The left and their media cohorts have an expansive and unrealistic concept of racism

Chriss Cillizza:
It's Beyond Debate That Trump's Sunday Tweets Were Racist
This is an absurd conclusion.

To be racist you generally have to identify the ethnicity of the person you are talking about or use a racial slur.  Trump did neither.

What the media and the left are doing is empowering racists by allowing them to appropriate common symbols and phrases.  They have done it with an innocent OK hand sign and now they are doing it with a phrase about returning to your country of origin if you don't like it here.  It is as ridiculous as saying no one should eat hamburgers because racist eat them too.

The left in this country has decided that accusing people of racism is a way to end a debate and cause others to hate the person they are arguing with.  That is what people like Cillizza are trying to do.

What the Democrats are really angry about is that Trump has made it difficult for them to separate themselves from some unpopular Democrats who have very unpopular opinions and extremely low favorability opinions.

The media sees this as another opportunity for a "can you believe he said that" moment.

Powerline makes the case against the Washington Post's use of the term racist.
We’ve commented before on the shoddy and hyper-partisan writing of Margaret Sullivan, a media critic for the Washington Post. Among other shortcomings, Sullivan seems incapable of making anything resembling an argument.

Today, Sullivan defends the practice in news stories of labeling President Trump’s utterances “racist.” She calls this a “service to the truth” (quotation from headline in paper edition).

But one searches Sullivan’s column in vain for an argument in support of her claim that Trump’s comment about the four congressional rads (or anything else Trump has ever said) is racist. Arguments aren’t Sullivan’s thing. Name-calling is.
...

Paul Fahri, another Post media critic, writes an article similar to Sullivan’s. But Fahri’s is much better. He takes us behind the scenes of his newspaper, and explains how the Post made the editorial decision to call Trump’s statement “racist"....

Here, at last, we come to an argument. Trump employed a “trope” that’s “rooted in the history of racism.” Therefore, his statement is racist.

But Baron’s argument is so weak that it looks more like an excuse. In American history, the “go back” trope, when racist, was employed as a demand that all (or most) immigrants of a certain race, ethnicity, religion, or class return to their place of origin. Trump suggested no such thing. He suggested only that four extreme malcontents “go back.”
...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains