House floor erupts after lawmaker shouts ‘Go back to Puerto Rico’

tulc · Jan 17, 2019

The House floor erupted Thursday after Congress adjourned for the week when an unidentified Republican congressman yelled a controversial and potentially racially charged remark across the aisle as Democratic Rep. Tony Cárdenas was at the podium.

“Go back to Puerto Rico!” the lawmaker shouted, punctuating a stream of Republican whooping and hollering at the Democratic majority for holding a voice vote — instead of the normal roll call vote — to pass a continuing resolution that would reopen nine Cabinet departments through Feb. 28

Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee and other Democrats in the chamber shot out of their seats demanding to know who shouted the comment.

tulc(thought that sounded rude) :sigh:

redleghunter · Jan 17, 2019

tulc said:
House floor erupts after lawmaker shouts ‘Go back to Puerto Rico’

tulc(thought that sounded rude)

Why is the knee jerk reaction always racial? The Dem leaders were there last week. Maybe the joke was go back.

JCFantasy23 · Jan 17, 2019

Yes, definitely rude and a stupid thing to shout out like that. :doh:

miamited · Jan 17, 2019

redleghunter said:
Why is the knee jerk reaction always racial? The Dem leaders were there last week. Maybe the joke was go back.

Hi RLH,

I don't understand why they would want the Democratic delegates to go back to Puerto Rico from where they had just come. Don't the Republicans need the Democrats there to work out the budget? Or was this the Republicans conceding that they might as well go back to Puerto Rico because the Republicans didn't have any intentions of working this budget problem out and so they might as well be back in Puerto Rico? Seems a strange thing for someone to just yell out on the floor over some procedural vote.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

tulc · Jan 17, 2019

redleghunter said:
Why is the knee jerk reaction always racial?

...could it be because when Rep. Jason Smith yelled it the Rep. who was speaking was of Hispanic descent? Given that, it doesn't seem (to me at least) like a stretch. :wave:

The Dem leaders were there last week. Maybe the joke was go back.

If it was a joke why did it take a while for Rep Smith to admit he did it? Why not admit it right then so everyone could have a good laugh? :scratch:

He did eventually apologize:
GOP congressman apologizes to Democratic rep for ‘Go back to Puerto Rico’ outburst

Republican Rep. Jason Smith called Democratic Rep. Tony Cárdenas and apologized Thursday for blurting out “Go back to Puerto Rico” while Cárdenas was waiting to speak on the House floor.

Cárdenas, a descendant of Mexican immigrants, accepted the Missouri Republican’s apology, said in a statement to Roll Call.

“I told him I look forward to having a nice and respectful conversation when we return to D.C. on Tuesday. He agreed that we should get to know each other better,” the California Democrat said. “I appreciate his call and our future relationship.”

tulc(dog whistles are so handy, aren't they?) :sorry:

redleghunter · Jan 17, 2019

miamited said:
Hi RLH,

I don't understand why they would want the Democratic delegates to go back to Puerto Rico from where they had just come. Don't the Republicans need the Democrats there to work out the budget? Or was this the Republicans conceding that they might as well go back to Puerto Rico because the Republicans didn't have any intentions of working this budget problem out and so they might as well be back in Puerto Rico? Seems a strange thing for someone to just yell out on the floor over some procedural vote.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Ted perhaps that was the joke.

redleghunter · Jan 17, 2019

tulc said:
tulc(dog whistles are so handy, aren't they?)

Depends on who blowing on the whistle.

Halbhh · Jan 17, 2019

redleghunter said:
Depends on who blowing on the whistle.

Here's an fun anecdote that I just learned from someone's childhood.

We are doing the Gospel of Mathew in our Bible study, and read in chapter 15 this last Sunday --

21Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

24He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

25The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

26He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

27“Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

28Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

----------

This caused an older guy to suddenly remember from his childhood that as his group of boys would run by a certain old woman's house on the way to play, she'd yell out in a foreign language at them, each time, the same foreign word, repeatedly.

Later in life he learned what the word meant.

She was yelling "dogs" .

miamited · Jan 18, 2019

redleghunter said:
Ted perhaps that was the joke.

Hi RLH,

The joke? Yea, it was just some guy yelling out a joke on the floor. Sure, that's it! Ahhhh the beauty and wonder of alternative facts.

God bless.
In Christ, ted

miamited · Jan 18, 2019

Hi RLH,

For me, it really doesn't matter whether the statement was made in jest that the Democratic delegation who had just come from Puerto Rico should go back, or that he was intending some racial slur.

Either way, it was not a well thought out statement for a representative to make in the fashion in which it was made. Why yell it out over the floor? Either way that he meant it, I don't thing there's really any doubt in anyone's mind, except perhaps your own and you weren't there and neither was I, that the charge was made to stir the pot, so to speak.

So, I'm perfectly willing to accept that he may well have intended it to be taken in either of the ways that it has been presented, but it still is not constructive to the operation of our government. It was just a thoughtless thing to say, and right now, Republicans are being pilloried for pretty much every slip of the tongue and thoughtless act. Fair or not, that's how it is and I think a lot of folks believe that they have brought this wrath down upon their own heads by standing with the man that they have chosen as their leader. Even Sen. Graham, who has laid some charges against President Trump, seems to want us to believe that he's (the President) still a good guy and leader.

So cry me a river. President Obama and the Democratic leadership have endured the exact same partisan separateness for 8 years, and he was at least a reasonably good President. The Republicans are holding on to this burning ship trying to keep it afloat for, for...for, gosh I honestly don't know why other than it supports the Republican brand.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Gigimo · Jan 18, 2019

redleghunter said:
Why is the knee jerk reaction always racial?

A label to shut off discussion.

tulc · Jan 18, 2019

Gigimo said:
A label to shut off discussion.

...or there could simply be some racists in the Republican base and it's common to blow the dog whistle for them every now and then? :scratch:

tulc(just another possibility) :wave:

JackRT · Jan 18, 2019

I recall walking down a Toronto street a few years ago. I was right behind a turbaned Sikh gentleman when a dipstick shouted "Go back where you came from!" The Sikh turned and said "You want me to go back to Moose Jaw?"

Gigimo · Jan 18, 2019

tulc said:
dog whistle

Ah yes, conclusions drawn from reading between the lines and seeing something that doesn't actually exist or didn't happen.

tulc · Jan 18, 2019

Gigimo said:
Ah yes, conclusions drawn from reading between the lines and seeing something that doesn't actually exist or didn't happen.

Or it did, that's the point of dog whistle politics,it's deniability is one of the reasons both Democrats and Republicans use it:

Atwater was contrasting this with Ronald Reagan's campaign, which he felt "was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference." However, others like U.S. law professor and author of the 2014 book Dog Whistle Politics Ian Haney-López described Reagan as "blowing a dog whistle" when the candidate told stories about "Cadillac-driving 'welfare queens' and 'strapping young bucks' buying T-bone steaks with food stamps" while he was campaigning for the presidency.[29][30][31] He argues that such rhetoric pushes middle-class white Americans to vote against their economic self-interest in order to punish "undeserving minorities" who, they believe, are receiving too much public assistance at their expense. According to López, conservative middle-class whites, convinced by powerful economic interests that minorities are the enemy, supported politicians who promised to curb illegal immigration and crack down on crime but inadvertently also voted for policies that favor the extremely rich, such as slashing taxes for top income brackets, giving corporations more regulatory control over industry and financial markets, union busting, cutting pensions for future public employees, reducing funding for public schools, and retrenching the social welfare state. He argues that these same voters cannot link rising inequality which has impacted their lives to the policy agendas they support, which resulted in a massive transfer of wealth to the top 1% of the population since the 1980s. [32]

Journalist Craig Unger wrote that President George W. Bush and Karl Rove used coded "dog-whistle" language in political campaigning, delivering one message to the overall electorate while at the same time delivering quite a different message to a targeted evangelical Christian political base.[33] William Safire, in Safire's Political Dictionary, offered the example of Bush's criticism during the 2004 presidential campaign of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott decision denying the U. S. citizenship of any African American. To most listeners the criticism seemed innocuous, Safire wrote, but "sharp-eared observers" understood the remark to be a pointed reminder that Supreme Court decisions can be reversed, and a signal that, if re-elected, Bush might nominate to the Supreme Court a justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade.[1] This view is echoed in a 2004 Los Angeles Times article by Peter Wallsten.[34] (emph. added)

found here: Dog-whistle politics - Wikipedia
I particularly found the bolded portion very interesting. :wave:

I might also point out that if (as the Republicans contend) it was "simply a joke!" why did it take a whole day before someone came forward and owned up to making the comment? I might suggest because if it had gotten resolved right away "the whistle" wouldn't have reached as much of the base as needed to be reminded which Party "is on their side" once it went through a wide enough part of the news cycle then someone could come forward and "apologize for making a bad joke". :wave:

tulc(is thinking of making more coffee) :sorry:

Gigimo · Jan 19, 2019

tulc said:
Or it did, that's the point of dog whistle politics,it's deniability is one of the reasons both Democrats and Republicans use it:

found here: Dog-whistle politics - Wikipedia
I particularly found the bolded portion very interesting.
I might also point out that if (as the Republicans contend) it was "simply a joke!" why did it take a whole day before someone came forward and owned up to making the comment? I might suggest because if it had gotten resolved right away "the whistle" wouldn't have reached as much of the base as needed to be reminded which Party "is on their side" once it went through a wide enough part of the news cycle then someone could come forward and "apologize for making a bad joke".
tulc(is thinking of making more coffee)

Sometimes silence is more effective at putting notions/accusations to rest than actually responding to them, responding lends a false sense of legitimacy to the false accusation. Letting the accuser/accusation "stew" for a period of time can be more effective, they continue to run their mouth (thereby losing their own credibility) when everybody else has figured out it was a nothing burger to begin with.

(My guess is a PC colleague of his/her suggested/demanded a response be given thereby lending false legitimacy to the nothing burger, bad move).

tulc · Jan 19, 2019

Gigimo said:
Sometimes silence is more effective at putting notions/accusations to rest than actually responding to them, responding lends a false sense of legitimacy to the false accusation. Letting the accuser/accusation "stew" for a period of time can be more effective, they continue to run their mouth (thereby losing their own credibility) when everybody else has figured out it was a nothing burger to begin with.

(My guess is a PC colleague of his/her suggested/demanded a response be given thereby lending false legitimacy to the nothing burger, bad move).

...I'm not sure I know which side in this discussion was the one you're saying should stay quiet? The guy screaming the unfunny joke side or the side where the Hispanic Rep. was apparently being told to "Go back to Puerto Rico!"? :scratch:

tulc(is trying to understand Gigimo's point here) :wave:

The Barbarian · Jan 19, 2019

JackRT said:
I recall walking down a Toronto street a few years ago. I was right behind a turbaned Sikh gentleman when a dipstick shouted "Go back where you came from!" The Sikh turned and said "You want me to go back to Moose Jaw?"

I heard something like that, not long ago:

"After about five minutes of the mother talking to her son in another language, the man, for whatever reason, feels the need to tell the woman, 'When you're in the UK you should really be speaking English.'" wrote Tom in his Facebook post.

"At which point, an old woman in front of him turns around and says, 'She's in Wales. And she's speaking Welsh.'"
Welsh woman on bus shuts down racist who told Muslim passenger to 'speak English'

As far as the slimeball congressman goes, it's not really new. The good thing is that people are becoming less tolerant of behavior like that.

Gigimo · Jan 20, 2019

tulc said:
...I'm not sure I know which side in this discussion was the one you're saying should stay quiet? The guy screaming the unfunny joke side or the side where the Hispanic Rep. was apparently being told to "Go back to Puerto Rico!"?
tulc(is trying to understand Gigimo's point here)

The guy who made the humorous observation should have stayed quiet and let the others continue to look foolish by make insinuations/accusations of racism they can't prove.

tulc · Jan 20, 2019

Gigimo said:
The guy who made the humorous observation should have stayed quiet

...and not shouted the (I think you may be being overly generous by calling it "humorous" but okay) comment at the Representative of Hispanic descent? I could agree with that. :wave:

and let the others continue to look foolish by make insinuations/accusations of racism they can't prove.

uhmmm...they honestly wouldn't have to prove anything. All they had to do was point out who was talking when he did his screaming and people would simply put two and two together and draw their own conclusions. If the "joke" has to be explained to everyone to make you not sound like a racist? it's not really a "joke" so much as a gaffe. :sorry:

tulc(is now drinking more coffee)

House floor erupts after lawmaker shouts ‘Go back to Puerto Rico’

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Thank You Jesus!

In a Kingdom by the Sea.

Ted

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Everything You say is Life to me

Ted

Ted

Well-Known Member

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Well-Known Member

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Similar threads