What is wrong with white male democrats?

No, this is how you think. It is the only truly racist who would even think to say this.

You are a prisoner to your ideology so you rationalize...EVERYTHING. Look how they rationalized what went on in the USSR and Maoist China. Same deal, different time. Does not matter what happens, only that you bow down to the ideology, first and foremost.

 

No. A truly racist would BELIEVE that.

You seem to struggle with the term "racist". Not good in a thread that is supposed to be about racism.

 

It really is amazing that you would say this to another person. Who says this sort of thing anymore?

For the record, my Spanish is pretty darn good. Wrong skin color? Pathetic.

 

This is what your ideology demands of you...everything is racist.

Eventually you will see this and hopefully you will have enough time left in your life to help other people instead of trying to incessantly brainwash everybody that your side is The Way [despite failure after failure after failure].

 

YOU do! You said I was a racist and simply FABRICATED a reason that you won't support despite constant demands on my part to QUOTE me saying what you claim I said. Instead of that, I directly QUOTE what I am referring to. My interpretation may be right, it may be wrong.. but I QUOTE what I am referring to. You don't!

 

Not "everything". Not even to you (because I have no way of knowing). Just to what you said.... Don't try to water it down.

Bottom line, and I'm done with this thread: there are hundreds of EQUALLY qualified candidates to be Senator. The belief that none of them could possibly be a black woman is the type of racism that those who originated this talking point (I'm not saying the OP is) is the type of narrative that white supremacists try to push. And they do this by "watering down" the term "racist" to make it look as if it applied to "every" type of discrimination. Even to POSITIVE discrimination.

There... I'm done....

 

If a Muslim Ban is cleaned up to exclude Iraq, exempt lawful permanent residents and other current visa holders, is it still a Muslim ban?

That’s the question presented by President Donald Trump’s decision to replace his original executive order, enjoined by the courts, with a new one. The administration’s decision to abandon the old order is wise — every judge but one who had reviewed it found it raised grave constitutional concerns. The new order will be less catastrophic in its roll-out than the first, both because it exempts those who already have visas and because it will not go into effect until March 16. But it’s still religious discrimination in the pretextual guise of national security. And it’s still unconstitutional.
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/well-see-you-court-20-once-muslim-ban-still-muslim-ban

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that you couldn't bring yourself to acknowledge what I said about the original EO being modified is in fact correct.

 

It was never a full out Muslim ban. And it's not Trump's fault that most of the countries that are responsible for harboring terrorists happen to be Muslim majority...

Unlike you and your leaders Trump was looking to protect America because we had just had another terrorist attack. But instead of protecting America you guys are too busy being virtuous and ignorant to the ways of the world and who hates us.

And because of that that's why the country's going to s*** since Biden's been in charge.

Biden led by the DNC is not American first.

So do you have any other examples of trump being racist because the Muslim ban ain't it.

There are plenty of Muslim majority countries whom were never in that travel ban. So please...try again.

 

You are completely missing the point. Have you never hired anybody before? You ALWAYS try to pick the best fit for the job. And it should never matter if they are black, white, green, purple or blue [except in extremely rare cases].

You CANNOT fix the past. If people are still alive who committed crimes, then they should be prosecuted. The best you can do is to have the fairest policies going forward...otherwise you will perpetuate racism forever!

 

Right now I own an IT company, in which I can scan for technical skills when I hire. Even though that is not the only factor, the field of candidates is relatively small. I was once Passenger Handling Manager for an airline at their main airport before I had my degree, and interviewed for positions in passenger handling that MANY candidates wanted. There was never a shortage of people who wanted to work for an airline and especially at the airport. The pay was ok, travel benefits, and many candidates saw the position as a stepping stone to one day being flight attendants or pilots. HR did some of the screening, but I insisted on making the final selection. The area where I worked was very predominantly white, so I rarely had any non-white candidates. But I always tried to maintain a 50-50 balance between male and female agents. There was absolutely NO detriment to the quality of employees in making this choice. There was also NO way of knowing who was "the best" among that many candidates. The airline provided all the training, so previous experience was not necessarily the most determining factor and I soon learned that what appeared to me to be "most technically qualified" was not always the best choice.

Newsome has hundreds... probably thousands... of qualified people to choose from. The NOTION that none of them is a black woman is pure racism. With a field of candidate that broad, you can chose based on OTHER factors other than just qualifications. White supremacists don't like that.

 

Putting aside your egregious insult that I don't care about protecting America, or that Trump chose initially to enact an unconstitutional ban, there are some obvious and more subtle aspects to it. Among the obvious, it was a reflexive political move designed to satisfy the simplistic, boorish impulses of his base voters. Fitting seamlessly with the overall tone of xenophobia and bigotry he has consistently projected. On the more subtle side there's......

Trump picked the wrong countries

Set aside the question of whether imposing blanket bans on entire countries’ populations because of the actions of a few evil individuals is justified either morally or on human rights grounds. The bigger problem is that it also isn’t likely to do much to reduce the terrorism threat.

The San Bernardino shooting that killed 14 people was carried out by an American-born US citizen of Pakistani descent and a lawful permanent US resident of Pakistani descent. The Orlando nightclub shooter who murdered 49 people was an American-born US citizen of Afghan descent. The Boston marathon bombers, who identified as ethnic Chechen, came to the US from Kyrgyzstan and grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts, before carrying out attacks that left three dead. The militant who killed four Marines during a shooting spree in Tennessee was a Kuwaiti-born US citizen whose parents were Palestinian and Jordanian.

Faisal Shahzad, the attempted Times Square bomber, was Pakistani-American. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the infamous “underwear bomber,” was Nigerian. Richard Reid, whose 2001 attempt to blow up an airplane with explosives hidden in his shoes is the reason we still have to stand barefoot in the TSA line more than 15 years later, was born in the UK to a white English mother and a mixed-race Jamaican immigrant father. Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, was born in Virginia to Palestinian parents.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...n-immigration-visas-terrorism-executive-order

Did picking the wrong countries matter to him or the pitch fork wielding mob he sought to appease? Of course not. The goal was not to make a measured decision based on the facts in order to enhance our security against potential terrorists. It was to follow up on a promise borne of ignorance in order to elicit the desired reaction. The insipid chant, America first. A priority so important to him he decided to put America last when he orchestrated a failed coup, disregarding the will of the voting public.

 

White ppl defining racism is like a rapist defining consent ...you get the picture.

 

the UK has been fixing the past for hundreds of years by taking money directly out of my bank account to pay institutions that facilitated the trans Atlantic slave so called trade. Your world view is not based in reality.

 

Trump went with expanding restrictions from a list your Obama already had in place.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/...ministration-chose-the-7-countries/index.html

"In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in what it called an effort to address “the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters.”"

Was Obama targeting Muslims? Why didn't you call Obama racist?

Take note;

"The list does not include Muslim-majority countries where the Trump Organization does business, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. "

So apparently...Trump saw to put a ban on the countries most likely to be harboring and training terrorists identified first and restricted first by Obama. While at the same time, not banning muslim majority country's.

So not Muslim bans.

 

Yeah, I'm seeing a picture of an excuse to justify racism. The concept of racism exists in all cultures, ethnicities, and languages. You don't get to say which words can be defined by which race because of some victimhood mentality. That's pathetic and sad.

 

And it says nothing about it applying only to the ethnic majority.

Thanks for playing.

 

Evidence of what you said being true. This isn't hard.

You claimed they pushed a narrative, you were clear in what you said and my question was clear.

Show evidence that anybody you listed pushes that there are no black women qualified for the positions.

 

Racism is a word that applies world wide. Whites are a minority world wide.

Think, then post.

 

There are a number of radical lefties in this thread who think they have the authority to define and redefine words to suit their agenda. The massive ego it takes to do that is impressive.

 

If this were true why did Newsome ignore the Constitution to pick someone 3,000 miles away? If someone in California were "EQUALLY" qualified as "anybody else" he would have picked someone from California. The fact that he couldn't find someone in California means he failed to find someone who was qualified. I'm not saying there's no black woman in California who is qualified, but Newsome did he picked someone from Maryland.

 

What is pathetic and sad is someone explaining something they've never felt, you feel me

 

Yeah, I feel you making assumptions about people's race and personal experiences to make yourself feel like a victim. I'm sure it feels good to you, but for the rest of us it's just awkward. Fun fact, people of all races and experiences can believe it's stupid to say that only a particular race can define words.

 

Whites being a minority has nothing to do with racism. That's like saying I can't be good at football because I'm Japanese and Japanese don't have football pedigree, you feel me bro, nah, course you don't

 

I'm no victim cuz. Ima white guy, ya dig..

 

You're right, I don't.

Are you under the impression that whites haven't been the victims of racism worldwide?

There's actually no need to respond, your racist viewpoints against whites are well known so I know your answer.