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

[NW82]

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


Donald Trump.


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



See above.


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

So your link there doesn't show or prove Trump used racism for anything. The studies referenced results showing where voter concerns and priorities were. For example, to be against ILLEGAL immigration isn't racist, it is being for the rule of law; there is a really big difference there. The fact that Clinton lied and the DNC rigged the primary against Sanders didnt help either. So again no proof of any actions taken by Trump.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Donald Trump.


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



S

Do you even read what you post? VOX is a FAR-LEFT rag, not a viable news source. But let's pretend it is and look at what you are posting as "evidence" that Trump is a racist. By the way, here is where Vox is on the continuum of publishers out there: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

Some leftists do a study and come up with this fascinating result: 41 percent of white millennials who voted for Trump because a sense of “white vulnerability” motivated them.

Really? So far less than HALF of white people in a certain demographic voted for Trump because they are racist? What about the nearly 60% who voted for Hillary - who is white? They must be racist too, since she is white.

This says nothing. Vox never says anything.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

.

 

[tulc]

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.

I didn't insinuate anything, I said something and when people asked what I meant they didn't like I could show why I said what i said. If you can prove that isn't what I meant it would be nice to present your proof to show that. if you can't, then it would be nice if you'd admit it and move on. because I've answered the same question several times now and it just seems that you don't like the answer so you keep asking it over and over again hoping for a different answer.

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

I don't have to prove a negative: you asked what I meant I explained what I meant, you didn't like that answer so you asked it again. At this point it's up to you to show why what I said isn't true. That's why I asked if you had proof that wasn't why I said it. Your reading and analyzing skills don't seem to be as acute as you were saying if you haven't figured that out yet.
tulc(is going for more coffee)

 

[tulc]

Do you even read what you post? VOX is a FAR-LEFT rag, not a viable news source. But let's pretend it is and look at what you are posting as "evidence" that Trump is a racist. By the way, here is where Vox is on the continuum of publishers out there: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

Some leftists do a study and come up with this fascinating result: 41 percent of white millennials who voted for Trump because a sense of “white vulnerability” motivated them.

Really? So far less than HALF of white people in a certain demographic voted for Trump because they are racist? What about the nearly 60% who voted for Hillary - who is white? They must be racist too, since she is white.

This says nothing. Vox never says anything.

sorry you don't like it.
tulc(question asked, question answered)

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

sorry you don't like it.
tulc(question asked, question answered)

You didn't address the point. Again. Vox says that 41 percent of voters voted for him out of "white vulnerability" while nearly 60 percent voted for his WHITE opponent out of .....well, we don't know, based on this nonsensical assertion. So what's your point?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I didn't insinuate anything,

tulc(is going for more coffee)

Um, yes, you did, and you aren't getting away with it. Several people have called you on it, and you still feign ignorance. Stand behind what you say. If you make insinuations like this, back it up.

You posted THIS article (IN your POST #6):
Comparing Black People To Monkeys Has A Long, Dark Simian History https://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/20...ys-has-a-long-dark-simian-history_a_23333383/

Then in the same post you said this: "I suspect this is one of those "dog whistle" moments President Trump and a lot of his supporters love. then can claim: 1) "I didn't know it would sound racist!" and 2) "Oh, you all just need to lighten up!"."

You are now ridiculously trying to claim you didn't insinuate anything or say that anyone was racist.

Dishonesty as well as an intentional refusal to engage in good faith is not fitting here.

Stand behind your assertions. You aren't fooling anyone.

 

[tulc]

Um, yes, you did, and you aren't getting away with it. Several people have called you on it, and you still feign ignorance. Stand behind what you say. If you make insinuations like this, back it up.
(snip)

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any proof showing why you think I'm "not standing behind" what I said. If you have some (proof that is) you should post it or move on. Otherwise it seems you simply don't like having made a wrong assumption about something someone else said. It happens you know, people get excited defending something not realizing they have no actual proof to point at to support their allegation. I do kind of like how you moved the goal post to try and make this not about the OP any longer, now it's about post #6. so if you'd like to discuss dog whistles and their use in modern American Politics maybe you should start a thread about that where people can discuss it. At this point the thread seems only to be about me and people making claims they can't actually prove.
tulc(is drinking some very nice coffee right now)

 

[NW82]

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any proof showing why you think I'm "not standing behind" what I said. If you have some (proof that is) you should post it or move on. Otherwise it seems you simply don't like having made a wrong assumption about something someone else said. It happens you know, people get excited defending something not realizing they have no actual proof to point at to support their allegation. I do kind of like how you moved the goal post to try and make this not about the OP any longer, now it's about post #6. so if you'd like to discuss dog whistles and their use in modern American Politics maybe you should start a thread about that where people can discuss it. At this point the thread seems only to be about me and people making claims they can't actually prove.
tulc(is drinking some very nice coffee right now)

To be fair, that's your party line, "make a new thread". I don't see the problem in you earnestly answering questions to posts you've made in this thread. All posts have been related to the OP, in the form of questions, and yet when those questions are asked you don't answer them. Oh you respond, but you don't actually answer them; there is a rather large difference between answering and responding.

You posted the original article, fair enough, but then you also added your own comment to it; this is the implication being referred to most often. Either one of those things are acceptable for reply in the thread, as you started it with them, no new thread is needed to address the original comment you made. Maybe being honest is the best policy here?

 

[tulc]

(snip)Maybe being honest is the best policy here?

Evidently not. I've answered the question repeatedly but because it isn't the answer people want it to be they keep demanding a different answer. So here we go: post #60. Question asked, question answered. There, that's the answer to your question. And will always be the answer.
tulc(finds these thread loop things fascinating to watch)

 

[NW82]

Evidently not. I've answered the question repeatedly but because it isn't the answer people want it to be they keep demanding a different answer. So here we go: post #60. Question asked, question answered. There, that's the answer to your question. And will always be the answer.
tulc(finds these thread loop things fascinating to watch)

Post #60 is you telling me to start another thread because it wasn't your intent. That's, again, dodging it and your party line. Your intent and the perception of others are both relevant. Was it your intent to imply racism? According to you, no. But several people seem to have the perception, based on your comments, that it was your intent. So who is causing the loop? You saying I didn't mean that doesn't change your words and how they are perceived, which is the problem and the reasons for the questions.

Edit: You have clearly accused the POTUS of racism in this thread which lends creedence to the perception.

 

[Yarddog]

I've been waiting to see if DeSantis tries to straighten the matter out but have found next nothing. That gives credence to the idea that it was a carefully worded message sent to his supporters.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I've been waiting to see if DeSantis tries to straighten the matter out but have found next nothing. That gives credence to the idea that it was a carefully worded message sent to his supporters.

Or that he has better things to do than respond to the silliness of the alt-left.

 

[Yarddog]

Or that he has better things to do than respond to the silliness of the alt-left.

Spoken just as an alt-right member would speak this. But, this is about all Floridians and he has been called to apologize by many Republicans in Florida. A person who wants to be a governor for all in their state would want to ensure that those who may have been offended by this statement understood that there was absolutely no intent to debase blacks.

As a Christian he should let Floridians know that he detests any form of racism.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Spoken just as an alt-right member would speak this.

If by that you mean people who deal with facts instead of conspiracy theories....thanks for the compliment.

 

[Yarddog]

If by that you mean people who deal with facts instead of conspiracy theories....thanks for the compliment.

I didn't say that you were alt-right but you show how a statement can be understood by an individual either reading or hearing it. I apologize if you mistook my statement to mean you.

I also did not mean someone who deals with facts instead of conspiracy theories.

 

[tulc]

Post #60 is you telling me to start another thread because it wasn't your intent. (snip)

that was part of the post there was also this part:

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.

which is the part that seems to be ignored by everyone who doesn't want my answer to the answer I gave. So, there you go. post #60 is the answer everyone is going to get when they ask that same question.
tulc(just noticed this thread was reopened!)

 

[Gr8Grace]

I find it ironic that the left pushes the theory of evolution, and that we are descendants of MONKEYS.

Every kid going through public school, gets taught the theory of having a relative that was a MONKEY.

SMH. Every science teacher or anyone who believes in evolution should be locked up, whipped and starved to death for being racists.

 

[tulc]

I find it ironic that the left pushes the theory of evolution, and that we are descendants of MONKEYS.

That's:
A) not what this thread is about
B) or what evolution teaches.

(snip)

See above.
tulc(would point out there's an entire forum where this very subject can be discussed if that's what Gr8Grace would like to talk about)

 

[Gr8Grace]

That's:
A) not what this thread is about
B) or what evolution teaches.


See above.
tulc(would point out there's an entire forum where this very subject can be discussed if that's what Gr8Grace would like to talk about)

Carry on. There are some people who have eyes to see and ears to hear........to seez and hearz what I sez.