President Trump says that you should be scared of dark-skinned people being allowed into your neighborhoods.
So, do you fear that a Biden Administration will open the floodgates in your neighborhood, allowing housing and such for immigrants that will lower the value of your house and ruin your lifestyle? Are you specifically afraid of Somalis and other Africans?
And how many of you are actually housewives?
He thinks we're stupid. A few are still susceptible to the con, but far fewer women than men, apparently.
But wait, wait . . .
I agree that it is a bum attitude for a president to present, but, he is not the first to do so, and is he really wrong?
Consider how many suburban developments have Home Owner's Associations that regulate everything from the color of your front door to the height of your mailbox. Then consider why so many home buyers are willing to agree to HOA, (Home Owners Associations), rules to live in their chosen communities. Are they wrong for doing so? If they choose a suburb for its attributes, are they wrong for not wanting low-income housing in their chosen development?
I say, of course, they are not wrong. But, it is only the most unenlightened and crude that will actually admit this. Baloney.
Pres. Trump's statement reflects a truth that "good folks" will never admit. But, it is still a truth.
This rap on Trump is a disingenuous one.
"Every family in Minnesota needs to know about Sleepy Joe Biden's extreme plan to flood your state with refugees from Somalia, from other places all over the planet."
I don't know, GA. Are you "good folk" if you're opposed to refugees from Somalia settling in your neighborhood?
I live in a suburban area. I have lovely African American neighbors, and the color of their skin is not important to me. They are nice people and take care of their property beautifully. The husband was one of ten children and is one of the best neighbors in my cul-de-sac. Even CNN has acknowledged Biden's rascist comments, and I know you think they are the cat's meow for coverage. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/07/politics … index.html Just because Biden is sorry now, doesn't mean his opinions are any different than they were previously.
Hello. Who are you and why do you think you know me?
Yeah, Joe is an old white guy who said some racist stuff 27 years ago running for president against an old white guy who says racist stuff now.
Am I supposed to be horrified at Biden while ignoring the racist president?
You are welcome to your opinion, but the cold hard facts is that if we want to talk aabout a rascist candidate, even CNN reports on it. (and believe me they do not like Trump). Wait, till he starts packing the courts. Our current president does not do that.
No, we really aren't concerned. I guess you could call me suburban, but part of our subdivision is in the county, so I'm a country girl. However, I'm a retiree, not a housewife, and most of the neighbors are professionals, either working or retired like us. We moved here in 1994, and the neighborhood was integrated, it has maintained a similar ratio since then. There isn't a lot of neighborliness in this neighborhood anyway, so what do I care what race the neighbors are?
One of the nicest families on our street is African American. A couple of the biggest snobs are retired blue collar whites. A Vietnamese family lives two streets over and they've taken the time to make friends with us. They are working professionals, both work in a bank. So what the heck?
As long as folks are nice, we don't care what race they are, and race doesn't seem to bother any of our neighbors. What really bothered residents in this "quiet subdivision" was a house where the occupants were dealing drugs. Now the neighborhood worked together (whites and our black brethren) really hard to get them out of the neighborhood. BTW, they were caucasian.
"President Trump says that you should be scared of dark-skinned people being allowed into your neighborhoods."
Could you provide a source of this statement? This is a very slanderous accusation, and should not be made so lightly. You need to provide a factual source when you make the claim a person actually made a statement. You used quotation marks quoting the statement as if the President actually made that statement.
I have never heard the President share that sentiment. I have heard him warn against Biden's plan to build LOW-COST housing in the suburbs. He also followed up with his thought that low-cost housing would lower the value of homes in such areas. I did not hear him attach race to his statements only a financial outcome that could result if low-cost housing was built in suburban areas. Perhaps you are feeling he was sending off a dog whistle?
May I ask --- What are your feelings in regard to the statement Joe Biden made on desegregation in 1977 while a Senator? His statement is clear, and the context is clear.
"in 1977 in which Biden, then a U.S. senator representing Delaware, allegedly expressed fear that desegregation, if not done in an “orderly” way, could result in his children growing up in “a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point.”
I am making an attempt to point out the context of both statements. Both statements could be taken out of context. Could have Trump been sharing a thought about how low-cost housing could be a financial problem to a homeowner? Could Biden be concerned about tension in schools being a safety problem for his children? Both statements certainly have racial undertones. Biden using the word racial jungle does add a racial slur to his statement. I have never heard Trump utter an open racial slur. If dog whistles matter, should they not matter with Biden as well as Trump? Is this not a fair concept?
source --- https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden … gle-quote/
https://www.c-span.org/video/?475726-1/ … -minnesota
He warns the crowd that Sleepy Joe Biden is going to flood the state with refugees from Somalia.
Where did I use quotation marks?
And are you going to answer the question? The forum isn't for you to reframe the debate and ask me questions. If you want to know something, start your own forum.
I asked a specific question based on President Trump's statement that Minnesota will be flooded with Somali refugees.
No you didn't - you said: "President Trump says that you should be scared of dark-skinned people being allowed into your neighborhoods."
In fact, his words were: "Every family in Minnesota needs to know about Sleepy Joe Biden's extreme plan to flood your state with refugees from Somalia, from other places all over the planet."
So...nothing about dark skin, nothing about anywhere but Minnesota and nothing about ONLY refugees from Somalia. Just more spin and lies, then, as his words are changed to fit an agenda. Very similar to the lies made when he banned travel into the US from certain countries supporting terrorism and it was changed into banning Muslims from coming in.
What color is the skin of people from Somalia?
We won't even get into the fact that Biden has no such plan or that Somalis already have established neighborhoods in Minnesota and Trump's insults are uncalled for and likely to incite violence against them.
And are you really so naive as to want to argue over the color of the skin of people from Somalia and whether or not picking Somalia is intentional to emphasize that they are dark-skinned? Does dark-skinned cover Somalian people?
If Trump says Sleepy Joe Biden has a plan to inundate your neighborhood with oranges and I say that Trump wants you to be afraid of orange fruit, you're really going to argue that he doesn't want you to be afraid of orange fruit because he said oranges and not orange fruit?
Let's face it. Sleepy Donald Trump is trying to scare suburban white women about the hordes of non-whites that are going to move into their neighborhoods if Biden is elected President.
It's not about skin color. It's about rewording what was said to make it appear to be about race when it most definitely was not. It's about leaving off the "from all over the world" in order to give it a racist bent. It's about saying he was speaking (primarily) to "suburban white women" when he most definitely was not (again, an effort to claim the statement was racist when it had zero to do with race).
Even the last paragraph here in this post is a lie, for that wasn't the point at all, and anyone not out to turn it into something it was not would not claim it was. For shame.
(IMHO, we are making an error by resettling refugees into large enclaves of people with similar backgrounds, which is what Trump was saying. The inevitable result is a large change in the politics and culture where they are located; rather than become Americans, with American culture and values, such enclaves of foreign culture bring that culture with them and turn the area into what they left. Americans are required to accept a foreign culture as the norm rather than welcome people assimilating themselves into America. Not a particularly desirable return for their generosity.)
Most of those refugees who are "resettled" are not allowed into existing neighborhoods, so they move into what they can afford and they move with their own people as a safety measure.
In general, in this country, dark-skinned people have not been welcomed into the neighborhoods of white-skinned people, so where exactly are they supposed to go? Isn't it natural and intended that they end up in neighborhoods with people with similar backgrounds?
I see. Then we don't have large groups like the one in Minnesota or the Basque near me. We don't have "Chinatowns" in several places in the country. We don't have Amish communities having trouble integrating into mainstream America. Instead refugees spread out and take up residence all over the country, as far away from their own heritage as they can. They don't end up "in neighborhoods with people with similar backgrounds".
Not sure what country you live in, but it can't be the US, for we have large groups of immigrants with similar backgrounds, and their descendants, all over the country.
But yes, it is intended that they institute small enclaves of foreign culture into neighborhoods throughout the US. That's what I said, and it is damaging and dangerous to American citizens that must then live within or nearby to those areas with a culture very foreign to them. A foreign culture created and built on American soil by peoples that we have welcomed into the country in the hopes they will assimilate into, and become a part of America.
While it is questionable if it is even realistic to think that immigrants would spread out into various neighborhoods as this is simply not human nature, I suggest you take a look at how that worked with African Americans in our own country. The reason there are black enclaves all over the U.S. is partly that they may have wanted it that way and partly because white communities wouldn't have them.
What part of "from Somalia, from OTHER places all over the planet." is difficult to understand?
Contrast this interpretation with "President Trump says that you should be scared of dark-skinned people being allowed into your neighborhoods."
So, this is one of the reasons it is difficult to take criticism of President Trump from the left serious.
The lies told about this president from the left are impressive and never ending. Since he can't be defeated by policy debate and honesty, telling lies about him and what he says is all that's left for those who oppose him.
I'm sure leading with Somalia was just an accident. I read that in the original speech, he meant to lead with Germany.
And when he was asked to denounce white supremacy and QAnon, I read that he had just donated a million dollars to the NAACP and got confused.
And I read that when he said "grab 'em by the pu**y" he was talking about cats. He really likes cats.
You're right - everything he says must be spun into something it was not in order to make it sound "evil". In this case, the topic of excessive refugee immigration, into small areas that will then undergo a cultural change as a result, must be turned into something racist.
Unfortunately, it works all too well, for few that dislike the President will take the time to "unspin" such comments and understand what was really said. Too much work and anyway it removes the ability to say "See?!? I TOLD you he was racist!".
LOL, no, much of what he says is so hateful his supporters have to pretend he didn't mean what he said.
When you change the meaning of words, when you leave out half the comment, when you "forget" the context, when you change the topic...these are pretend things.
If you haven't already, look back over this thread. You will find where half the comment was left out. Where the topic was changed. It isn't supporters pretending here to produce a "racist" comment from one completely removed from race considerations.
This is a person who established his career race-baiting folks over a fake claim that the black President wasn't a U.S. citizen.
His racism is well-established.
This is a continuation of this. Those black folks aren't Americans. They're threats. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
His racism has been spoken of many, many times. By media and people that don't care if it is true or not.
Think back to his travel ban from certain middle east countries...and the uproar that he was "racist" (I know, the word doesn't make sense, but that was the cry) against Muslims.
Consider his statement that criminals and drug runners were coming in from Mexico...and the huge outcry that he was racist against Mexicans (I know, that one doesn't make sense either, but that's what was said).
Now he complains of excessive refugee immigration, and the propensity to intentionally create whole communities of foreign culture (from all over the world)...and you're complaining of racism.
Just isn't there. Even his claim that Obama wasn't a US citizen didn't have racial overtones...until it is pointed out that Obama was black and therefore any claims of foreign citizenship must be racist. Use of the "racist" card is tremendously over used in this country, to the point that no criticism of non-caucasians automatically draw the claim of racism, whether there or not.
I've seen members of the KKK say they are not racist, that they are merely factual beings, spreading truth.
This post, while nothing so extreme, uses similar rationalizations for statements and actions that clearly indicate racism to most people.
And all the rants about "racism" concerning Muslims and Mexicans were not "rationalizations" at all, were they? Even though neither action had any form of "racism" (ignoring that neither Muslim nor Mexican is actually a race) they were declared "racist", but that's not rationalization at all, was it? Because it "clearly indicated" racism when Trump wanted to reduce terrorism activity in the country, or reduce drug traffic.
What is "clearly indicated" to a Trump hater, unfortunately, often does not have much (or any) connection to reality.
Patterns reveal deep-seated attitudes. One or two incidents can be written off, but many incidents over the course of decades.....no.
I have repeatedly explained to you that I don't hate Trump. Apparently, you think I am lying since you continue to refer to me as a Trump hater. Trump is a sad, pathetic, miserable human being who is unable to experience joy, empathy, compassion...I pity him more than anything. I will do a happy dance when he's gone, though.
It will be nice to see normal human decency in high places once again.
I'm sorry, PP, but "pity" does not produce a constant stream of really ugly name calling, exaggerated tales and spun stories designed and repeated to make someone look bad. It does not produce claims that a person is incapable of experiencing joy, and (in the face of facts to the contrary) cannot have compassion. Not in my world, anyway.
Calling names? You mean like "bully"? "Liar"? Few people, even Trump fans, would claim he does not lie or bully. I doubt you can find any name calling on my part that cannot be backed up by evidence.
Only if your "evidence" is made up out of your imagination and thus fits within your definitions.
But "bulky" or "liar" are tame given some of the others that you have used - used for no more purpose than to express displeasure...and hatred.
Perhaps we just have different definitions of "hate".
What "names" have I called Trump that cannot be proven? As Randy would say, "Do tell"? I am sure I have called him a "cheat," which he is, in more ways than one. Please, do tell.
I miss Randy....
What names have you called him that are more than personal opinion?
Calling names is not stating facts. It is giving unsupported, nasty, rude and offensive labels to someone. Labels like "sad, pathetic, miserable" - all personal opinion without any backup factual information at all. "Pathetic", in particular, cannot be anything but personal opinion, by definition. Nor can "sad", except in reference to the state of Trump's internal feelings - feelings which he has not expressed to you - which is not what you mean.
well, sure, state the obvious. Should I say "Duh!"?
This is a tangent from a tangent anyway. You accused me of hating Trump because I accurately describe him as a liar, cheat, and bully. I don't know about you, but in my world people who constantly lie, cheat on their spouses, and bully people are sad and pathetic. But, that was another tangent from the original topic of Trump's racism and your need to rationalize away Trump's racism.
Like I said, one or two could be reasonably overlooked, but not multiple incidents and statements over several decades.
"You accused me of hating Trump because I accurately describe him as a liar, cheat, and bully."
Here is what I actually said:
"I'm sorry, PP, but "pity" does not produce a constant stream of really ugly name calling, exaggerated tales and spun stories designed and repeated to make someone look bad. "
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/349 … ost4159573
I don't see the words "liar", "cheat" OR "bully" in there - you once more twisted my words into what they were not. I didn't use them because I didn't intend to limit it to those three (rather innocuous, compared to others you've used) terms.
I brought those up because you accused me of name calling. Since I hadn't called him a name in the post you were responding to, I assumed you were referring to the totality of my Trump assessments. I guess not.
In any case, I stand by every one of them.
Again, this is all a tangent from the original discussion of Trump's racism and your rationalizations excusing it.
"Since I hadn't called him a name in the post you were responding to"
Really? Go back to the permalink I gave, and then look at the top of it where it shows what I'm responding to. You will find your words were "Trump is a sad, pathetic, miserable human being who is unable to experience joy, empathy, compassion".
Perhaps it is a tangent from Trump's (supposed) racism, but then again perhaps not. Biden gave the "racist" example of Trump saying (paraphrased) that he "doesn't want Mexican rapists entering the country"...does that mean Biden does want Mexican rapists coming in? He also mentioned that Trump didn't want Muslims in after he banned travel from some middle east countries that don't vet travelers - does that mean Biden does want terrorists as long as they are Muslim?
This is what I see as examples of Trump's racism; spun, twisted and incomplete statements or actions that if we just ignore context or the entire sentence can be made out to be racist.
That is not name calling but it doesn't really natter what we call it..
We'll never agree on Trump's racism. It's a dead horse.
You're right there - it is a dead horse!
But you might go back to some past posts and see if the term "pity" really applies considering the vitriolic names you have called Trump. I think that if you do, and are honest with yourself, you might back up a little. Hate destroys not the one being hated but the one doing the hating and is not a healthy emotion to carry around. I know; one of my closest loved ones Hates Trump with a capital H, to the point that he has been advised by liberal and conservative alike to seek counselling to void himself of it. It is destroying his life. But enough of armchair psychology.
Till another day, then, and another disagreement.
I think if you can show me these vitriolic names, I might be better able to respond. For example, I honestly don't view what I said about Trump in this thread to be vitriolic. Blunt, but not vitriolic. I honestly believe he is mentally ill. My education is in psychology and I have much more knowledge of damaged individuals than the average person. That doesn't mean I couldn't be wrong, of course. However, the observations of my own eyes and ears are validated by a very large number of health care professionals.
So, you see, I really do pity Trump because I think he is mentally ill and a very unhappy person.
What bothers me more than Trump are his enablers, both those who know full well how damaged he is and those who are maddeningly blind to it.
LOL I wouldn't say that anyone is needed to "enable" Trump - he does that all by himself!
But I know what you mean.
Do you think he was elected president all by himself? And once he took office, do you think no one helped him carry out his family separation policy, for example? And what about his supporters who sing his praises all over social media? The chair of the GOP in my county just shared a photo of Trump humbly bowing in Jesus' embrace and it was Anen'd by about 50 people. You don't consider them to be enablers?
Trump could not do what he has done without tons of support.
I must apologize for my statement on you using quotation marks. I can see they are not present. And yes I took a sharp right with my comment. As many do here on the political forum. I will take note that you don't appreciate deflecting.
Your questions do make one think. "So, do you fear that a Biden Administration will open the floodgates in your neighborhood, allowing housing and such for immigrants that will lower the value of your house and ruin your lifestyle? Are you specifically afraid of Somalis and other Africans?"
I will be truthful, I would fight tooth and nail to keep low-cost housing out of my suburb. And yes I believe Biden would try to build low-cost housing in suburbs. Biden has verbally on many occasions committed to building low-cost housing in suburbs. So yes I will take his campaign promise very seriously. And yes I feel low-cost housing would make the value of my home go down. I actually will admit openly I would not look forward to living with Somali refugees.
Well thanks, Sharlee!
You want to know some truth? I live in a very liberal town - full of liberals. And you know what? Most of them talk a good game when it comes to affordable housing and homelessness, but when plans come around to put a homeless shelter or affordable housing in their neighborhood, they come out of the woodwork to oppose it. Everyone wants it in somebody else's neighborhood.
Oddly, the homeless shelter is on the very edge of the city and the neighborhood has gentrified around it.
So there you go, a bone.
Yes, many well-to-do liberals are just as snooty as conservatives about keeping low-cost housing away from their neighborhoods.
I must say I appreciate that bone... I appreciate how candid you can be.
Well, what's interesting is that if you really examine this issue, it boils down to this: people will buy a house near a homeless shelter voluntarily, but they don't like it when somebody else decides for them that a homeless shelter should be in their neighborhood.
And between the two neighborhoods, I would say real estate prices in the neighborhood without the homeless shelter are higher, but it definitely has not stopped housing prices from increasing in the neighborhood with the homeless shelter. They're quite high in both areas.
I have noted the same. We have area]'s of Detroit that many have moved to and rehabbed old structures , and the homeless were moved to the surrounding city, and could in no respect afford 'Downtown". However, we have witnessed the opposite in the suburbs where low-cost apartments and what they call condos were built especially in areas where mainly single homes.
At one point it just becomes financial, and the need to escape the city. It is a fact that we need low-cost housing, but I think there should be a solution that will suit all involved. I feel like my husband and I worked hard to get our educations, worked hard to make sure we could invest in a home that would keep its value. A community where our taxes give us what we desire, and is less congested. I guess in a way I feel is leave us some open spaces, a slower pace, a smaller community offers all of the above. We lived in the city for years and liked it to an extent. But became tired of the problem of living on top of each other, and wanted the perks of the better schools for our children. Can't say I would be happy if low-cost housing were to be built in our neck of the woods.
Please share your source, including context. I think this probably refers to BLM which, from all video footage I've seen, is a bunch of young white liberals rioting and looting.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?475726-1/ … -minnesota
So are you worried about the black refugees flooding your neighborhood or not?
I'm not a suburban woman. I'm not an urban woman. I will say if Ilhan Omar is indicative of the Somali refugee frame of mind, if they want to relocate refugees to my sleepy little town I'd prefer they choose people with a less hostile mindset.
Sounds like his strategy is working on some people.
That statement implies it is working on me. The more accurate take on the statement is Ilhan Omar's statements and actions are working on me.
But, I know you so I know why you appear to have purposely ignored the intent.
Which specific statements from Rep. Omar have worked on you? I know Fox News gets pretty worked up about her and I know that QAnon gal in Georgia used a machine gun to shoot a picture of her and many have openly suggested violence against her. What has she said to invite such vitriol?
I know President Trump'l political opponents are often accused of responding with nastiness, so I can point to the "grab 'em by the pu**y" as a reason for that kind of vitriol. Has Omar said such things too?
Can't speak for LtL, but her utopian Green New Deal comes to mind, as does the idiotic idea of defunding police along with tearing down "systems of oppression that exist in housing, in education, in health care, in employment, [and] in the air we breathe.” Her demand that we “guarantee homes for all" is what brought on the recession once; she would repeat the process. Her call for open borders, and calling immigration policies "white nationalism" might come into play here as well.
There is much more, but that might make a good start. The woman is an idiot when it comes to running a country, and deciding what that country needs and what it should do.
well, LtL specifically stated Omar, or those of a similar mindset, would not be welcome in her neighborhood. While her ideas might be "out there" does that mean you would fear her moving to your neighborhood? That was the original topic of discussion.
I'd like actual quotes rather than your paraphrasing of what you think she believes. That all sounds like Fox News paraphrasing to me. We keep hearing about "defunding the police". That does not mean get rid of the police. It means fund the police to they can focus on the things they are trained to do rather than things they are not trained to do.
No, that's what you mean by "defunding police". Others, including Omar, have a very different definition. One has only to look at her comments about Minneapolis Police Dept., where she demanded that it be dismantled.
"The Minneapolis Police Department have proven themselves beyond reform.
It's time to disband them and reimagine public safety in Minneapolis."
https://cnsnews.com/article/washington/ … themselves
Another on "homes for all": "No one in the wealthiest county in the world should be forced to sleep on the streets.
Today I am introducing the Homes for All Act, a bold 21st century vision to build 12 million new public & affordable housing units and guarantee housing as a human right."
(notice that includes foreign citizens in the country illegally: we shall have to pay to house them, too, to the tune of one Trillion.)
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … immigrants
Well, when she says "defund the police", that does not eliminate public safety. It merely reimagines it as a different public entity with different priorities. Would that work? Who knows? It might be worth a try. Is reinventing public safety just something that's off the table for you?
As for the homes for all plan, while I would not support housing illegal immigrants, I would support the idea potentially if those housed were gainfully employed and were limited in the amount of time they could spend there. There could be some benefit to businesses if the people on the lower end of the pay scale, who are cleaning building - doing the dirty work - have easier access to their jobs. You're talking about a potential increase in spending and to the tax base. It really depends.
I think new ideas are good and rethinking sacred cows is a good thing. I don't generally support the idea of massive publicly funded gifts and freebies, but it really depends what the goal is. Again, if the goal is for employed people who cannot afford to live in the cities where they are employed but who are needed, it's a subject worth discussing and should not be dismissed out-of-hand.
I know you don't agree and I respect the basic notion that people must earn their keep. Again, if we're talking temporary housing and continued public safety, but reimagining how we approach some of these necessities, then new ideas are a good thing. Do I want to take a trillion dollar flyer on such things. Honestly, no. Some small-scale test cases would be interesting.
Can you honestly believe she will equip her new "cops" (or whatever she calls them) with guns? Or even tazers?
Because I certainly don't, and I think to send "cops" out against machine gun wielding bank robbers, or even drug crazed addicts, is nothing but a good way to reduce the population.
I think you will find precious few people that are gainfully employed and living on the streets. Of the tiny number that are, they won't be there long. So in that regard it is already accomplished, and without spending a Trillion dollars to do it.
No, it does not depend on what the goal is (massive public gifts) - it depends on what the reasonably expected return is. As far as people not being able to live in the city, where they want to work, that's self correcting in the long run. If employers can't find workers for what they pay, because it isn't enough to live on, then pay will increase or business will move elsewhere, where labor is cheaper.
IMHO, we don't go far enough for temporary aid and public safety (tell Portland business owners about that one). And small scale test cases aren't necessary when it comes to give-aways, for we've had a giant one for decades now, with the long term result that more people are in poverty now than ever before. We know what long term "help" does - it encourages people to mooch off the ones that work and pay the bills.
(Of course the modern definition of "poverty" plays a part in that, too - when we increase the level we call poverty each year it simply means that we can never eradicate poverty. We can't even come close, for we re-define it every year, upwards.)
"We keep hearing about "defunding the police. That does not mean getting rid of the police"
Sooo . . . we hear organization spokefolks, (BLM comes to mind—#defundthepolice) say exactly that; "defund the police, abolish the police, create new community-organized police, but that isn't what they really mean? I disagree, and I think any other explanation is an apologist's one.
"The woman is an idiot when it comes to running a country, and deciding what that country needs and what it should do."
I agree, relative to Rep. Omar, but, to be fair, there are just as many anti-Omar idiots that shouldn't get any face-time either.
Both sides have idiots among them. It isn't fair to just pick on the other side's idiots just because they disagree with our side's idiots. ;-0
I'm not sure why wanting housing and health care for people makes one an idiot. I would certainly like to hear from her how she expects to pay for that little endeavor. Is that idiocy or greed? Or is it simply communism?
Having ideas I disagree with doesn't make one an idiot. An ability to express oneself only in one syllable words and to get one's ideas solely from Fox News and QAnon newsletters seems like more of an idiot to me.
The how-to-pay-for-it and how-to-implement-it are the whole point. It is the idiot part of it. In a Utopian world her ideas aren't crazy, but in the real world of humans and costs, they are nuts.
Also, whether one agrees with ideas, or not, is not the idiot part. It is whether those ideas are practical in reality that determines the nuttiness of ideas. The labels of "greed" or "communism" don't meet the bar. I think in terms of practical application, idiots carries the proper message.
And yes, I included those Fox News and Qanon folks in the idiot category too.
Because she can't pay for it, at least not at the level she's demanding.
Having ideas that depend on Utopian circumstances does make one an idiot, for we do not have those circumstances and never will. Omar has zero idea of what it takes to supply this country with it's needs; she doesn't even have a handle on what those needs are (Hint: it isn't free housing for illegal aliens and it isn't free housing for drug addicts or the mentally ill that prefer the street.)
Very true, but the topic was Omar. Not a general "you" or any other specific person.
You just stated you would not welcome Omar or people of her "mindset" in your neighborhood. Sounds pretty clear cut to me.
Like Crank, I am also curious as to what would cause you to openly say you would discriminate against her and people like her. You see, not welcoming a group of people because of a real or perceived group characteristic is the very definition of discrimination.
by crankalicious 3 weeks 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 2 months ago
I can remember when "Righty" was busy keeping us all in a tizzy about Obama's ambitions for a third term. Well, I have never heard Obama mention the idea even in passing."I deserve a third term"Why does Trump have discuss the impossible? In these politically unsettled...
by crankalicious 12 months ago
Here's that tweet:"Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint...
by Sharlee 6 months ago
I noted a thread here on HP political forum that addresses the question. ‘Why do liberals think Trump supporters are stupid?" I hope to even the "playing field".Why do those that can't support Biden think those that do support him are stupid or better put illogical? I will not...
by Stevennix2001 42 hours ago
I know the election isn't closed yet, but assuming Biden wins as it seems likely at this point, would you be opposed to Donald Trump running for president again in 2024, and if so, then would you vote for him? Please discuss.
by Jack Lee 2 weeks ago
There is a lot of new information that came out recently....October surprise.Some of it was old news but some new revelations about the Biden family...with his son Hunter and his laptop and emails...All very troubling if true.Here is the $64K question.Do you trust Joe Biden enough to be President?...
Copyright © 2020 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.|