Trump - I disagree with 'send her back' chant

No you started out by saying there was no foundation for the claim that illegal immigrants (non citizens) were over-represented in the crime statistics and there was an issue.

I posted the Tucker Carlson show talking to a Democratic operative about exactly that issue on the day the research was announced.

Then you claimed there was no source.

Then I told you that the video actually cited the source and it was from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a government group with a public webpage. This group is the authority on such matters and they have dozens and dozens of such research and statistics on their website.

Then you wanted me to link you the actual document that they were discussing. I am not your slave. You are the one who is interested in this. I asked if you doubted the document’s existence or accuracy twice and there was no reply from you on this. I pointed you in the direction of their public website under the research menu option.

To say that you have repeatedly asked me to look up the website is false. In fact it is beyond false but apparently I cannot describe fully your actions without running foul of the moderator.

1 Like

I do give the definition serious consideration. But serious consideration does not have to mean that I have to agree with it. I don’t. I find it both incorrect and unhelpful. My impression is that they have signed off on a Left wing document and for me it is not a good look for them.

Thank you for considering my example. I also think the question of whether my words were used to ridicule, exclude or to claim superiority is no, but we are living in a mixed up world where Leftist political correctness claims victimhood and offense in accordance with a replacement morality. Such a religion forces adherents to claim and see victimhood and offense everywhere, especially if it furthers the Leftist political cause or is against people the Left have been taught to hate. This is why the bishops signing off on what looks like Leftist ideology is not only embarrassingly incorrect but furthers the cause of the rival Leftist religion of finding fake oppressors everywhere so as to enculturate hate.

I would wish the Bishops to get new advisors.

OK so taking this bad definition that the Bishops have signed off on the question you wish to address now is “does Trump breach this silly definition the Bishops have signed off on”. Well let’s agree that there was no mention or hint of race on Trump’s part. So now you are arguing for someone to be racist that did not mention race. This alone should show you the ridiculousness of your presented definition.

Trump’s words are similar to my own in that we are having to infer ridicule, superiority or exclusion on specific grounds of ethnicity. This is a subjective question and with the aforementioned religion of Leftist people needing to see such characteristics in political opponents such a determination is subjective and biased and unhelpful which again reflects poorly on the bishops signing off on such a ridiculous definition of ‘racism’.

Certainly Trump was angry with what he considers the anti American actions of the four Congressman and certainly there is an anti white perversion that is part of the Leftist religion that has taken hold in the Democratic party and with these Congressmen. This perversion should be ridiculed, it is an inferior morality and where possible it is no sin to wish to exclude it. Trying to turn this around and claiming any ridicule, superiority or exclusion is based on ethnicity and that we should think of this as racism is a case for you to make.

Again Trump’s comment is not in a vacuum. It is in the context of politically correct Congressmen calling Trump and his supposed ‘white nationalist’ administration unjust, racist and oppressive.

While I am at it such derogatory terms as ‘White Nationalist Administration’, ‘Nazi sympathiser’, ‘People of Colour’ and White Privilege’ are clear examples of racism according to the Bishops definition. Should we call all of the Left wing activists who use these newly invented phrases ‘racists’ in accordance with the Bishops definition?

These terms are meant and used to exclude, ridicule or infer superiority on people based on ‘race’. Such examples are much more clear cut than any Trump remarks, even given the propensity for Left wing mindsets to want to see racism where it is not.

1 Like


Actually the start was this gem:

I responded:

And still, after many many requests, no link to data.

Patriots come in all shapes and sizes

1 Like

Lighten up.

I think the “send her back” sentiment has much more to do with this than racism:

I will just highlight;

“They love our milk and honey but they preach about another way of livin’- when they’re runnin’ down our country, man, they’re walkin’ on the fightin’ side of me”


Here’s the thing: I don’t really consider this definition to be Left or Right. This is a fairly standard definition of racism.

But, again, it isn’t necessary to mention race for the definition of racism presented. This does not indicate to me at all that an action isn’t racist because race isn’t mentioned.

If you are referring to your example, I don’t think that is racism because it is not meant to ridicule or exclude, it is factual. In Trump’s case, we can discuss if his words were meant to ridicule.

smacked off the character limit.

ok I am going to stop talking to you now.


I do consider it’s errors based on Left ideology. I would suggest any ‘fairly standard definition’ of racism would be exclusively to do with race, hence the word. It is part of Leftist philosophy to expand definitions such as ‘racism’ to include more people and actions in the net. Such usage of the word ‘racism’ is a weapon because, up until now, it’s charge has carried much weight.

For global Leftists to wish to include nationalism in the definition is an attack on nationalism. It has very little to do with race and many people see quite clearly the people and the reasons for the attempted shift in the definitions.

The definition, as well as being watered down, is also clearly subjective which is a facet of the relativism of Left wing philosophy. There is no God, there is no truth, there is just power and the power decides on reality and what words like racism mean and who should be considered racist. This smacks of the novel 1984. The question is whether to support the people, through power, who attempt to redefine words (such as marriage) for political gain and create an authoritarian groupthink or are you going to resist that and hold fast to truth. That is, in this case, racism is to do with race and it is wrong and dangerous to redefine words to fight political battles.

Moreover, because there is no God, the Left attempt to redefine morality in human terms such as wrongness being dependent on someone else’s subjective claims of insult, exclusion and ridicule etc. In Leftist philosophy this is usually reserved for only some specially identified groups such as (in this case) non whites, which is ironically, totally racist (using the long held real definition of the word).

To complete the circle, these ideologically designated special groups invariably do claim insult in order to wield the weapon of ‘racism’ against political opponents. This is so damaging not just to justice and sanity, but to race relations and societal relations in general.

My belief is that the stated definition is either ignorant or in bed with Leftist ideology. Either way it does not endear me to the people who signed off on it.

Whether you agree or not is really immaterial to the discussion since you are asking me for my views on the subject and I am responding. I am not asking for yours, with respect.

1 Like

My reply touched on the fact that there are two issues there. Is it ridicule and if so, is that ridicule based on race?

Trump is ridiculed all of the time. Many people ridiculing him even cite him as being a Nazi, or running concentration camps or part of some white nationalist conspiracy. These words have a much more clear connection to race than what Trump has said.

When Trump is criticized and ridiculed some people, if they also played the Leftist game, could always infer that criticism is based on hatred, exclusion and ridicule of whites and thus racist. But that also would be wrong because the Leftist subjective way of looking at the world is so emotionally self centred, so divisive and so dangerous.

If people are criticizing Trump we see it as for what he is (actually) saying and for what he is (actually) doing. Yet when Trump criticizes people many people don’t see it the same way as criticizing people for what they do and say but infer racism even though, unlike the above examples cited against him, he does not mention race.

This is a clear double standard based on the animus to Trump and the Leftist ideology that wishes to see him racist.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit