Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part III Covfefe

[Gingerbeardman]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1159047995402477570

 

[Grant]

You prefer they would have grabbed him by ****?

indeed

 

[buka001]

Citing Du Bois, who argued that capitalism was an extension of white supremacy as part of his worldview, that same worldview and logic was what was being used to support the claim that Trump is a white supremacist.

So your evidence that Trump is a white supremacist is because a batschit crazy commie said that capitalism is white supremacy.


How does the history of the civil rights movement prove Trump is a white supremacist?


Here you are again, running interference for cultural Marxism, while proclaiming that no such thing exists.


https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...he-usa-part-iii-covfefe.1003908/post-23919393


Legitimate?

I have not claimed Trump is a white supremacist.

Did that piece I linked to mention that Trump was a white supremacist? Does it specifically say that?

Now can we talk about Du Bois.

The only words of his, that were quoted in that piece are as follows:

The veterans brought with them a renewed intolerance for discrimination, an attitude summarized in an editorial by W. E. B. Du Bois in the magazine The Crisis. “By the God of Heaven,” Du Bois wrote, “we are cowards and jackasses if now that the war is over, we do not marshal every ounce of our brain and brawn to fight a sterner, longer, more unbending battle against the forces of hell in our own land.”

How about addressing that actual phrase instead of poisoning the well to suite your narrative.

That sentiment is absolutely valid at that time and even after WW2, decades later. How was it acceptable that black people were seen as equals when it came to fighting and dying for the USA, but when trying to find work or sit on a seat in a bus were not seen as equals? Care to address this actual sentiment of his, without sluring the author? How is that specifically Cultural Marxism?

And the legitimacy of this statement?

Du Bois continued to believe that capitalism was the primary culprit responsible for the subjugation of colored people around the world

A guy born 3 years after the end of the Civil war, which was fought to end slavery (a capitalist system which exploited black people), then brought up and lived through a system still with institutionalised racism fully entrenched within a capitalist system, to believe this, is of no surprise. So he had legitimate cause to criticise a system where he and others were prejudiced because of the colour of their skin.

Yes, his view was legitimate. Does it make it correct, partly yes and partly no. But, he had a right to express that view. To cut that view out because he also had Marxist sympathies is a very interesting view to hold.

 

[rietrot]

…the whole thing is a lie. If you were to assemble a list, a hierarchy of concerns, where would white supremacy be on the list? Right up there with Russia probably. It’s actually not a real problem in America. The combined membership of every white supremacist organization in this country was able to fit inside a college football stadium. I mean, seriously. This is a country where the average person is getting poorer and the suicide rate is spiking. White supremacy, that’s the problem. It’s a hoax. Just like the Russian hoax. It’s a conspiracy theory used to divide the country and keep a hold on power. That’s exactly what’s going on.

Are you quoting him or did you come up with this?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I have not claimed Trump is a white supremacist.

Did that piece I linked to mention that Trump was a white supremacist? Does it specifically say that?

The Presidency is the most esteemed and powerful platform in the country, and it is reasonable to see a relationship between the President’s imprimatur and the ballistic bedlam that regularly erupts and targets people and groups for whom he has expressed contempt.

What is the relationship if not white supremacy?

Now can we talk about Du Bois.

The only words of his, that were quoted in that piece are as follows:

Okay, so long as I'm only quoting certain sections of Mein Kampf, it's okay?

How about addressing that actual phrase instead of poisoning the well to suite your narrative.

I have addressed that actual phrase. I have pointed you to the worldview that informed the phrase. You know, putting the connotations next to the denotations. Where is the error, given that the author of the article you sourced basically makes the exact same kind of deluded racist anti-racist arguments?

That sentiment is absolutely valid at that time and even after WW2, decades later. How was it acceptable that black people were seen as equals when it came to fighting and dying for the USA, but when trying to find work or sit on a seat in a bus were not seen as equals? Care to address this actual sentiment of his, without sluring the author? How is that specifically Cultural Marxism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality#Marxist_feminist_critical_theory

W. E. B. Du Bois theorized that the intersectional paradigms of race, class, and nation might explain certain aspects of black political economy. Collins writes: "Du Bois saw race, class, and nation not primarily as personal identity categories but as social hierarchies that shaped African-American access to status, poverty, and power."[28]:44 Du Bois omitted gender from his theory and considered it more of a personal identity category.
Cheryl Townsend Gilkes expands on this by pointing out the value of centering on the experiences of black women. Joy James takes things one step further by "using paradigms of intersectionality in interpreting social phenomena". Collins later integrated these three views by examining a black political economy through the centering of black women's experiences and the use of a theoretical framework of intersectionality.[28]:44

https://shenviapologetics.com/critical-theory-and-christianity-part-1/

Premise 1: “our individual identity, who we are as individuals, is inseparable from our group identity.”

Premise 2: “Oppressor groups subjugate oppressed groups through the exercise of hegemonic power.”

Premise 3: “our fundamental moral duty is freeing groups from oppression.”

Premise 4: “‘Lived experience’ is more important than objective evidence in understanding oppression.”

Premise 5: “Oppressor groups hide their oppression under the guise of objectivity.”

Premise 6: “Individuals at the intersection of different oppressed groups experience oppression in a unique way.”

Du Bois hits the checkmarks for premises 1,2,3 and 5, with premise 4 sitting at a maybe.

And the legitimacy of this statement?

A guy born 3 years after the end of the Civil war, which was fought to end slavery (a capitalist system which exploited black people), then brought up and lived through a system still with institutionalised racism fully entrenched within a capitalist system, to believe this, is of no surprise. So he had legitimate cause to criticise a system where he and others were prejudiced because of the colour of their skin.

Oh okay, I guess capitalism is more evidence of white supremacy then.

What a joke.

Yes, his view was legitimate. Does it make it correct, partly yes and partly no. But, he had a right to express that view. To cut that view out because he also had Marxist sympathies is a very interesting view to hold.

Hitler also had a right to express his views. Your concern trolling means jack schit.

 

[Emjay]

We don't do that. But I love how you're always happy to admit to bad behaviour as long as you can find some equivalent behaviour on the other side. Whatever helps you to sleep at night, I guess.

I sleep great, thanks. Politics does not keep me up at all. I don't wring my wrists over this nonsense.

So now you don't want to discuss intersecting experiences, but you lash out at my dismissal of it?

I don't agree with you on Trump. Like you said before. Incitements of violence require direct calls for violence. I don't see any here. I see you furiously trying to make those connections though.

 

[cerebus]

I don't agree with you on Trump. Like you said before. Incitements of violence require direct calls for violence. I don't see any here. I see you furiously trying to make those connections though.

Incitements for violence are not the same as racist statements. If you want to look at Trump's incitements for violence, there is a surfeit of examples going back from his campaign to very recently. It's one of the most disturbing aspects of his presidency.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/02/01/trump-i-ll-pay-for-protester-beatings
https://thinkprogress.org/ilhan-omar-is-being-smeared-by-a-doctored-video-9e8b646ff0c1/

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1158016184807301121

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat...ech-defense-in-incitement-of-violence-lawsuit
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dona..._n_57dc7827e4b0071a6e07a93c?d9q6urvh1azoos9k9
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...nce-by-his-supporters-maybe-something-bigger/

And again, if Mexican immigration is truly an invasion on your country as Trump has repeatedly claimed, it is quite justified to take up arms to defend your homeland.

 

[surface]

Take that you dump haters.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/967526110249537542

 

[buka001]

What is the relationship if not white supremacy?


Okay, so long as I'm only quoting certain sections of Mein Kampf, it's okay?


I have addressed that actual phrase. I have pointed you to the worldview that informed the phrase. You know, putting the connotations next to the denotations. Where is the error, given that the author of the article you sourced basically makes the exact same kind of deluded racist anti-racist arguments?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality#Marxist_feminist_critical_theory



https://shenviapologetics.com/critical-theory-and-christianity-part-1/


Du Bois hits the checkmarks for premises 1,2,3 and 5, with premise 4 sitting at a maybe.



Oh okay, I guess capitalism is more evidence of white supremacy then.

What a joke.


Hitler also had a right to express his views. Your concern trolling means jack schit.

So you chose not to address Du Bois concern with why even after black people went to fight in the war, they were still prejudiced and treated as unequal people.

You just resorted to him being a Marxist and thus his view is invalidated.

I love how you continually prove my point about Cultural Marxism and how it is used to shut out dissenting views and opinions.

 

[Emjay]

So you chose not to address Du Bois concern with why even after black people went to fight in the war, they were still prejudiced and treated as unequal people.

You just resorted to him being a Marxist and thus his view is invalidated.

I love how you continually prove my point about Cultural Marxism and how it is used to shut out dissenting views and opinions.

Just remind us, when did the Civil Rights movement end?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

So you chose not to address Du Bois concern with why even after black people went to fight in the war, they were still prejudiced and treated as unequal people.

You just resorted to him being a Marxist and thus his view is invalidated.

I love how you continually prove my point about Cultural Marxism and how it is used to shut out dissenting views and opinions.

Lol. You're using cultural Marxism laden arguments to make judgements about Trump's behaviour and his conduct, and then getting sensitive when I point out the blatant fact to you.

The problem here is that Du Bois never admitted the degree to which the Marxist system was flawed, and the people who are pushing this rot today also do not admit that the system is flawed while nevertheless trying to implement it as part of their moral project. It's blatantly obvious the deluded left is trying to resurrect the civil rights movement so that they can sustain their dilapidated progressive narrative, claiming that nevertheless there is a systemic inhibition of black/oppressed excellence.

I've given you clear and unambiguous documentation of how his thoughts have been re-appropriated for the intersectionality narrative, and apparently as far as you're concerned, this little fact isn't even worthy of comment.

So yes, all your views about right and left wing extremism is thereby invalidated until such a time as you show the necessary judgement to be able to identify and spot the extremism on both sides and not fall prey to it yourself. Because if you can't do at least that much, then you have no business lecturing other people about what they should and should not say because it may or may not bear some resemblance to stuff Nazis said 70 years ago.

And finally, I didn't actually dismiss all his views just because he was a Marxist. I just said that his statements cannot be divorced from their Marxist context. But it's quite telling that you want to forgive the crazy Marxist for having the wrong idea about some real problems, but you won't extend the same courtesy to the other side of the fence.

 

[Emjay]

And again, if Mexican immigration is truly an invasion on your country as Trump has repeatedly claimed, it is quite justified to take up arms to defend your homeland.

Ok, great. It would then be justifiable to take up arms against concentration camps, and/or against the blatantly racist police force.

Edit:

Also, the Al Paso shooter had an element of environmentalism in his manifesto. I guess predictions of the world coming to an end in 12 years is justifiable to take up arms to save humanity, right?

 

[rietrot]

Ok, great. It would then be justifiable to take up arms against concentration camps, or against the blatantly racist police force.

Whoohoo civil war here we come.

Obviously the Democrats are peaceful and they ment concentration camps and racist police in a nice way?
Edit: wait I remember their argument, they are punching up, so it's fine.

 

[cerebus]

Ok, great. It would then be justifiable to take up arms against concentration camps, and/or against the blatantly racist police force.

Not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Also, the Al Paso shooter had an element of environmentalism in his manifesto. I guess predictions of the world coming to an end in 12 years is justifiable to take up arms to save humanity, right?

Wait you're comparing the findings of climate scientists to Trump's immigration fearmongering? Sheez...

 

[rietrot]

Not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

.

Lol This is so predictable.

You should have used "punching up". That's more fun

 

[buka001]

Lol. You're using cultural Marxism laden arguments to make judgements about Trump's behaviour and his conduct, and then getting sensitive when I point out the blatant fact to you.

The problem here is that Du Bois never admitted the degree to which the Marxist system was flawed, and the people who are pushing this rot today also do not admit that the system is flawed while nevertheless trying to implement it as part of their moral project. It's blatantly obvious the deluded left is trying to resurrect the civil rights movement so that they can sustain their dilapidated progressive narrative, claiming that nevertheless there is a systemic inhibition of black/oppressed excellence.

I've given you clear and unambiguous documentation of how his thoughts have been re-appropriated for the intersectionality narrative, and apparently as far as you're concerned, this little fact isn't even worthy of comment.

So yes, all your views about right and left wing extremism is thereby invalidated until such a time as you show the necessary judgement to be able to identify and spot the extremism on both sides and not fall prey to it yourself. Because if you can't do at least that much, then you have no business lecturing other people about what they should and should not say because it may or may not bear some resemblance to stuff Nazis said 70 years ago.

And finally, I didn't actually dismiss all his views just because he was a Marxist. I just said that his statements cannot be divorced from their Marxist context. But it's quite telling that you want to forgive the crazy Marxist for having the wrong idea about some real problems, but you won't extend the same courtesy to the other side of the fence.

Still carrying on without addressing the view held with regards to why the USA saw black people as equals when they needed soldiers, but were not equals when they returned from the war and wanted to sit on a bus.

Deflecting with Cultural Marxism.

You have run out of an argument here. Failing yet again to address that point.

 

[Emjay]

Not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Wait you're comparing the findings of climate scientists to Trump's immigration fearmongering? Sheez...

And this is why it's impossible to take you or the media seriously.

 

[buka001]

Just remind us, when did the Civil Rights movement end?

1968. After Du Bois died. He never experienced even a semblance of equality.

Let's play guess the year when this picture was taken.

And yet, here we have people arguing about the validity of concerns about black people and race in America, back in 1920!

Cultural Marxism. Is all. No point discussing it, as our kids will become trans.

 

[konfab]

Still carrying on without addressing the view held with regards to why the USA saw black people as equals when they needed soldiers, but were not equals when they returned from the war and wanted to sit on a bus.

Or as equals when applying for university in 2019 based on standardised tests.

He said Harvard sends recruitment letters to African-American, Native American and Hispanic high schoolers with mid-range SAT scores, around 1100 on math and verbal combined out of a possible 1600, CNN reported.

Asian-Americans only receive a recruitment letter if they score at least 250 points higher — 1350 for women, and 1380 for men.

https://nypost.com/2018/10/17/harvards-gatekeeper-reveals-sat-cutoff-scores-based-on-race/

But this is the good type of racism.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Still carrying on without addressing the view held with regards to why the USA saw black people as equals when they needed soldiers, but were not equals when they returned from the war and wanted to sit on a bus.

Deflecting with Cultural Marxism.

You have run out of an argument here. Failing yet again to address that point.

Still failing to deal with the problems that beset white people today, deflecting with neo-Nazis.

You were asked several times about when the civil rights movement came to an end. Your inability to answer shows exactly why this grandstanding of yours is done in bad faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._E._B._Du_Bois#Death_in_Africa

While it is sometimes stated that Du Bois renounced his U.S. citizenship at that time,[280][281][282] and he stated his intention to do so, Du Bois never actually did.[283] His health declined during the two years he was in Ghana, and he died on August 27, 1963, in the capital of Accra at the age of 95.[279] The following day, at the March on Washington, speaker Roy Wilkins asked the hundreds of thousands of marchers to honor Du Bois with a moment of silence.[284] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, embodying many of the reforms Du Bois had campaigned for his entire life, was enacted almost a year after his death.[285]

Explain how Du Bois' observations are relevant to America today, Buka. Go ahead.