rodent-infested also be a racist codeword slur?"
After my initial response, my comments addressed these questions: no veracity does not mitigate the effect of Trump's tweets, it's irrelevant to it. No veracity is not the key consideration. Terms like "infestation" etc. become racially charge based on context (who does Trump reserve such terms for?)
Most of my comments (definitions and all) are me making the case for those answers. And I quoted comments from others to show that I'm reaffirming points already made. So I don't accept I have gone down a road you were not already on in that particular regard.
I have also responded generally to the fact you have linked the veracity of Trump's comments to your belief they are not racist, as if veracity nullifies a charge of racism. I called that "tone-deaf". I stand by that comment, but it's not a value judgement. You are not alone in still thinking of "racism" as only what it meant in the 60s, 70s and 80s.
The only thing I can see that's different is my asking direct questions about the context of Trump's insults. I think Trump uses certain derogatory terms only in relation to people of color. I think the answers to the questions I asked can either support or refute that suggestion.
Granted those are not comfortable questions. It's not a comfortable subject, but I do find it astonishing that you would look at veracity as a way of determining if a comment is racist, but completely overlook the issue of whether certain derogatory terms are being applied exclusively to a particular group, as if that is of no importance. I just can't fathom why that's not also a factor in your determination of whether Trump's comments are racist.
Alas, it seems I may never know.
Don, you are wearing me out. This "racism" topic has been beaten to death.
I am confident you have seen my responses to others on this subject which I think offer both context and substance to my thoughts on the questions you posed. If viewing them hasn't been helpful then we will both have to reflect on the fact that life is full of mysteries.
However, there are a couple of points I will address.
"You are not alone in still thinking of "racism" as only what it meant in the 60s, 70s and 80s. "
I hope that is true. As I have repeatedly said and inferred, the racism charges of today are a new definition of the term. I don't think it is valid to just declare a new meaning for something because it fits a perspective.
Maybe it is that "new" definition of racism that is the reason for your astonishment that I think veracity matters or the reason that I don't automatically join the chorus that anything than can possibly be construed as racist is automatically racist.
I do think that the truth of a statement bears on the determination of that statement. Consider the possible implications if that were not so. Is it possible a truth might be muffled, or even denied because of a desire to not be offensive, derogatory, or racist?
So I will accept your offer that my perspective of racism is not what the new perspective of racism is and leave it at that. However, that does not mean I think the new definition is the right one.
It is wearing isn't it. But if we're worn out just by discussing racism, imagine how the people who have to deal with the effects of it must feel. We're lucky. We can take a break, do something else for a while, move onto another subject. Imagine if we couldn't do that. Imagine if there was no escape from it, that we had to deal with it whether we were worn out or not, but could not express anger lest we be accused of being aggressive. And could not protest, lest we be accused of dishonoring our flag and our country. And could not express just criticism, lest we be told to go "back" to a place we were not born, or have never known as an adult. I fear that's the reality for some people in society right now.
So by all means move on to another subject GA, but spare a thought for those people who can't escape the effects of the hatred Trump's comments are fueling, or the murderous intent his words are evidently inspiring.
As President Obama just said:
"We should soundly reject language coming out of the mouths of any of our leaders that feeds a climate of fear and hatred or normalizes racist sentiments; leaders who demonize those who don't look like us, or suggest that other people, including immigrants, threaten our way of life, or refer to other people as sub-human, or imply that America belongs to just one certain type of people,"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/politics … index.html
I'll be sure to keep an eye out for your sound rejection of Trump's comments, which I'm sure is on your to-do list.
Piss on my "to-do" list. You can wait as long as you like. But, you won't have to wait for my comments of acclamation for former Pres. Obama's recent statement.
As much as I disagreed with many of his policies, I can enthusiastically endorse his recent statement. And, I am very glad that he abandoned the tradition of former presidential criticism and made this recent statement.
Contrary to appearances Don, to not participate in Trump-bashing exercises is not the same as Trump endorsement.
Now, is it possible you could agree with his advice to his Democrat compatriots to avoid the temptation to engage in a circular firing squad during the primary run?
I do believe there's a "crack callous" treatment for those especially tormented by such, Gus. It's called Trumpnomore.
"Contrary to appearances Don, to not participate in Trump-bashing exercises is not the same as Trump endorsement."
There is much that can be said about the fine line between lack of unequivocal condemnation on one hand, and endorsement on the other, but I'll refrain. Instead I shall accept your acclamation of Obama's statement as a welcome note of clear agreement.
Elijah Cummings scared off an intruder last night by shouting at him when the security alarm went off.
Trump tweeted out, Elijah Cummings house was robbed last night. Too bad.
I had serious second thoughts about that facebook comment IslandMom. I can see it easily being misunderstood.
I am not a stalker. I am just a soon-to-be official grandfather, (with a 44-year-old and a 33-year-old, it is my youngest 23-year-old that is finally doing the deed), that has been an unofficial grandfather via two 'surrogate' grandkids, (actually great-nephews) that we watched in our home daily for the last 6 and 3 yrs.
Sorry if that is too much personal information, but looking back on my comment I was really worried it could be taken wrong.
Regarding the real topic; I too see a pattern, but it is not a racist one. I see it as an arrogant one that is almost as bad, but not racist.
I am just curious. Did you see the birther movement as racist?
No. I saw it as nuts. If it has to have a label, I would call it tribalism more than racism.
I see you're finally off the fence, Gus. You're all in...
To be clear that response was about the birther movement.
What little I know about that gave me an impression it was about three possible things;
- an attempt to claim he didn't meet Constitutional qualification requirements
- an attempt to label him a closet-Muslim
- an attempt to make him an 'other', as in not one of us.
If there was more, then I missed it. But based on that perception, I think the last two are classic examples of tribalism; he's not one of us, (non-Muslim Americans), and he is from somewhere else.
Of course, it is possible my perception of the birther movement is wrong or incomplete, but that is the perception that prompted my response.
Come on Islandmom, tell me what is sad and disappointing about thinking that describes tribalism more than racism? What part of the birther movement makes you think it is about racism?
You're list is not wrong. You just have to ask why. That's your answer.
Sad and dissapointing is that you're not there yet. Others here I dont expected them to be.
What part? The whole thing.
Each and every person uses their personal Occam's razor to determine their opinion.
Being sad and disappointed that someone can't agree with you is more a reflection on your dogmatic refusal to consider alternative views than the failure of others.
Not everything is always about race. That's my view, although it has become increasingly unfashionable to think such.
You dont have to. I really didn't mind and didn't think any negative. I'm dying to share their photos and videos with family and friends but by law I really can't. I've been video-calling everybody
Congratulations! <3 That's great! (I have 4 sisters and my hubby has 3 brothers but only one in each side have kids. So our families are really excited, especially our parents.
Elijah is a hateful angry old man that calls people names. He's also a person that regularly demonizes people based on who they voted or who they support despite not voting for. Which makes him a dangerous politician who engages in voter intimidation and is breaking the law.
Apparently I touched a nerve, Gus. The "manifesto"-- the murdering coward posted on the internet--referred to several different shootings based on hate crimes. Including those in Christ Church and Copenhagen among others.
It doesn't take a prophet to figure it out...
Also, this discussion was about racist actions.
Sorry. It wasn't racist because he targeted hispanics and that's not a race.
Wait for it...
Let's debate race/racism definitions!
If Trump sez it....it ain't racist. There, that settles it!
Tribalism vs racism, what is the difference? This is just an exercise in semantics as we all know what THIS is.
The Right loves to divert and confuse, that is a large part of their agenda and I hope that you are astute enough to recognize this....
Anti Tutsi racism vs. Hutu power. 1994 in a hundred days a hundred thousand people were slaughtered. Not a white man in sight
Well, Aware the excerpt below seems like a pretty good explanation to me, what do you think? Don't you think that what has been going on here in America is classified as just a little more than Tribalism in reference to certain groups? Conservatives will accuse of me of pulling the race card. Well, I say, if the shoe fits........
What are the Differences of Tribalism from Racism?
The lesser evil would be tribalism as mentioned by many people and sometimes, tribes have the same races but have different beliefs and so that grouping of people take place. Racism tends to hinder people from getting employment, proper education, and causes insecurity and problems for those of a certain race because they are looked upon as inferior.
Tribalism does not hinder a person from getting employment and it does not undermine another who is from a different tribe unless the tribe it threatened. Racism tends to judge people by their race and stops all their rights because they are not of a “chosen” race. It is individually done and the most common is among the Americans and the Black Americans. Sociologists have long tried to understand the bond of tribalism and they have understood that these people stand for cultural belief while racism simply stands for hatred of those who are different from the common race in a place such as that in the United States.
Read more: Differences Between Tribalism and Racism | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/miscel … z5vdbZkVBk
Relative to my previous response about tribalism, I like your link's summary better than your excerpts:
"Tribalism is known as the grouping and organizing of people into tribes. A tribe would also be a result of the same beliefs and religious and ethnic culture of the group of people that have decided to follow each other within their group.
Racism is the belief that a certain race of people, usually of the same color tend to have specific attributes that make them superior to other races and thus undermining the other races that are not of their own race."
I also found this article by a Kenyan author writing about Kenyan tribalism and racism: Why tribalism and racism are just two sides of the same coin
So, what is the difference between racism and tribalism?
Racism is prejudice, belief, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
It presupposes that members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Tribalism, on the other hand, refers to the loyalties that people feel towards particular social groups such as ethnic affiliations, and to the way these loyalties affect their behaviour and their attitudes towards others."
Even though the author differentiates between the two - they are not the same thing, he does view the effects of either as the same; "Both racism and tribalism are toxic to society." I agree with him relative to many effects of extreme tribalism, but unlike racism, I think there can be non-bad, non-destructive instances of tribalism.
There were more sources, but they generally agree with both of our links. I agree that tribalism can be bad, but I don't think it is always bad. I think it would be fair to say that the Amish here in our nation hold tribalistic views, do you think they are bad, either for other non-Amish folks, or our nation?
However, racism is different, it is always bad for other folks and our nation.
Do you really believe correct attribution is just a matter of semantics Cred? Do you really see them as the same?
I understand, but it seems after all we have talked about, to ameliorate and minimize the ugly racial or "tribal" if you like, reality of the history of race relations in this country, goes beyond the pale.
Why would we want to do that?
America is the example, certainly amongst the worse with all the hypocrisy about the rule of law and the equality of all men before the law.
The brutality of the Anglo group over the "other" in so called "tribalism" operating over decades, centuries and eonsis rob ignored? At least, using the example of "my group".
Your example of the Amish sounds more like "tribalism" to me. Or perhaps some of the experiences of Jews and the Irish early last century. But, they didn't have houses blown up or were lynched and otherwise murdered for asserting rights that we all should have. These "other" groups were never denied their basic humanity because they were "other".
I willing to bet you that India treated its "Untouchables" better than this. But no, the treatment of this group within India is worse, I will acknowledge this.
Let's make no mistake here, I am not going to compare pinapples with hand granades.
Conservatives do not like the word "racist" from what I understand but look
for cryptic explanations.
Like I said in previous thread and not to take it personally, most of your folks are in a state of denial as you avoid and will not face the reality of what has happened and, with recent events, (one example that we discussed) continue to happen.
I can see, and understand, your passion about this topic bud, but, relative to our discussion, and what I said, I think you really are comparing what you said you wouldn't: pineapples to grenades.
I read all of your comment as applying to racism. And I think you do too, based on this qualification you offered: ". . . minimize the ugly racial or "tribal" if you like . . ."
Then, you accede to my attribution of the Amish as an example of tribalism, yet then veer back into the harsh reality of the negatives of racism.
My only point, from the beginning, (the "birther" topic), was that the two are not the same. Your own words in this response indicate you agree.
As for India's "Untouchables," I am only going on ancient recall, but I think you might want to look into their plight before forming such a strong opinion as to the difference in the treatment of Blacks.
I will own the label of "'generally Conservative' but I won't pretend to speak for Conservatives as you label that group. However, I will say I have no problem with recognizing and calling out racism wherever it raises its ugly head. I am not afraid of that word and I do not deny the reality of its existence.
But what I will contest, and sometimes vehemently, is a charge of racism tossed out like just so much confetti.
A Conservative said it so it must be racist. It was said about/against a person of color so it must be racist, etc. etc.
Look bud, like the F-word that is so casually tossed around nowadays, I think racism is a very very bad thing. You do not use it casually. And you don't use it willy-nilly.
Look where we are now. The F-word is part of some decent folks everyday conversation, and racist has been used so much its meaning is now a contention of debate. Think about that, when did it happen that the definition of racism has to be argued?
Are we going to next argue about the meaning of the F-word? Is that where we are? I don't want any part of either.
Come on Cred, would you have considered the need for an argument about what racism really was ten years ago?
It used to be like that court's porn definition; We knew it when we see it." Now, it's everywhere, it's everything, nobody knows what it really is now because everything concerning color is racism.
Do you really agree with that bud?
Well GA, WE are on the receiving end of all of this so I am going to pay more than the usual attention to the topic.
I have looked into the plight of the Untouchables, and while their abuse reminds me much of what that Blacks experienced during much of the 20th Century, our abuse has become milder in these modern times, where it appears that theirs have not.
I say that Birther is a racist attack, without any basis. Can I properly presume that any man seeking the office of the President would have to had been properly vetted as to meeting Constitutional established qualifications? We got the same man leading the charge to get Obama's transcripts. Would he have done that a white fellow, any white fellow? I hold that against Trump specifically and against the Right in general in an attempt to undermine Obama and his authority, because racism can expressed in any number of ways. But for those really seeking the truth, it is like you say, I know it when I see it.
Seems like 10 years ago or twenty, people was still ambiguous about the word, its definition and application.
People have become vulgar to an extent unanticipated just a generation ago. The late Lenny Bruce spoke of the seven forbidden words that applied to broadcast media and the F-word is one of them.
Seems like race baiting and associated bias mutates into something new and different to adapt with the times. That seems a lot more troublesome than committing ones self to pay more attention to its eradication over its accommodation.
I don't know that it(racist) is everywhere, more than we have a person in charge that uses the friction that has Always been part in parcel of American life in this matter for political gain. Wounds are not allowed to heal, but are being reopened. This man has taken a problem as American as Apple pie, and moves us backward regarding race relations akin to Woodrow Wilson a century ago.
So, I disagree, people only confuse the matter only because it is easier than acknowledging it.
Correct! Rationalization is always an easy out. Human nature perhaps?
Sure thing bud, now let this White man jump up and lecture a Black man about racism and tell him why he is wrong. Right, that's the ticket.
Of course, you know that ridiculous statement was a joke, right? But now, since your comment and our exchange have left the discussion of the difference between tribalism and racism, that is what I feel any response I could offer would amount to. I am not qualified to do that.
I will leave the "Untouchables" thing alone. As mentioned, I was drawing from readings of a long time ago and I can't offer any more substance on that point.
Even as I accept your perspective of why you think the Birther movement was racist, and I am not saying your perspective is wrong, I am still tied to my perspective that it was primarily political. But just as I say you may not be wrong I admit that I may not be right. That is just how I perceived it.
I guess we will have to wait for a similar instance directed at a White person, (or a woman), to see if there is any merit in my perception.
Jumping to the end, I don't agree with you that people only confuse the matter because it is easier than acknowledging it. I think any confusion there may be is because the definition keeps changing.
It used to be that a deciding component of racism was a feeling of racial superiority, but now it seems anything that involves prejudice or discrimination is racism.
Of all places to find support for that thought, it is a George Carlin clip relative to those seven words you mentioned. (it was Carlin, not Lenny Bruce that introduced that monologue)
His point; " . . . the lists changes, people keep changing the list."
Watch this clip and you will understand what I am saying. As he leads up to those famous seven words he explains the effort to get there because - the list keeps changing. This point is illustrated in the first couple of minutes so you don't have to watch the whole thing.
George Carlin - 7 Words You Can't Say On TV
I mixed the two guys up, Bruce has been dead for quite a while. Carlin has been gone for over 10 years. Didn't you just love the way he told it like was in his routine? He is sorely missed, but I can recreate him and any of his monologues from You tube at any time.
I am a huge Carlin fan. Even though he was a comedian by trade, his political commentary was excruciatingly accurate.
I think I have probably watched every show he ever did.
Can you imagine a talk show series with him and Bill Maher? I would pay big dollars for a ticket to that.
No need for that debate. It seems nowadays definitions can be whatever we want them to be.
There is even an online petition, (with over one million signers), to have Latino/Hispanic declared a race. And because they were here first it would be designated an originator race.
Do you see it as racist because Pres. Obama was black?
Would you see it the same if the birther movement had been against a white candidate?
I did consider that the racist/racism charge might be due to Pres. Obama's skin color, but, since I didn't see that color component, (maybe that naivety is my problem), in any of the "birther" charges I didn't give it much weight.
If I am wrong, then so be it. But I think I would prefer to be wrong for that reason than to adopt a mindset that automatically concludes racism when a person of color is involved in any controversy.
You are right Islandmom, I am not there yet.
Would you see it the same if the birther movement had been against a white candidate?
It was not. That's the point. How many presidents before Obama?
but, since I didn't see that color component, (maybe that naivety is my problem), in any of the "birther" charges I didn't give it much weight.
That's kinda the recent asking for "verbiage" episode here. There's KKK-type racism, then there's racism, just racism. The "quiet"one. The one that silences, negate, discriminate, ignore... You should get the picture. You (generic)don't have to scream "you fing n*gger" to be a racist. The first one is the "easy" one, we all recognized it for what it is. The second one, not so much.
But I think I would prefer to be wrong for that reason than to adopt a mindset that automatically concludes racism when a person of color is involved in any controversy.
Not my mindset. I just recognize racism when I see it. And lament when smart reasonable people I respect dont (or wont).
Your last sentence speaks for many of us, IB.
I will take your point Islandmom, but I will also stick with mine.
To my United States thinking, every white person, (at least of my generation), is indoctrinated with a sense of racism from childhood. Some overt and negatively extreme, some just a natural cultural occurrence. Right or wrong, I consider that a fact of life.
It is how we deal with that indoctrinated racism that determines, (by my thinking), whether we, or something we do, is racist.
As a baby-boomer from a rural area, there was a whole lot of racism in my early life. I know that I absorbed it. And I also know that as I matured and experienced life I tried to fight against that indoctrination.
Conversely, I also grew to recognize the negative power of the charge of racism. In the 70s and 80s, as the struggles to reach the goals of the Civil Rights movements of the 60s were still struggling to achieve success, it seemed like no matter how hard one tried to not be racist, it was never enough - we were racists because we were white.
Your lament about "smart reasonable people" goes both ways. What should be an easily attributed action is now nothing more than a cultural bludgeon. Can resistance to such a mindset really be a surprise to you?
I agree, sadly, with your inference that today it would take a KKK utterance of the N-word to define racism for many folks, but I disagree with your mindset that if something is a negative and it is applied to a person of color it is racism.
I think what you are "recognizing" is the effect of Political Correctness on your generation's world view.
As a side note; I really liked the truth of the reality of your 'in your face' vs "quiet one" thought. I think you are exactly right. The "in your face one will be easy to fight, it is the "quiet one' we must all individually work on.
Now, we get to the nitty gritty. That indoctrination is unfortunate. It need not be so, when I went to Europe as a young man, I was struck by its relative absence. I got into much more trouble over language and cultural adaptation, my skin color and ethnicity was not important as easily seen from their body language and behavior. So, being White does not have to be associated with racist attitudes.
Trump and his loathsome style is bringing all back down on us again.
I was never indoctrinated like this, growing up in Metro Denver during the sixties and seventies, attending integrated schools, I really was not introduced to these problems until the University, CSU, in what was then rural Colorado and a more rural school. It was not the cosmopolitan "cool school" that was CU, Boulder, at the time.
But as Island had said, you don't have to burn crosses as KKK, to be advocating basically the same thing in high places wearing respectable Brooks Brothers suits. And that has nothing to do about speaking a truthful disparaging word about a person of color. That does not make one racist or biased in of itself.
How did all the lines cross? Trump is to blame for this climate.
By the way, you're doing just fine. I am careful about throwing the term "racist" around in a cavalier sort of way, but in the American experience I am somewhat qualified to know it when I see it.
At least you got one thing wrong Cred. I didn't say any White person, I included the qualifying context of "United States perspective." I do understand the cultural difference you explained. ;-)
I see racism as continuum. At one end of the scale, you have me criticizing an Asian person for having more than 15 items in a basket in the express line at a grocery store. My wife would say, that is a racists remark. My reply would be so what? They never follow the rules.
As we proceed up the scale, there is prejudice of other races that are taught by culture and environment.
There is also an undercurrent of racism where it only surfaces under certain conditions, like Trump with the birther movement, which was started by Orly Taitz a dentist and conspiracy theorist, in Newport beach California. Trump picked up on her movement and used it against Obama.
On the other end of the scale, there is true hatred for others that manifest itself in white supremacy, and mass shootings.
So we can analyze and intellectualize until we are blue in the face, but we know it when we see it and hear it. We are all racist at one time or another in our lives, it is just where are we are on that scale that matters.
Here is the information on Orly Taitz.
Thanks, I missed that, but it is an interesting difference, quite a refreshing experience as well.
it seemed like no matter how hard one tried to not be racist, it was never enough - we were racists because we were white.
That's how ingrained is racism in society. You're not racist because you're white (even if you -generic- could feel that way) But you-generic- resent the transformation because you are.
Now consider, whatever hardship and frustrations you-generic- could feel about it- pales in comparison to those of being black (or native, or brown) in our societies.
Yes, there are instances when some people are quick to cry racism. But yes, there are a lot of racist acts, words, attitudes still prevalent that many people excuse as "political correctness".
but I disagree with your mindset that if something is a negative and it is applied to a person of color it is racism.
Again, that is not my mind set.
Btw, just to clarify, Im not calling you a racist nor do I think you are. I think you just need to keep on it and not get tired of your fight.
I think we are all weary of arguing about what is racist. One thing I would like to say.
As a white person, I am aware that I have implicit bias against people of color. Through additional education, I have also become aware that I have other implicit biases, most notably against men in the workplace (a good side conversation to be had sometime).
Since I am aware of this, if someone says to me that something I have said or done is racist, I will listen and do my best to not be offended. I think too many people feel that they are considered to be "bad" if they have implicit biases. No, they are not bad people, they are merely human. And if someone tells you that you have said or done something racist, they are not automatically saying you are a bad person. A good person can make mistakes. What matters is how you handle that mistake and how you move forward.
Now, all that said, what we are seeing from Trump is not a good person with implicit biases making a mistake. No, we are seeing a mean, angry racist using race to divide people and fire up his base. When you ignore or minimize that, you are enabling his behavior and lending legitimacy to those who like his nasty form of racism.
To me, there is no question that Trump is a racist. To me, there is also no question that GA is not a racist. However, I do think GA, and many of Trump's defenders, are taking focus away from the important problem (Trump using racist rhetoric to divide us) by asking if that divisive rhetoric is mitigated by some nebulous "general truth." It's like asking if a child abuser's actions are mitigated by the fact that the child committed a wrongdoing. Who cares? The actions are not in any way justifiable.
Trump calls out the problems in an American city.
Democratic reaction? Words of outrage from top to bottom.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 846921001/
Republican reaction is action. Average people get up and go out to help.
Think about it. Which would you rather be?
by crankalicious 19 months ago
Here's the tweet:"So interesting to see 'Progressive' Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and...
by crankalicious 3 months ago
Here's what the Trump campaign is telling its supporters:"Here is what America gets if Joe Biden is President of the United States:Elizabeth Warren will be Biden's pick for Secretary of the Treasury... you can kiss your retirement savings goodbye.It will be Bernie Sanders for Secretary of...
by Credence2 3 years ago
To refer to the "press as the enemy of the American people' in the terms he did was the epitome of stupid. This was attacked by many GOP as attacking the very foundation of America Democracy, the Fourth Estate. So many people think that I am picking on Trump, but I am not Charlie McCarthy,...
by Sharlee 19 months ago
rac·ist/ˈrāsəst/ Learn to pronouncenoun1.a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose...
by Jack Lee 3 years ago
CNN and NYT among winners...
by IslandBites 4 years ago
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell labeled Trump as a "national disgrace and an international pariah." "He appeals to the worst angels of the GOP nature and poor white folks," wrote in a leaked email.He also called him a racist. Powell also lampooned Trump's proposal that he...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|