DeSantis: Florida voters shouldn’t ‘monkey this up’ by voting for Gillum

[NW82]

Sorry, neither I nor my intent are what's under discussion in this thread, if that's what you want to discuss you'll just have to start another thread to discuss that.



Okay...I'm not sure why my understanding why President Trump would like a guy who has blindly supported him 100% of the time would be considered condescending but, okay.
tulc(is going to need some more coffee after this)

You posted your own comment, in relation to the source, the implication of racism from the source, and your replies are relevant so stop avoiding it; hence the comments and questions to you about your post. Your condescension was you trying to explain something to me, by you assuming I don't understand, that didnt need explaining. You push racism in almost every post you make, that I've seen.

You want to relate to the article, fine, do you believe the intent was racist, if so, why? If not, why? The POTUS endorsed, but nothing else was mentioned in the article, so why do you see why the POTUS likes him? All questions are directly related to the article and your words in the OP. Will you respond to those?

 

[NW82]

tulc(did say he understands why President Trump liked this candidate)

Ok, why?

 

[tulc]

Ok, why?

didn't read all of post #60 huh?
tulc(hopes that clears it up)

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

You posted your own comment, in relation to the source, the implication of racism from the source, and your replies are relevant so stop avoiding it; hence the comments and questions to you about your post. Your condescension was you trying to explain something to me, by you assuming I don't understand, that didnt need explaining. You push racism in almost every post you make, that I've seen.

You want to relate to the article, fine, do you believe the intent was racist, if so, why? If not, why? The POTUS endorsed, but nothing else was mentioned in the article, so why do you see why the POTUS likes him? All questions are directly related to the article and your words in the OP. Will you respond to those?

This. He posts that Trump must like this guy whom the media is attacking for racism, and then pretends not to have been implying Trump is a racist, with zero evidence to produce for that assertion.

 

[tulc]

This. He posts that Trump must like this guy whom the media is attacking for racism, and then pretends not to have been implying Trump is a racist, with zero evidence to produce for that assertion.

You must not have read post #60 either. But I understand. It's easier to make the thread about me instead of addressing what the thread is actually about.
tulc(finds it sort of adorable, if pretty predictable, really)

 

[Jamsie]

You must not have read post #60 either. But I understand. It's easier to make the thread about me instead of addressing what the thread is actually about. tulc(finds it sort of adorable, if pretty predictable, really)

The technique is from the trump playbook, and so quite predictable. #22 - Attack the messenger not the substance of the charge.

 

[NW82]

didn't read all of post #60 huh?
tulc(hopes that clears it up)

Actually I did read it, but thanks for your condescension again. Just answer the question instead of avoiding it. The article states that Trump endorsed the guy. You said you see why Trump likes him. At no point in the article does it state how Trump feels, only that a political endorsement was given. You state facts not in evidence. Your comments in your original post at what are being discussed in relation to the article you posted, and yet you continue to dodge and avoid. Why is that?

 

[tulc]

Actually I did read it, but thanks for your condescension again. Just answer the question instead of avoiding it. The article states that Trump endorsed the guy. You said you see why Trump likes him. At no point in the article does it state how Trump feels, only that a political endorsement was given. You state facts not in evidence. Your comments in your original post at what are being discussed in relation to the article you posted, and yet you continue to dodge and avoid. Why is that?

You do realize with in the article I posted there were links right? among the links in the OP were the candidates twitter feed, even a casual scroll through it would show you why President Trump likes this guy. Which now makes twice that I've explained the same thing. If you have more questions about me or why I post what I post you really will have to start a thread to discuss me from now on, this thread will now be returning to the actual OP's subject.
tulc(wonders why, if people have no interest in the OP, they don't simply start threads about the things they are interested in?)

 

[FireDragon76]

It's a poor choice of words, which still reflects badly on his character.

 

[NW82]

You do realize with in the article I posted there were links right? among the links in the OP were the candidates twitter feed, even a casual scroll through it would show you why President Trump likes this guy. Which now makes twice that I've explained the same thing. If you have more questions about me or why I post what I post you really will have to start a thread to discuss me from now on, this thread will now be returning to the actual OP's subject.
tulc(wonders why, if people have no interest in the OP, they don't simply start threads about the things they are interested in?)

You still don't get it and that's fine. So we can have a discussion on the article, do you think the man meant his comment in a racist way or as a figure of speech? Why or why not? If so, do you feel the continuation of racism stems from those who continue to push the issue from either side? If so, would it be better to drop the race card from those discussions and treat people as individuals rather than reverting to a 60 year old argument?

Personally I don't think he used it in a racist manner, as most people, in my experience, use the race card when they don't like something but don't have any solid foundation for their position. Having been in an interracial marriage, and raising interracial kids, I think the only way to stop racism is to stop talking about it and treat people as individuals. I'm sick of the group identifiers. Oh I'm white so I'm racist if I don't like Obama, but maybe I disagree with his policies and that's why I dont like him...but that's not a valid argument to a racist. Yes there are racists on both sides. If anyone continues to push the race issue, they are a racist. The level of melanin in your skin means absolutely squat. Culture is the problem. Until we fix the victim mentality everyone that is saying this guy is a racist won't see it any other way.

 

[NW82]

It's a poor choice of words, which still reflects badly on his character.

What makes the words poor? What does it prove of his character? Are you reading your own perception into what you read or did you take the words at face value?

 

[Yarddog]

What makes the words poor?

Because he is running for governor and he will be representing people which may have offended by the wording.

What does it prove of his character?

One has to wonder. He definitely was very careful with his words when he made the comment. He put a stress on the word "monkey". He is a very intelligent and articulate man and knows how that term can be used to denigrate a black person. He hasn't made any real attempt to personally clarify his statement, which makes one wonder why.

Are you reading your own perception into what you read or did you take the words at face value?

All words have face value and DeSantis knows that. I am still waiting for him to come out and give a good explanation so that all minorities believe that he will represent them equally.

 

[tulc]

You still don't get it and that's fine.

Since I didn't bring up what you keep insisting I don't answer (which I've answered twice now) I'm not sure there was any actual "it" there for me to get.

So we can have a discussion on the article,

Okay...

do you think the man meant his comment in a racist way or as a figure of speech?

I don't think he was doing either one.

Why or why not?

I think he was dog whistling.

If so, do you feel the continuation of racism stems from those who continue to push the issue from either side? If so, would it be better to drop the race card from those discussions and treat people as individuals rather than reverting to a 60 year old argument?

I think racism in politics is going to continue as long as people can use it as a way to get elected. Once it no longer works it will be dropped in favor of what ever works better.

Personally I don't think he used it in a racist manner,

That's fine. He wasn't dog whistling everyone just those he wanted to "hear" it. Again, just my opinion.

(snip)

tulc(is going to need some more coffee pretty soon)

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

You must not have read post #60 either. But I understand. It's easier to make the thread about me instead of addressing what the thread is actually about.
tulc(finds it sort of adorable, if pretty predictable, really)

Sure....everybody just keeps "misunderstanding" you.

In post 60, you move the goalposts AGAIN and claim that you now only meant this: .I'm not sure why my understanding why President Trump would like a guy who has blindly supported him 100% of the time would be considered condescending but, okay.


Uh huh. Sure...that's all you were saying. Sorry, I read and analyze quite well. You know exactly what you were implying and are now backtracking from that position when called on it.

 

[Sistrin]

...even a casual scroll through it would show you why President Trump likes this guy.

This is not an answer. This is an avoidance and just another in a never-ending line of intellectually dishonest comments.

 

[NW82]

Since I didn't bring up what you keep insisting I don't answer (which I've answered twice now) I'm not sure there was any actual "it" there for me to get.


Okay...


I don't think he was doing either one.


I think he was dog whistling.


I think racism in politics is going to continue as long as people can use it as a way to get elected. Once it no longer works it will be dropped in favor of what ever works better.


That's fine. He wasn't dog whistling everyone just those he wanted to "hear" it. Again, just my opinion.


tulc(is going to need some more coffee pretty soon)

So who is he dog whistling to?

Who used racism to get elected? Provide proof, as you clearly state this is occuring. Stating something like this without factual data means it is not relevant.

And before you try to avoid it again, you made the quoted statements in relation to questions of the article you posted, therefore these are in scope.

 

[tulc]

So who is he dog whistling to?

To people who like to hear other people talk about certain things. That's the whole point of a dog whistle.

Who used racism to get elected?

Donald Trump.

Provide proof, as you clearly state this is occuring.

Here you go:
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/15/16781222/trump-racism-economic-anxiety-study

Stating something like this without factual data means it is not relevant.

See above.

And before you try to avoid it again, you made the quoted statements in relation to questions of the article you posted, therefore these are in scope.

uhmm...I just answered your question above.
tulc(hopes that helps)

 

[tulc]

This is not an answer.

That you don't like the answer isn't actually my problem.

This is an avoidance and just another in a never-ending line of intellectually dishonest comments.

Gosh...someone sounds annoyed.
tulc(hopes it wasn't something he said)

 

[tulc]

Sure....everybody just keeps "misunderstanding" you.

A not uncommon problem on boards like this.

In post 60, you move the goalposts AGAIN and claim that you now only meant this:

I'm not sure why my understanding why President Trump would like a guy who has blindly supported him 100% of the time would be considered condescending but, okay.

Uh huh. Sure...that's all you were saying.

You have proof it wasn't? I'd be interested in seeing it.

Sorry, I read and analyze quite well.

That must come in handy.

You know exactly what you were implying

I didn't imply anything, I stated in the OP that I understand exactly why President Trump supports this candidate. I'm not sure anything needed analyzing simply reading it was all that was required.

and are now backtracking from that position when called on it.

hmmm...I think you may actually need to hone those "analyzing" skills a bit more. Someone asked why I thought President Trump liked this candidate, I pointed out why, that you or other people don't like that answer isn't really my problem.
tulc(is having a lot of fun in this thread!)

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

A not uncommon problem on boards like this.



You have proof it wasn't? I'd be interested in seeing it.

No, no, no. When you are the one who makes insinuations or assertions, it is incumbent upon you to be responsible to back them up.

It is not possible to prove a negative. YOU stated it was the case so YOU prove it.