Trump defends Pelosi, says she's 'not a racist'

[alien42]

Diversity goes beyond race and gender.

The most diverse organization I ever worked for consisted of mostly men but from a vast of array of backgrounds: urban to rural, immigrant to citizen, region of origin, religion, education level etc. People thought and behaved in different ways.

The least diverse team I ever worked for was racially and gender diverse, but the people were all products of the same top tier colleges, subject to group think.

you sound just like Richard Spencer.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Who ya gonna believe? Trump or your lying eyes?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...seeing-not-whats-happening-tapper-sot-vpx.cnn

I mean, it's not like the GOP isn't blindingly White, is it?

Who voted for them? It wasn't just white males. Or do we think all those elections are rigged? How do you plan to diversify the GOP? Force it? You going to go looking for non-whites and women who want to be a part of the GOP and tell them to run and tell everyone else they can't, so you can have that 'diversity' you seek? Sometimes, people choose who they are going to choose.

My guess is what you really wish is that there was only 1 party run by the people you agree with with equal parts anything because why wouldn't that make sense?

 

[pmv]

Who voted for them? It wasn't just white males. Or do we think all those elections are rigged? How do you plan to diversify the GOP? Force it? You going to go looking for non-whites and women who want to be a part of the GOP and tell them to run and tell everyone else they can't, so you can have that 'diversity' you seek? Sometimes, people choose who they are going to choose.

My guess is what you really wish is that there was only 1 party run by the people you agree with with equal parts anything because why wouldn't that make sense?

Well it was overwhelmingly white people. Not just males, though, not by a long shot. But definitely hugely-disproportionally white people. One of the interesting unknowns to me about the next election is to what extent white women will vote for Republicans after 4 years of 'p**** grabber' Trump. Personally I think feminists are over-optimistic, white women in the US seem to put more importance on the first word in their descriptor than the second.

And I am unable to work out what your post is trying to say after your first two sentences. Your last sentence in particular I can't make any sense of.

It’s a myopic way to view diversity.

It's an incomplete way, I think that's true - but it damn well matters, nevertheless. And I don't think a more 'complete' way would look any better for the Republicans.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Vague & highly convenient anecdotes are not data. The graphic posted above by Alien 42 is actually data.

@alien42 posted emojis, which to me represents the myopic way that liberals view diversity.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Of course Trump is going to suck up to the person that wields some power over him. Of course Trump is going to fan the flames of party infighting. Trump loves a good 'cat fight'

Obama warned the Democrats of stuff like this back in April: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...quad-democrats

“One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States,” he said, “maybe it’s true here as well, is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, ‘Uh, I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be’ and then we start sometimes creating what’s called a ‘circular firing squad’, where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues.

“And when that happens, typically the overall effort and movement weakens.”

Race and identity are potentially divisive wedge issues. It's fine if AOC wants to confront Pelosi on whether she's doing enough for the progressive cause, and I'd say that even her challenging Pelosi on issues like border funding are okay up to a point. But AOC is really just flaming now, and it's not helping anyone. What good does AOC accomplish if she's weakening the Speaker? What good is it if an angry AOC becomes the face of the Democratic party in places where people are much less committed to voting Democrat? She needs to stop talking shit. She needs to realize most districts around the country aren't in the Bronx.

I think the older member of the CBC recognizes that AOC really has no place to be using a race card as a way to crank up the pressure on Pelosi. There definitely is an element of old guard vs new guard, but AOC called out the Speaker of the House by implying that she's allowing bias to color her relationships with new members of Congress. It's no different than Kamala Harris' "That little girl was me" attacks on Joe Biden. They can backtrack and say "I wasn't bringing race into it, I wasn't saying he's a racist" all they want, but...they brought race into it, and it has real consequences. In Biden's case, it brought him down anywhere from 4-8% in the polls and made him look like a much more vulnerable front runner. In the case of the Pelosi-AOC spat, it makes the Democratic party look like a less attractive alternative to the Republican party. If independents and centrists are repulsed by the Republican party's politics of race, I don't think they're going to find the Democratic party more appealing if some of its most visible members are calling out senior leadership by implying they're closet bigots or by having their staff wearing tee shirts suggesting that their more moderate colleagues are Nazi collaborators.

I've never been a fan of the "squad!" mentality. AOC and co may have some interesting ideas and I admire her fire in articulating those ideas, but the way they conduct themselves is akin to trying to be the most popular girls in high school. The mean, bitchy type. It's too much "if you're not 100% with us you're against us and we're going to humiliate you".

The End goal is getting this abomination Trump out of office and IMO this thinly veiled public accusation of racism doesn't help that cause. Achieving a legislative outcome is a team sport; you have to build coalitions, and you have to understand when your coalition is capable of achieving a specific outcome and when it's not. If anyone understands that, it's Nancy Pelosi. It's AOC and her ex-Bernie Bro "burn down the house" chief of staff Chakrabarti who don't seem to get that part of their job.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Race and identity are potentially divisive wedge issues. It's fine if AOC wants to confront Pelosi on whether she's doing enough for the progressive cause, and I'd say that even her challenging Pelosi on issues like border funding are okay up to a point. But AOC is really just flaming now, and it's not helping anyone. What good does AOC accomplish if she's weakening the Speaker? What good is it if an angry AOC becomes the face of the Democratic party in places where people are much less committed to voting Democrat? She needs to stop talking shit. She needs to realize most districts around the country aren't in the Bronx

"Confronting Pelosi" means... you know... actually talking to her directly. Maybe perhaps... going to her office and having a PRIVATE meeting to discuss things?

She comes from the generation of entitlement - so when issues need to be solved and debates need to happen that means just whine and cry publicly on social media. She is the epitome of Trump which is the irony. Kick and scream publicly in an effort to get her way. The reality is the adults are talking here, go away little pissant.

 

[Jhhnn]

@alien42 posted emojis, which to me represents the myopic way that liberals view diversity.

So dishonest. Here it is in photographs-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...2fdbf9d4fed_story.html?utm_term=.d8b6dc497199

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So dishonest. Here it is in photographs-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...2fdbf9d4fed_story.html?utm_term=.d8b6dc497199

His point is that diversity isn't just skin color and gender detective dipshit.

I guess that's just asking too much. The fact that all you dipshits can do as far as judging "diversity" is look at things that can't be controlled (Race + Gender) tells me all we need to know about your level of thought process in life.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So dishonest. Here it is in photographs-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...2fdbf9d4fed_story.html?utm_term=.d8b6dc497199

Who cares if its emojis or a picture, its still a myopic say to view diversity.

Let’s change the visual to who is a veteran, or socio economics of the families they come from, or what tier of university they attended or geographically where they originate from.

The only person being dishonest is you because you have a myopic view of diversity.

 

[K1052]

Trump unable to stop himself from bursting through the wall like the Kool Aid Man when racism might be at issue has decided to go full racist/white nationalist again.

 

[Jhhnn]

His point is that diversity isn't just skin color and gender detective dipshit.

I guess that's just asking too much. The fact that all you dipshits can do as far as judging "diversity" is look at things that can't be controlled (Race + Gender) tells me all we need to know about your level of thought process in life.

His point is obfuscation of the obvious, as is your own.

 

[fskimospy]

"Confronting Pelosi" means... you know... actually talking to her directly. Maybe perhaps... going to her office and having a PRIVATE meeting to discuss things?

She comes from the generation of entitlement - so when issues need to be solved and debates need to happen that means just whine and cry publicly on social media. She is the epitome of Trump which is the irony. Kick and scream publicly in an effort to get her way. The reality is the adults are talking here, go away little pissant.

The purpose of politics is to enact your agenda. If AOC went to her privately nothing would happen which is why she’s doing it publicly. She’s turned out to be an incredibly smart and capable politician.

Millennials have had it tougher than any generation has in a long time. The real generation of entitlement is the one currently running the country, the boomers. No one in history has been given more and has given less back.

 

[Indus]

"Confronting Pelosi" means... you know... actually talking to her directly. Maybe perhaps... going to her office and having a PRIVATE meeting to discuss things?

She comes from the generation of entitlement - so when issues need to be solved and debates need to happen that means just whine and cry publicly on social media. She is the epitome of Trump which is the irony. Kick and scream publicly in an effort to get her way. The reality is the adults are talking here, go away little pissant.

No. The reality is..

She'll just say, "I'll take that under advisement" which means nothing comes out of the meeting and the only agenda that passes congress is corporate tax cuts who have bought the GOP and old corrupt democrats like Clintoon and Pelosi.

Or haven't you figured it out as yet

 

[Starbuck1975]

The purpose of politics is to enact your agenda. If AOC went to her privately nothing would happen which is why she’s doing it publicly. She’s turned out to be an incredibly smart and capable politician.

Millennials have had it tougher than any generation has in a long time. The real generation of entitlement is the one currently running the country, the boomers. No one in history has been given more and has given less back.

In total agreement on the Boomers, although GenX has it worse because we’re sandwiched between the selfishness of the Boomers and entitlement of the Millennials.

 

[HeXen]

Millennials have had it tougher than any generation has in a long time. The real generation of entitlement is the one currently running the country, the boomers. No one in history has been given more and has given less back.

That made no sense at all given actual history to present day.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Trump unable to stop himself from bursting through the wall like the Kool Aid Man when racism might be at issue has decided to go full racist/white nationalist again.

View attachment 8371

So...The president of the United States tells four sitting Congresswomen, three of whom were born in the United States, to go back where they came from. But, I'm sure he's just joking and not a racist. Wonder how Trump would respond if they gave the same advice about Melania? Obviously she's the wrong color.

This is the kind of racially divisive shit Trump thrives on and the Democrats seem to want to give him the ammo to fire. He's just waiting for the far left wing of the Democrats to use Twitter to air grievances. And they did

 

[Jhhnn]

No. The reality is..

She'll just say, "I'll take that under advisement" which means nothing comes out of the meeting and the only agenda that passes congress is corporate tax cuts who have bought the GOP and old corrupt democrats like Clintoon and Pelosi.

Or haven't you figured it out as yet

That's ridiculous. Dems couldn't stop the GOP from cutting taxes on corporations & the Rich and lack the power to reverse it today.

 

[fskimospy]

That made no sense at all given actual history to present day.

Can you explain?

 

[fskimospy]

In total agreement on the Boomers, although GenX has it worse because we’re sandwiched between the selfishness of the Boomers and entitlement of the Millennials.

What exactly is so entitled about millennials? They graduated into the worst job market in any of our lifetimes, saddled with huge college debts because the parasite boomer generation decided they would rather cut their own taxes than pay it forward.

 

[Indus]

That's ridiculous. Dems couldn't stop the GOP from cutting taxes on corporations & the Rich and lack the power to reverse it today.

Yes she lacks the power to reverse it but I think she's very much willing to go along and enact some GOP proposals that are good for her donors looking at the GOP proposals that have passed the house - i.e. border funding.

 

[K1052]

What exactly is so entitled about millennials? They graduated into the worst job market in any of our lifetimes, saddled with huge college debts because the parasite boomer generation decided they would rather cut their own taxes than pay it forward.

Millennial entitlement is expecting something resembling huge legs up the Boomers got and have systematically dismantled or bankrupted for future generations because they really don't care what happens after they die.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes she lacks the power to reverse it but I think she's very much willing to go along and enact some GOP proposals that are good for her donors looking at the GOP proposals that have passed the house - i.e. border funding.

That's called moving the goalposts.

 

[Indus]

That's called moving the goalposts.

I'm not interested in arguing with you or proving you wrong.

I didn't say the dem party is all bad.

All I'm just saying the old dems need to be replaced by new dems who have a pulse of the country and aren't trying to fight in 2020 with 1980's tactics.

Unfortunately it'll be a fight to do that and you only have to look at what Jesse Jackson would say about Obama.

Fortunately, Yes we can if we try hard enough and actually vote!

 

[pmv]

In total agreement on the Boomers, although GenX has it worse because we’re sandwiched between the selfishness of the Boomers and entitlement of the Millennials.

I don't know about that generational stereotyping. It's just a matter of numbers - Baby Boomers are called that for a reason - there are a lot of them. Millennials are also a demographic bulge. Draw a graph and those two are the buttocks, while GenX are...wait, I don't think I like my own imagery. They're hills and we're the valley, that's it, I'll go with that. And they are throwing rocks at each other over the valley. Just keep your head down and let them get on with it.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Well it was overwhelmingly white people. Not just males, though, not by a long shot. But definitely hugely-disproportionally white people. One of the interesting unknowns to me about the next election is to what extent white women will vote for Republicans after 4 years of 'p**** grabber' Trump. Personally I think feminists are over-optimistic, white women in the US seem to put more importance on the first word in their descriptor than the second.

And I am unable to work out what your post is trying to say after your first two sentences. Your last sentence in particular I can't make any sense of.




It's an incomplete way, I think that's true - but it damn well matters, nevertheless. And I don't think a more 'complete' way would look any better for the Republicans.

I was pointing out that trying to show basically 'racism' based on the layout of who is in the GOP versus DEMs is a bit of a false flag cop out. It makes sense it is that way because most of the GOP policies are not minority/women focused. You aren't really going to change the makeup of the GOP without basically making them the Democrats. I do agree that anyone who isn't a rich white male is basically voting against their best interests if they vote GOP (generally speaking) but for some reason people still do it.

The last sentence just means that the people making these statements think they are the only ones who's opinions count and would be mad at any group who doesn't agree with them 100% as has been evidenced here multiple times by the hypocrites who resort to name calling almost instantly.