thebigp

-58jh.,b58
On Monday, The New York Times went full-out in its attempt to finally stick President Trump with the “r****t” label. That comes in the aftermath of Trump's reported comments stating that America doesn't need more immigrants from "s***holes" — a statement that could be read as clear r****m, or alternatively, as a critique of the diversity visa lottery's reliance on place of origin as sole determining factor. Rep. Mia Love (R-UT) had the most honest take on those comments: "I can't defend the indefensible. You have to understand that there are countries that struggle out there. But their people, their people are good people and they're part of us. We're Americans."
But the definition of a r****t — the textbook definition, as Paul Ryan might say — is someone who treats some people better than others because of their race. But the goal of labeling Trump a “r****t” overall isn’t to shed light on the motivation for his particular policies — it’s specifically to obfuscate the distinction between statements and activities where explanations other than race hold sway, and statements and activities where the only explanation is r****m. Labeling Trump a r****t isn’t an exercise in clarification for the media, but an excuse for painting with the broadest possible brush in order to avoid responsibility for case-by-case reporting and evaluation.
But then Leonhardt and his co-author name a bunch of instances they call r****t where there is no evidence that race is the motivating factor: Trump pointing at a rally attendee and calling him “my African-American over here,” which was Trump being a moron, not a r****t; Trump calling Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas,” which was designed to slap her for her misappropriation of Native American heritage for her own political purposes; Trump’s support for Roy Moore in Alabama; Trump’s support for Joe Arpaio.
They even name instances in which Trump was obviously not being r****t as r****t incidents: Trump criticizing crime rates in inner city communities and suggesting that he wants to make life better for minorities who live there; Trump complaining about the growing threat of radical Islamic terrorism abroad; Trump ripping MS-13; Trump calling President Obama lazy — a critique that had little to do with Obama’s race, and more to do with Obama’s perceived work habits.
Herein lies the problem for the Left. There are three reasons to point out Trump’s alleged r****m: first, for purposes of simple t***h; second, to drive Trump’s approval ratings down; third, to alleviate the burdens of the media in assessing actual reasons behind various policies.
The problem with the first rationale is that the media rarely actually hit politicians with this label; they’ve never used the “r****t” description for obvious r****ts like Al Sharpton, for example. Perhaps Trump is a r****t — he’s certainly made r****t comments. But “objective” media outlets either have to apply the same standard to everyone, or they have to stop using the epithet outright.
The second rationale seems more likely: the media despise Trump, and they’re willing to call him any name in the book to drive down his approval ratings. “R****t” is the strongest charge in the political book, and throwing it has real consequences. And if the public doesn’t reject Trump, the Times can have the added pleasure of pointing to institutional white privilege and r****m, which bolsters their desired narrative anyway.
Finally, there’s the third rationale: the media don’t want to bother actually analyzing what Trump is doing. It’s easier to simply call people r****ts, then labeling anyone who disagrees a co-conspirator in r****m. That’s what the Times does by lumping all these instances in together: they’re suggesting that anyone who agrees with Trump on MS-13, for example, must be a r****t.
Trump may well harbor racial animus. And that’s worth pointing out, particularly in the instances where such animus is clear. But the media’s desire to paint every instance with the brush of racial animus is an obvious political ploy, not honest journalism.
source-nyt- Leonhardt’s and Philbrick’s-

Morgan

I agree, the media will ride a wave until it finally spits them onto the beach. Take this entire s**thole comment, enough already, when are we going to get onto what really matters. I don't know about you but it 's not how great is wall street doing but how is middle America doing, how is our debt doing? How is our dollar doing? I feel the manipulation once again.

They're giving this entire s-hole comment a big interrogation...what is that about really, it was all filmed on tape for Pete's sake, maybe the question should be where's the damn tape and if destroyed who did that? This is a giant waste of taxpayer money once again.

Lonewolf

They forgot his court papers for refusing to rent to b****s or his father's arest at a kkk rally

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

When one has to go all the way back to 1973 to find problems.... it means that they really do not have current events to criticize.

During the 70s a process of gentrification began to take hold. Many upper class began to move back into larger cities and many minorities were displaced from their apartments. Some was due to higher prices being charged for those apartments and the evictions of minorities. Many new landlords recognized that minorities, although they superficially appeared solvent and could afford rate hikes, their employment was often vulnerable to reductions of force causing layoffs or lose of positions. Ergo, many landlords would not rent to individuals who would be unemployed and making evictions more frequent. Evictions lower home values. A never ending cycle.

Physical changes also accompany gentrification. Older buildings are rehabilitated and new construction occurs. Public improvements -- to streets, parks, and infrastructure -- may accompany government revitalization efforts or occur as new residents organize to demand public services. New arrivals often push hard to improve the district aesthetically, and may codify new standards through design guidelines, historic preservation legislation, and the use of blight and nuisance laws.

The social, economic, and physical impacts of gentrification often result in serious political conflict, exacerbated by differences in race, class, and culture. Earlier residents may feel embattled, ignored, and excluded from their own communities. New arrivals are often mystified by accusations that their efforts to improve local conditions are perceived as hostile or even r****t.

Change -- in fortunes, in populations, in the physical fabric of communities -- is an abiding feature of urban life. But change nearly always involves winners and losers, and low-income people are rarely the winners.

The Trumps were in the fray of changing the inner cities. This gave rise to charges of segregation and r****m, but in retrospect their denial of minorities was the beginning of the changes or gentrification that had taken hold and is still a growing phenomenon in inner cities. The city scape has changed from the poor wondering the streets to business people in power suits, to better educated taking priority in employment. The poor have been displaced to the urban landscape where they lovingly packed up their poverty and inner city mayhem and proudly display their upbringing. They are unemployed and without t***sportation to the cities to find positions. In the end... they lose.

When you look at the entire picture, cities evolve and then they devolve back into the comforts of poverty and falling values. The problems are many.... minorities want the improvements brought in by the new residents....but they do not want the new residents. And they sue.... hoping to win fortunes from the new invaders and escaping the inner cities to the suburbs where they can remake the landscape to match what they sued to escape.