Astrid
Well-Known Member
- Feb 10, 2021
- 11,053
- 3,695
- 40
- Country
- Hong Kong
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
No, you didn't get the sense right.
The problem is that 1.) he based his whole argument on their birth country, as if citizenship doesn't matter, and 2.) for three of the four, he got that home country detail wrong.
He treated these women as non-Americans despite the fact that three of them were born here and one was naturalized as a child. They're all Americans. They all have the right to hold the offices they hold. Three of them have the right to hold the office that he did. But he didn't see any of that, because they're not white.
That's not an invitation back.
He based it on the corrupt governments of their home countries.
If you want to go extra biblical and read between the lines,
go ahead, but admit you are doing it.
Whether he got details of citizenship wrong is irrelevant.
You did us the favour there of identifying the actual
source of the "racist" take on his admittedly crude and
stuoid words..
" He did not see...because they're not white".
That is your chosen take, beyond mere putting of words into anothers mouth
its putting perception, thoughts, motives into someone else's mind-
for the purpose of concocting something that is not
evident without " interpreting".
I've encountered plenty of racism. It never needed
remote viewing or telepsychiatry or "interpretation".
It was right there.
Now, personally, I think Trump is an appalling person,
grotesquely inappropriate for high office.
As for the motives and mindset of those who must
finding "racist" to add so unnecessarily to an already
bloated list of disqualifies, i won't offer to remote
view that.
Last edited:
Upvote
0