you may believe this… and if you do you share some attributes with racists…. you probably don’t think of yourself as racist, but what you just posted is pretty close to a classic definition of a racist.
Sighs. It is not even close to the classic definition of a racist. It may be the definition you personally use, but if you are, you’re using a twisted definition.
A RACIST is a person who believes that one race (usually their own) has qualities which are *inherently superior* to another race. INHERENTLY. Do you understand?
There is nothing in what I wrote that states or implies that I believe that a particular RACE is superior or inferior to any other race. Nothing. Yet, somehow, you found a hidden meaning where none was written.
Why? Why this need to slander people who think differently than you? Since I’m not white, by the US-WASP-Euro definition of the term, does that mean you’re a racist against me?
Consider this… i dont really think you are a racist.. most people aren’t..not really, but they carry some ideas which are not fair and have not been well thought out (we all do)
So some believe. My view is that if you can’t measure it statistically, it’s opinion, not fact.
None of this even addresses the fact that many well educated highly socialized people beat their wives senseless and run ponzi schemes or the mob. which would be a ridiculous generalization (rich highly socialized people are crooks)… but no more so than the one you just made.
This is a logical fallacy, and ignores sociology. The point is that there are cultures in this world that commonly practice things which we in this country consider anti-social. The fact that we, in this country, have people who UNcommonly commit similar acts does not negate the point being made, which is simply that some cultures will have more trouble assimilating into this country than others. And, lest you think that’s a racist comment, let me assure you that it works both ways. There are countries that YOU, if you were to expatriate, would have more trouble than others assimilating into (in fact, many countries simply wouldn’t permit it; they tolerate immigrants far less than we do in the US.)
uhh… wait… so what is the significance of the country being a shithole then?
No telling. I have decided not to try to read Mr. Trump’s mind. But the fact remains that calling a country a shithole does not logically mean that the people are being impuned.
Example. When I lived in India, it took my daughter well over an hour to drive seven miles to school in the school bus. The first half of the trip was just miserable traffic where nobody pays attention to any lanes or traffic rules, and you could at any time get cut off by a herd of cows or a religious parade; the second half of the trip was on a road that had far more potholes than it did pavement, and driving more than 5–6 miles an hour was impossible. And, on several occasions, I had to take my daughter to the hospital for intestinal disorders; she would occasionally forget and drink from a water fountain. The doctor would ask her “OK, is it brown or yellow” (referring to what was coming out of her bum) and give her the appropriate antibiotic.
Now, I think that in many people’s eyes, that little story qualifies the place as a “shithole”. But you know something? My daughter did 1st grade there, and when we came back to the states following that year, it took her until FIFTH GRADE until she was being taught math that she hadn’t already seen in the FIRST GRADE in India.
Educational system? Top notch. People? Fantastic. Love them. National Infrastructure? Shithole. OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING.
there really isnt any such thing as private as a politician.
Not anymore. Back in the days of Kennedy, the media covered up his piccadillos, because they cared if they were the vehicle by which the country was embarrassed or not. Today, they can’t wait to be the one to get the news out. Not a positive development, by my way of thinking.
As for the Media… there seems to be a lot of consternation about how the media treats trump. Which I find confusing… because there is Fox news, breitbart news, sean hannity, drudge report etc… all right wing wacko news sources… dont those count? or do you only object to news sources when they go against what you believe?
The total “touch” of conservative media is probably about 7 to 10% of the whole. Add up the ratings of the three broadcast network news shows and compare those to Fox’s news ratings. Fox’s share is tiny. So, if the broader news media wants to go all in against Trump, Fox and all the other right-leaning news sources together can’t come close to countering that.
The issue here is objectivity.
wait.. I know.. the news is supposed to be unbiased.. and for years.. it was kind of. But sadly that is no longer the case. There is a bias in news.. and no doubt Obama was generally treated better by CNN than trump is today, and probably most news sources treated Obama better than Trump.
But maybe… just maybe… Obama (or Bush Senior, or Jr or Clinton, or Reagan etc..) were simply not as generally offensive to such to such a large segment of the population… as Trump is. I think you have to at least consider that.
I also think you have to consider the fact that regardless of what an asshole Trump is, he’s still the President, and if he’s ineffective because of media bias (the tax bill is the penultimate example; the reporting on that was horrendously bad) we all suffer.