The Trump Presidency 15

[Resume]

What part do you think is feckless?

◊◊◊◊·less
/ˈfekləs/

adjective
lacking initiative or strength of character; irresponsible.

That part.

 

[Minoosh]

Oh I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for that....

And I'm sure someone's going to be along any minute to let us know what it is. Any minute now. Any minute now.

Sometimes I think she's over the top in a deliberate, subversive piece of performance art. The howlers she comes up with are almost too perfect.

"Alternative facts."

 

[phiwum]

Oh I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for that....

And I'm sure someone's going to be along any minute to let us know what it is. Any minute now. Any minute now.

I think Conway had a point in mind and wasn't being racist when she asked that question. It was a damned awkward way to make her point (and I can't think of a decent point she could have been making) but she wasn't trying to call out a Jew, I'd reckon.

I'm not sure how she's interpreting "originally from" here. Probably the fact that the other party is Jewish (here, I'm just guessing from the name) likely made her point that much more difficult. Is she suggesting that Trump wants Pressley, a Massachusetts representative, to go back to Cincinatti?

(Actually, is Pressley even a second generation American? Or is she just supposed to go back to Africa, because, you know...)

 

[Babbylonian]

I think Conway had a point in mind and wasn't being racist when she asked that question. It was a damned awkward way to make her point (and I can't think of a decent point she could have been making) but she wasn't trying to call out a Jew, I'd reckon.

If a point to be made in response to a question requires asking the questioner their ethnicity, the point is almost certainly racist drivel.

 

[phiwum]

If a point to be made in response to a question requires asking the questioner their ethnicity, the point is almost certainly racist drivel.

I'd like to know her point before I agree that her question was racist.

I'm not a Kellyanne fan by any means. I think she's despicable. But I won't conclude that she was being racist on such thin evidence.

I'm happy to agree that she makes a living defending a racist.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'd like to know her point before I agree that her question was racist.

Is there a non-racist (or at least... off with racial overtones) reason to demand someone tell you their ethnicity on the spot like that?

If the hair is the same shade throughout, we don't need to split it.

 

[jimbob]

I'd like to know her point before I agree that her question was racist.

I'm not a Kellyanne fan by any means. I think she's despicable. But I won't conclude that she was being racist on such thin evidence.

I'm happy to agree that she makes a living defending a racist.

Oh, presumably, given that she's still married, I guess she's probably not racist - and just feels the need to use racially loaded questions to get the Trump's message to motivate his base.

 

[phiwum]

Is there a non-racist (or at least... off with racial overtones) reason to demand someone tell you their ethnicity on the spot like that?

If the hair is the same shade throughout, we don't need to split it.

I'm not denying that it was an awkward way to proceed, especially given the context.

Are you seriously suggesting that she was being racist toward the reporter? Was she calling out his ethnicity because she's biased against his background or something?

The point she was making was never fully made. I've no idea what it was. It's clear she was defending Trump's comments, which appear indefensible to me. I'll criticize her for her obvious lack of decency and willingness to defend racist statements. I won't call her racist because of this exchange (though it was a stupendously incompetent exchange for spokesperson).

 

[phiwum]

Oh, presumably, given that she's still married, I guess she's probably not racist - and just feels the need to use racially loaded questions to get the Trump's message to motivate his base.

Do you think she asked Feinberg that question because he has a Jewish surname?

Could be. I won't say that wasn't the reason, since I don't know. But I won't presume that was the reason either.

 

[Babbylonian]

I'd like to know her point before I agree that her question was racist.

I'm not a Kellyanne fan by any means. I think she's despicable. But I won't conclude that she was being racist on such thin evidence.

I'm happy to agree that she makes a living defending a racist.

Congratulations. Keep up the not-defending-at-all defense!

 

[phiwum]

Congratulations. Keep up the not-defending-at-all defense!

I don't get your point.

I disagree with some claims about Conway. I've made clear my disagreement.

In a similar way, I am not a fan of the Squad[1], but I regard Trump's recent comments as horrible. Not only is the purely racist crap despicable, but so is the claim that these four representatives hate America and are in no position to say how the government should be run (they were, of course, elected to do just that). Even ignoring the racism, his criticisms are terrible.

When I say that, am I also using the not-defending-at-all defense? Should I adopt the naive view (so common in the administration) that any slur against someone I dislike is fair game and I shouldn't respond?

Conway is a terrible person. I don't think that her exchange was clearly racist. She might be a terrible racist too, but I don't agree that this is any good evidence of that.

[1] When I said I wasn't a fan of Conway, I added that I find her despicable. I don't find the Squad despicable.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Kellyanne asked about ethnicity, because she wanted to use it politically.
This is the definition of playing the race card.

 

[phiwum]

Kellyanne asked about ethnicity, because she wanted to use it politically.
This is the definition of playing the race card.

That's not my definition nor is "playing the race card" usually synonymous with "being racist". The term often is applied when a minority accuses another person of racism.

 

[Babbylonian]

Kellyanne asked about ethnicity, because she wanted to use it politically.
This is the definition of playing the race card.

It's not playing the race card because that has a very specific definition. It is, however, racist.

She was asked a simple question and she decided to evade by attempting to use the questioner's ethnicity against him. Why would she do that? Because she's a ******* racist, proven by the person she chooses to support and defend without question.

There is no reasonable defense for Trump's racist comments and, literally, anyone who tries proves they are a racist as well.

 

[Sideroxylon]

It's not playing the race card because that has a very specific definition. It is, however, racist.

She was asked a simple question and she decided to evade by attempting to use the questioner's ethnicity against him. Why would she do that? Because she's a ******* racist, proven by the person she chooses to support and defend without question.

There is no reasonable defense for Trump's racist comments and, literally, anyone who tries proves they are a racist as well.

As well as those Trumplican Party members who fail to speak up. Pretty much all of them are racists. But hey its a reliable voting demographic to be exploited to stay on the grifter gravy train while serving your wealthy donors.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

But that's exactly how White Nationalists see themselves: as the minority in their own country.

 

[phiwum]

It's not playing the race card because that has a very specific definition. It is, however, racist.

She was asked a simple question and she decided to evade by attempting to use the questioner's ethnicity against him. Why would she do that? Because she's a ******* racist, proven by the person she chooses to support and defend without question.

There is no reasonable defense for Trump's racist comments and, literally, anyone who tries proves they are a racist as well.

I can imagine a well-meaning defender of Trump saying that Trump's statement wasn't racist, it was politically motivated. It wasn't because of the ethnic backgrounds of the Squad and he would've said it to any vociferous progressives. I think that such a person could sincerely believe it.

I'd also think they'd be mighty wrong, but I wouldn't call them racist.

I'd call one who knows damned well that Trump was being racist and defends him anyway (Lindsey Graham, say) unprincipled and deceitful. I'd call one who knows that Trump tweeted what he did because of the ethnicity of the Squad and agrees with Trump a racist. I'd allow that some folk are just ignorant and cannot see the racism in Trump's tweet. They oughta know better but they don't.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Race card is the attempt to shut the other person up because it is inappropriate for them to speak on the issue because of their ethnicity.
It's still the race card, even when White Nationalists think they get to play it because of "reverse racism".
There are times and circumstances when it is appropriate - and then there is Kellyanne Conway.

 

[CapelDodger]

Henry VIII did a lot of good for England - at least in hindsight and in the long run.

And inadvertently, since Henry VIII's actions were self-serving and in pursuit of immediate gratification. So yes, very much like Trump, but far more intelligent (which can pretty much be said about anybody outside the Republican Party).

 

[Babbylonian]

I can imagine a well-meaning defender of Trump saying that Trump's statement wasn't racist, it was politically motivated. It wasn't because of the ethnic backgrounds of the Squad and he would've said it to any vociferous progressives. I think that such a person could sincerely believe it.

I'd also think they'd be mighty wrong, but I wouldn't call them racist.

Fortunately, nobody is going to deport you or imprison you in a concentration camp because you're wrong.