Unit2Sucks said:
calbear93 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
calbear93 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
calbear93 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
Trump underperformed in 2020, what is that a reflection of?
I know you are concerned Trump will win again and I understand the reason to be cautious, but absent some deus ex machina, which isn't currently apparent, he's going to lose the election.
calbear93 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
Wow, that's bad. But let's be honest. This seems to be mocking Trump's lack of racial sensitivity more than blatant racism against Vivek.
Are you saying that because the satire (which supports Trump) is aping Trump's racism, that somehow makes it better? There has been quite a bit of racism targeted toward Vivek by the base of rubes he was hoping to win over.
Like the Iowa voter below. Does claiming not to be racist make it okay to say something racist?
Have you actually read the satirical article? If you did, wouldn't you agree it's mocking Trump as well as the sycophant?
I don't quite understand what hair you are trying to split but it appears that the racist guy and Trump fan who runs that satire site doubled down on the racism.
Why don't you read the article and not just the tweet. If you still think this is not mocking Trump and the brown nosing by Vivke, then we just disagree. But it seems like you have not read the article.
https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-promises-vivek-an-administration-position-running-white-house-convenience-store
Maybe we should take it from the top. Vivek has more or less claimed that America does not need to address systemic racism (for ex, "Was there a time and place for correcting for those past injustices? Yeah, it was like in 1870").
This MAGA satire entity, which supports Donald Trump, said what it said. You seem to be claiming that the racist claim should be attributed to Trump rather than the author/publisher.
I guess I'm just not sure what your point is. Vivek has been the target of racist remarks from GOP/MAGAts. I don't know why you think it's important to parse those as it doesn't serve as any sort of rebuttal to anything. I don't think you are claiming that racism doesn't exist, or that this satire wasn't a racist trope, so you're just arguing about attribution whereas I posted the original tweet to juxtapose Vivek's position on racism with the racist remarks targeting him.
I think you are over thinking this and in a mood to argue where argument doesn't exist.
I said three things and you took off on a rant.
I said it was bad from a racial stereotyping perspective
I also said it read like a mockery of Trump for saying stupid things and being racially insensitive.
I also said it made fun of Vivek for being a sycophant.
Why are you looking for an argument?
Does this read like flattery for either Trump or Vivek?
" Trump went on to say that he'll work closely with Ramaswamy every day when he takes office, stopping by the official 7-Eleven store located in the halls of the West Wing several times a day for a Diet Coke and "one of those delicious warmed-up cheeseburgers under the hot light thingies."
Ramaswamy quickly began training for the position, watching official 7-Eleven franchisee training videos on how to fix the Slurpee machine and offer fast service ringing up Big Gulps.
"Technically, I'm really very overqualified for this," Ramaswamy told reporters. "And I'm a little suspicious as to why Trump chose me for this position over some of the other candidates. But I'll take what I can get at this point."
When questioned, Trump was horrified at the accusations that any kind of racial stereotyping played into his selection of Ramaswamy. "I wanted to offer the job to DeSantis, frankly, but he's too short to see over the little hot dog display.""
I posted a racist satirical "joke" as well as the publisher who doubled down on the racism. I don't think I'm the one overthinking it.
I'm seriously not trying to argue with you I just genuinely don't understand your line of inquiry.
The entire purpose of the tweet I posted was to highlight the contrast between Vivek's take on racism and his being the target of a racist remark, even if "satire." Whether the racist publisher who doubled down on the remark was really trying to do something else doesn't negate the remark being racist.
It was a simple point that I have now repeated three times.
I started by saying "Wow that's bad" as far as racial stereotyping. The only incremental comment I made was that it seemed to also be making fun of Trump for his racial insensitivity and limited vocabulary and Vivek for his desperation and brown-nosing.
I wrote that point now three times. Why are you getting tripped up about it and keep asking what my point was?
You seem to think that me saying it was also making fun of Trump means I am denying the racial stereotyping despite me saying it was bad.
Simple question. Based on the portions I quoted, do you agree that it was also mocking Trump?
