Jump to content
270soft Forum

Top 8 270soft Members by Content


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I thought this was interesting. Here's the top content providers: @mantis 15,036 (hasn't been active since 2011---9 years reigning champion at the least) @Patine 13,757 (active leader)

For some reason - it was turned off, probably because of an update along the way. Added Upvote, Thanks, Haha, and Confused reactions. First 3 give +1 to reputation. 👍

This is great because we can show that we've read a post without having to actually respond with a typed comment. 

Posted Images

1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

It's a general assessment. Like saying Haiti's PPP is 173/185. Why is that 'undoubtedly' racist?

You can say that, it’s simply a number. You know calling it a shithole is worse, you just know it doesn’t fit your political belief so you don’t want to admit it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hestia11 said:

You can say that, it’s simply a number. You know calling it a shithole is worse, you just know it doesn’t fit your political belief so you don’t want to admit it.

Of course it's more colourful. Should Trump be more careful in his language? Of course. But calling a country or place a 'shithole' doesn't sound racist to me. It's colourful language indicating an undesirable place, in the case of Haiti because of the state of its economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Of course it's more colourful. Should Trump be more careful in his language? Of course. But calling a country or place a 'shithole' doesn't sound racist to me. It's colourful language indicating an undesirable place, in the case of Haiti because of the state of its economy.

He's the goddamn President, calling a country a shithole is racist. He can't be *joking* as President when you're talking about foreign countries. Those are sovereign nations to be treated with respect. Just one example of him tearing down America's place in the world.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

You're not making an argument. You're simply reiterating your belief.

You're not making an argument, either. You're constantly saying everything Trump says MUST have good and acceptable reason, and having aspersions toward any of his statements is automatically unfounded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

It's a general assessment. Like saying Haiti's PPP is 173/185. Why is that 'undoubtedly' racist?

I think the reason why the statement "shit hole" countries is considered racist is because Trump has a documented history of statements that are condescending, dismissive, or worse regarding Africans and those of African-Descent. For instance, if Obama or you had said this originally, I think people would just say y'all were being tactless. Trump's comments come with his history. Similarly, I have said many harsh things about evangelicals and social conservatives. It might be harder for me to get away saying some comments that you or, say @Actinguy, might say towards Evangelicals, because I have a history of being harshly critical of this demographic. It would be easier to assume my comment was worse than it might actually have been. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

You're constantly saying everything Trump says MUST have good and acceptable reason,

No, I'm responding to his comment that it is 'undoubtedly' this or that. I have given a different take, and laid out why. It's up to him to respond.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

No, I'm responding to his comment that it is 'undoubtedly' this or that. I have given a different take, and laid out why. It's up to him to respond.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/12/unkind-divisive-elitist-international-outcry-over-trumps-shithole-countries-remark

Everywhere has problems. He singled out countries that are black and brown. That's racist. Did he mention Eastern European countries where economic woes dominate? No. He chose Africa, Haiti, and El Salvador.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I think the reason why the statement "shit hole" countries is considered racist is because Trump has a documented history of statements that are condescending, dismissive, or worse regarding Africans and those of African-Descent. For instance, if Obama or you had said this originally, I think people would just say y'all were being tactless. Trump's comments come with his history. Similarly, I have said many harsh things about evangelicals and social conservatives. It might be harder for me to get away saying some comments that you or, say @Actinguy, might say towards Evangelicals, because I have a history of being harshly critical of this demographic. It would be easier to assume my comment was worse than it might actually have been. 

This is a fair comment. Certainly people will bring to his comments their beliefs about who he is, and past comments. This is true about all data - it is interpreted in light of ancillary beliefs. So two people can look at the same thing, and come to very different conclusions, based on their background beliefs.

However, I'm interested in the documented history of public statements Trump has made re blacks that are condescending, dismissive, or worse. What are those? Can you give me what in your opinion are the top 5?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

He singled out countries that are black and brown. That's racist. Did he mention Eastern European countries where economic woes dominate? No. He chose Africa, Haiti, and El Salvador.

It's Trump's fault that no European country is extremely poor by global standards? The worst 60 economies by PPP are all non-European.

But to your question, presumably Trump singled out those countries - Haiti, certain African countries, and El Salvador - because those were the countries being discussed re special provisions for legislation that was being proposed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-attacks-protections-for-immigrants-from-shithole-countries-in-oval-office-meeting/2018/01/11/bfc0725c-f711-11e7-91af-31ac729add94_story.html

We don't have the words in public record, and Trump has disputed the account by the WP.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

This is a fair comment. Certainly people will bring to his comments their beliefs about who he is, and past comments. This is true about all data - it is interpreted in light of ancillary beliefs. So two people can look at the same thing, and come to very different conclusions, based on their background beliefs.

However, I'm interested in the documented history of public statements Trump has made re blacks that are condescending, dismissive, or worse. What are those? Can you give me what in your opinion are the top 5?

There's such a consistent pattern of quasi-racist statements or actions that it's hard to create a top 5, but here are some I'm thinking of at the moment, off the top of my head:

The earliest racist or racist-leaning episode regarding Trump was his reactions to the Central Park Five. He was pushing for their execution, assuming they were guilty without waiting for the whole story. This sort of represents less publicized episodes in which he shows a double-standard regarding crime and actions regard black people vs white people. This isn't unique to Trump, this is sort of just ingrained in many Americans and Trump just says what he thinks. I doubt he would have pushed so eargerly for execution if the Central Park Five were white. 

His desire to pull the US completely out of Africa is considered by some based off a ingrained racism. He once compared some of the African countries to a "filthy toilet."

His leadership in the birther movement--the attempt to orchestrate a narrative that Obama was foreign born--is often considered racist. 

His nativist immigration policies are often considered racist. 

Actually, prior to the Central Park Five, he was caught in a bunch of lawsuits and real estate controversies, most famously, he apparently told his employees not to lease to blacks. At some point Trump said something like, "You don't want to live with them either." To one of his legal opponents. 

His refusal to condemn White Supremacy during Charlottesville and Black Lives Matter protests, except in the situations in which his arm is twisted, "I disavow" (not a terrible condemnation of white supremacy) can be considered racist. Taking the middle ground on a white supremacy vs protestor matchup is at least quasi-racist. There's a way to condemn some on both sides, but you have to make sure the focal point is condemning racism if you don't want to be considered not a racist. 

There have been rumors of Trump treating blacks differently on the Apprentice. I never saw but two episodes, so I don't know if this is true. 

His weak response to Hurricane Maria and treatment of Puerto Rican officials critical of the weak response, couple with his stronger response to Hurricanes that hit the mainland, can be considered racist as well. 

His opening campaign statement, which basically pigeon holed all undocumented immigrants as murderers and rapists, is certainly racist. 

One could consider Trump's attacks on Kaepernick and black player's kneeling in protest as being racist. I'm sure if Tom Brady kneeled at the anthem as a sort of national protest to something Trump likely wouldn't have said much and possibly would have supported it. 

However, I think the strongest evidence that Trump might be racist must come from the demographic that is a higher authority on this than you, me, or Trump himself: Black Americans. Apparently, 83% of blacks believe Trump is racist. That probably means he is more likely racist--at least to blacks--than not since slightly more than 8 out of 10 blacks think he's racist. https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-african-american-voters-poll-racist-59f7adcf-776e-4ef1-bfd6-ff3b04ded233.html

Considering his history, it is not unreasonable for people to assume his "shit hole" country comment might be racist. What degree of racist is he? Who knows. It might just be typical 74-year-old rich while male racism and Trump maybe just happens to have lost whatever editing mechanism he may have had in his youth. He isn't quite David Duke level. However, he's probably the most racist president towards blacks in the last 100 years. Woodrow Wilson was much more racist than Trump, but Harding-Obama have at least been discreet in whatever sublimal racism they might have had. Nixon might come closest to Trump, but his comments were always in private, and often not as bad as his aides. There's a recording of Nixon talking about "negro spies," noting that there are very few of them. One of his aides makes a racist comment about their intelligence. Nixon doesn't agree with it, but he also doesn't contradict him. However, he seemed at least unwilling to engage on that topic. 

Imagine how much better Trump would be doing in the polls throughout his presidency if he hadn't this history and didn't express these thoughts. And again, I don't think Trump is unique. I think he's rather typical of man old rich white men. The difference is that Trump is consisently recorded as a public figure, and it doesn't help that he has no internal editing mechanism.  A good debater against Trump should learn how to provoke him into saying terrible things. It wouldn't be that hard. 

Anyway, now I'm rambling. I'll leave it at what black Americans think. 83% say Trump is racist; Trump might be a racist. If Trump is a racist, his comments about shit hole countries might be racist. 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Considering his history, it is not unreasonable for people to assume his "shit hole" country comment might be racist. What degree of racist is he? Who knows. It might just be typical 74-year-old rich while male racism and Trump maybe just happens to have lost whatever editing mechanism he may have had in his youth. He isn't quite David Duke level. However, he's probably the most racist president towards blacks in the last 100 years. Woodrow Wilson was much more racist than Trump, but Harding-Obama have at least been discreet in whatever sublimal racism they might have had. Nixon might come closest to Trump, but his comments were always in private, and often not as bad as his aides. There's a recording of Nixon talking about "negro spies," noting that there are very few of them. One of his aides makes a racist comment about their intelligence. Nixon doesn't agree with it, but he also doesn't contradict him. However, he seemed at least unwilling to engage on that topic. 

I would say definetly Wilson and I'd say Johnson and Nixon probably have him beat as far as racist President over the past century. But he's in that top 4.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

I would say definetly Wilson and I'd say Johnson and Nixon probably have him beat as far as racist President over the past century. But he's in that top 4.

I can understand an argument for Nixon being more racist than Trump. I can’t see one for LBJ, especially considering what he did as president and what he did before he even went into politics as a school teacher purposely to work with minorities. He did use the “N” word, which establishes him as a racist on a noticeable level.  I think the difference might be that LBJ, in the context of his time, was not as racist as Trump is in the context of his time. Additionally, LBJ certainly evolved once he became a national figure and was no longer appealing to racist-leaning Texas. Since I brought up the N-word, Nixon, Truman, and FDR also used it. It wouldn’t surprise me if JFK, Eisenhower, Ford, and a much younger Carter did. Reagan probably did in jokes. As Southern Whites born before the 60s, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Bushes or Clinton did as well. Trump has possibly used the word. Obama has but in a negative connotation. 
 

Anyway, short form: What is your argument/sources for LBJ being more racist than Trump?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Anyway, short form: What is your argument/sources for LBJ being more racist than Trump?

He is responsible for transitioning systematic racism from de jure to de facto segregation. He is responsible for the economic targeting of the black community in an effort to destroy the black community following the fall of the legalized racist regime. He essentially swapped legal segregation and oppression (which he knew was on his way out), for the present day modern form of economic oppression. Nixon then took up the torch with the re-building of legal systemic oppression with major marches toward the modern racist criminal justice system and war on Drugs.

Johnson and Nixon are the architects of modern-day systemic racism that Trump is actively acting to preserve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

He is responsible for transitioning systematic racism from de jure to de facto segregation. He is responsible for the economic targeting of the black community in an effort to destroy the black community following the fall of the legalized racist regime. He essentially swapped legal segregation and oppression (which he knew was on his way out), for the present day modern form of economic oppression. Nixon then took up the torch with the re-building of legal systemic oppression with major marches toward the modern racist criminal justice system and war on Drugs.

Johnson and Nixon are the architects of modern-day systemic racism that Trump is actively acting to preserve.

Can you elaborate? Or tell me in what ways this is “true.” I’m not seeing your argument. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Can you elaborate? Or tell me in what ways this is “true.” I’m not seeing your argument. 

His Great Society set the black community back economically exponentially. The point of the program was to remove economic independence among black Americans and replace it with government dependency, stripping freedom from black people. It was a targeted attack on the black family unit and black economic power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

His Great Society set the black community back economically exponentially. The point of the program was to remove economic independence among black Americans and replace it with government dependency, stripping freedom from black people. It was a targeted attack on the black family unit and black economic power.

What is your source for this assumption?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

His Great Society set the black community back economically exponentially. The point of the program was to remove economic independence among black Americans and replace it with government dependency, stripping freedom from black people. It was a targeted attack on the black family unit and black economic power.

Independent-minded Ugandan journalist Andrew Mwenda (who has been incarcerated several times by long-serving Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni) said that Western foreign aid to African nations was a similar scheme of power, vassalage, and dependence, and encouraged entrepreneurship and independent economic initiative and control of their own resources in African nations, instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

What is your source for this assumption?

Well first of all, that's like saying that the war on drugs was racially motivated. We have the receipts of the effects of both programs, they locked up and made dependent thousands of black people.

Secondly, just like the War on Drugs we know that LBJ's intentions were to destabilize the black community, impose government power, and take over the votes of the community with the Democratic Party a la "I'll have those N***** votin' Democrat for 200 years"

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Well first of all, that's like saying that the war on drugs was racially motivated. We have the receipts of the effects of both programs, they locked up and made dependent thousands of black people.

Secondly, just like the War on Drugs we know that LBJ's intentions were to destabilize the black community, impose government power, and take over the votes of the community with the Democratic Party a la "I'll have those N***** votin' Democrat for 200 years"

Ok, you are sounding looney now. I need sources to read your fringe theory on The Great Society, which was also, by the way, not focused exclusively on blacks but was geared towards all poor, regardless of race and ethnicity. I am yet to read a history book that even suggests this theory. I’ve never talked to a single professor or political scientists that even hints at this. It’s totally fringe. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Ok, you are sounding looney now. I need sources to read your fringe theory on The Great Society, which was also, by the way, not focused exclusively on blacks but was geared towards all poor, regardless of race and ethnicity. I am yet to read a history book that even suggests this theory. I’ve never talked to a single professor or political scientists that even hints at this. It’s totally fringe. 

You're right it's not commonly accepted because often times liberal (white) academics only like to cast blame on Republicans like Nixon for systemic racism. They don't like to look in the mirror and understand that both parties have done this. With the exception of Clinton's crime bill, there is very little honesty with understanding that as government power in the black community increased, the power and economic independence of the black community decreased.

Systemic racism is deep deep deeply ingrained in this country and it goes far deeper than just a broken criminal justice system. After all, how could a criminal justice system be so efficient at criminalizing people of color without policies which destabilized education and economic independence in the black community in the first place? This has always been how the system works for people of color, starts them in broken homes, unsafe neighborhoods, with little economic opportunity and then feeds them into underfunded and over-regulated schools eventually tossing them into the crosshairs of racist cops and judges and the clutches of racist government policies.

And we say we have equal protection under law...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reagan04 said:

You're right it's not commonly accepted because often times liberal (white) academics only like to cast blame on Republicans like Nixon for systemic racism. They don't like to look in the mirror and understand that both parties have done this. With the exception of Clinton's crime bill, there is very little honesty with understanding that as government power in the black community increased, the power and economic independence of the black community decreased.

Systemic racism is deep deep deeply ingrained in this country and it goes far deeper than just a broken criminal justice system. After all, how could a criminal justice system be so efficient at criminalizing people of color without policies which destabilized education and economic independence in the black community in the first place? This has always been how the system works for people of color, starts them in broken homes, unsafe neighborhoods, with little economic opportunity and then feeds them into underfunded and over-regulated schools eventually tossing them into the crosshairs of racist cops and judges and the clutches of racist government policies.

And we say we have equal protection under law...

Black academics don’t hold this fringe theory of yours either. You’d think they’d be the first to pounce on it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

I hope that everyone is doing well.

I usually lurk on these forums to enjoy the meaningful and thoughtful discussion that usually takes place here; personally, I do not like to chat politics outside of a close circle of friends due to the fact that it usually ends up as a shouting match with no side being convinced to thoughtfully examine another viewpoint.  However, I did find the discourse regarding the status of Haiti very interesting, and I will offer my thoughts on this issue particularly.

As some of you may know, I am the author of some of the Caribbean scenarios posted on the 270soft campaign page.  So far, I have only finished a few for the Bahamas, but I am working on some for Jamaica at this point in time.  I personally live in the Caribbean region, I won't say which country to help protect my privacy, so I am intimately familiar with the situation in Haiti and how it affects the surrounding countries.

While describing Haiti as a "shithole" is no doubt crass, it is most certainly true.  The most accurate analogy that comes to mind when describing Haiti to an uneducated observer is to refer to it as the Somalia of the Western Hemisphere.  The political history of Haiti runs awash with the blood of all of the political leaders it has killed in countless revolutions and bloodbath massacres over the several hundred years it has existed as a nation state.  Even now, there has been no elected legislative body in Haiti for several years, and when there is a temporal period of "stability" in the country, the political leaders make the corruption found in all of the parties in DC look like child's play.  The history of Haiti is bloody from the moment that the Haitian Revolution kicked off, and it has only gotten worse over the several hundred years it has existed as a nation state.

As far as I am aware, President Trump did not specifically name any other Caribbean countries in the dialogue that has prompted this discussion.  To accuse President Trump of holding racially charged views due to this comment would be disingenuous in my opinion.  All of the Caribbean nations have had issues to some extent regarding racial integration, economic equality, etc. but none have experienced the kind of turmoil that has occurred over several hundred years in Haiti.  Not Jamaica, not Guyana, not the Bahamas, so on and so forth.  As a matter of fact, all of the other Caribbean nations have some form of a legitimate, functional government (despite many being nothing more than corrupt banana republic governments who will sell their country for the highest dollar).  Haiti is truly a unicorn within the Caribbean, and I can 100% understand why President Trump would specifically refer to it the context of the alleged statement.  It has nothing to do with racial composition in mind, as most of the Caribbean nations are majority-black and I did not see him reference any others.  If any of you ever have the time/resources to take a trip down to Haiti, I highly invite you to visit Port-au-Prince.  You will be very grateful for the lives that we all have in a secure and stable society.  Will post some informational links below.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/13/exclusive-haitian-president-defends-against-corruption-allegations/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Haiti#The_Duvalier_era_(1957%E2%80%9386)

Regards,

CPE (Caribbean Political Enthusiast)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...