President Donald Trump's Final Days...

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Oh, sort of like hate on the Obamas, but that's not racist.

Exactly. If you look at the hate on Michelle Obama, you'll see both themes at work. For the crime of suggesting that our kids ought to eat better and get more exercise, the crankysphere responded with a tsunami of racist misogyny.

Was it more racist than misogynistic, or more misogynistic thn racist?

Yes.

Originally Posted by crinolynne

I will take your assessment of Pelosi at face value. However, she represents the old generation with all the accumulated baggage of that implies and entails - someone more associated with 2108 would be a wise choice.

I agree. We've seen that younger Dems are tired of old leadership (not necessarily age related - plenty of enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders)

So the Dems would be well advised to look at a new face, whatever Pelosi's merits.

[Mal Hombre]

Both I think,Melania Trump's most severe critics have never compared Her to an ape...

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Exactly. If you look at the hate on Michelle Obama, you'll see both themes at work. For the crime of suggesting that our kids ought to eat better and get more exercise, the crankysphere responded with a tsunami of racist misogyny.

Was it more racist than misogynistic, or more misogynistic thn racist?

Yes.

Ok. But can we disagree with a female politician without being assimilated as a misogynist?
Can we disagree with a "dark-skinned" politician without being assimilated as a racist?
Can we disagree with an unregulated politic of immigration without being assimilated as a ultra-nationalist?
Can we agree with a one child policy, without being assimilated as a transgressor of human rights?
Can we dislike Capitalism without being called a "Communist"?

Recently ex-French female candidate "Segolène Royal" published a book about misogyny in French politics. But honestly, even if I voted for her in 2006 in the second tour, I didn't was satisfied by her intelligence.
I could vote for a female bonobo as President of France if I'd impressed by her intelligence.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Ok. But can we disagree with a female politician without being assimilated as a misogynist?
Can we disagree with a "dark-skinned" politician without being assimilated as a racist?
Can we disagree with an unregulated politic of immigration without being assimilated as a ultra-nationalist?
Can we agree with a one child policy, without being assimilated as a transgressor of human rights?
Can we dislike Capitalism without being called a "Communist"?

Recently ex-French female candidate "Segolène Royal" published a book about misogyny in French politics. But honestly, even if I voted for her in 2006 in the second tour, I didn't was satisfied by her intelligence.
I could vote for a female bonobo as President of France if I'd impressed by her intelligence.

Sure. You can say that you don't like Angela Merkel's policies on migration, or Greek finances, or Brexit for all kinds of legitimate reasons.

But when Michelle Obama plants a vegetable garden and points out that our kids lousy diet and lack of exercise is setting them up for diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and the crankysphere responds with a blizzard of tweets depicting her as an ape and suggesting that she's not a woman -- well I'm going to call that racist misogyny, not a dispute over spinach.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Sure. You can say that you don't like Angela Merkel's policies on migration, or Greek finances, or Brexit for all kinds of legitimate reasons.

But when Michelle Obama plants a vegetable garden and points out that our kids lousy diet and lack of exercise is setting them up for diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and the crankysphere responds with a blizzard of tweets depicting her as an ape and suggesting that she's not a woman -- well I'm going to call that racist misogyny, not a dispute over spinach.

Are Republicans mainly racists and misogynists?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Are Republicans mainly racists and misogynists?

The people who villify Michelle Obama certainly are.

There were enough people posting pics of Obama as ape that for a time, when you googled "Michelle Obama" those pix were the top result.

Those folks weren't Democrats.

"Mainly" asks a quantitive question - to which i don't know the answer. We've seen Republican Presidents with decent racial views - Bush 43, for example. His Attorney General was Hispanic. His Secretary of State and National Security Advisor were black. There were all kinds of things I really didn't.like about Bush 43, but I never thought he was a racist.

His dad's campaign famously did a race baiting campaign ad ("Willie Horton"), I took that to be more nasty politics than heartfelt, but others disagree.

Trump, though, has plainly found.a racist base- and he speaks to it often, enthusiastically, and.what is so unusual for.him, sincerely

When he says he thinks Mexicans are murderers and.rapists, I think you're hearing the real man under the combover. And when people cheer for that, they're telling you they're racists

Similarly, when the audiences go berserk 'lock her up" - it's hard to see that as anything other than.misogyny. they can't identify a crime that HRC is supposed to have committed, and.yet they are ecstatic over the idea of her in chains?

Is there some benign.explanation.for this behavior? I cant find.one.

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Ok. But can we disagree with a female politician without being assimilated as a misogynist?
Can we disagree with a "dark-skinned" politician without being assimilated as a racist?
Can we disagree with an unregulated politic of immigration without being assimilated as a ultra-nationalist?
Can we agree with a one child policy, without being assimilated as a transgressor of human rights?
Can we dislike Capitalism without being called a "Communist"?

Recently ex-French female candidate "Segolène Royal" published a book about misogyny in French politics. But honestly, even if I voted for her in 2006 in the second tour, I didn't was satisfied by her intelligence.
I could vote for a female bonobo as President of France if I'd impressed by her intelligence.

It is difficult to translate political language from one country to another, especially when "dog whistle" language is used.

Lee Atwater, who worked for Strom Thurmond and Ronald Reagan, was one of the few Republicans to ever speak publicly about the practice as it evolved from 1940 to 1980. In an interview with Newsweek magazine shortly after Reagan's election he said that in the 1940s Thurmond could talk about "niggers"; by the 1960s he spoke of "states rights" and by 1980 he spoke of "tax cuts", but the terms all meant the same thing and his electorate knew that.

In current U.S. politics "globalists" means "Jews", "nationalists" means "fascists", "criminals" means either Hispanics or Blacks, depending on context. It's pretty ugly when you do the translations.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

Any criticism or dislike of Obama was racism.

It is interesting that the president most often characterized as an ape prior to Obama was Abraham Lincoln.

It is also interesting that Obama pissed off much of his base by governing in a way that was not much different from George W. Bush. It appears to me that once a president is elected and is exposed to all the classified briefings and reports from those who have devoted their lives to acquiring expertise in a policy area, the choices that are best for the country and furthering the interests of the institutional presidency are rather constrained.

Unless you are Donald Trump. DJT's method is to ridicule and fire the experts and shoot from the hip.

Some people in this country are going to be very upset. The role of women in positions of power will only be increasing.

[ShutUpLutz!]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

It is interesting that the president most often characterized as an ape prior to Obama was Abraham Lincoln.

It is also interesting that Obama pissed off much of his base by governing in a way that was not much different from George W. Bush. It appears to me that once a president is elected and is exposed to all the classified briefings and reports from those who have devoted their lives to acquiring expertise in a policy area, the choices that are best for the country and furthering the interests of the institutional presidency are rather constrained.

Unless you are Donald Trump. DJT's method is to ridicule and fire the experts and shoot from the hip.

Some people in this country are going to be very upset. The role of women in positions of power will only be increasing.

Except George W. Bush didn't have the leaders of the Democratic party get together at a semi secret meeting the week he was elected and make a not so secret agreement that they would oppose and stonewall EVERY SINGLE THING HE DID.

The Democrats actually tried to work with Bush and then gave him EVERYTHING he and Cheney wanted after 9/11.

The Republicans never gave Obama ANYTHING. They pushed back and fought against EVERY proposal he put out there, and then when Obama compromised and backed off and made things more to their liking they attacked him and said he refused to compromise, so he backed off some more, rinse repeat.

Trump is already in the Top 5 worst Presidents ever and that's saying something. Now he is tweeting about killing off all aide to Puerto Rico because he id lying and claiming that PR has been using aid intended for hurricane recovery and relief to try and pay off some of the countries debt and fix some of the economic problems.

But notice how neither he nor any of the FAUXNews or el Blimpo or Hannity are shrieking about the caravan full of druggies and rapists and murderers anymore. Why is that?

[Devius]

Originally Posted by Devius

President Donald Trump's tweet blaming "gross mismanagement" for the devastating California wildfires is sparking backlash from top firefighters' associations, politicians and celebrities.

In a series of tweets Saturday, Trump said the state's deadly wildfires are a result of "poor" forest management and threatened to cut federal aid.

"There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor," Trump tweeted. "Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!"

His tweet drew the ire of the leaders of firefighters' organizations, who accused the President of bringing politics into a devastating disaster.

The Camp Fire in Northern California has killed 23 people and burned 105,000 acres. The Woolsey Fire near Los Angeles has scorched 83,275 acres and the Hill fire in Ventura County 4,531 acres.

Updated...



The death toll in wildfires sweeping California has risen to 31, with more than 200 people still unaccounted, officials have said.

It now equals the deadliest wildfire on record in California - the 1933 Griffith Park disaster in Los Angeles.

An estimated 250,000 people have been forced to flee their homes to avoid three major blazes in the state.

With strengthening winds threatening to spread the flames, state Governor Jerry Brown has urged President Donald Trump to declare a major disaster, a move that would harness more federal emergency funds.

Details:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46175339