Am I the only one who wasn't offended by Trump saying Obama needed to quit playing basketball and do... whatever it was Trump said Obama needed to do?

It didn't occur to me that that could be construed as racist until I heard people saying it was racist. The first thing that came to mind when *I* heard it was all the footage of him shooting hoops for exercise. It's no secret that he likes to play basketball.

I didn't take it any differently than I took statements from Bush's detractors that he needed to quit chopping brush on the ranch and get back to work.

Chopping brush was what Bush did for mental downtime. Basketball is what Obama does. It just is what it is - nothing racist about it.

I haven't come to the conclusion that I'm taking Trump seriously at this point. He seems rather like a goofy blowhard much of the time. That said, I have a lot of appreciation for his ability to get things done. But for better or worse, politics is a different animal than business in that a businessman can call his own shots in ways a President can't.

I didn't hear it, so can't say. Since Obama does play basketball, I wouldn't take it as racist, rather as a smack that he's too busy playing games and not busy working on our country.

Trump, however, is a sexist to me. He is constantly talking about how beautiful the women are. I don't know if he's a viable candidate or not. I would like to think he's not beholden to special interests, but then again he is constantly sure to mention how good of a friend so-and-so is.

dl

No, I didn't take it as racist either. I had the same thought you did - there is a lot of footage and talk of him playing basketball...it's something he does in his spare time.

It seems anyone can make anything "racist" these days...it gets so old....and dilutes the real issue of racism.

Lisa

__________________
"It's not having what you want,
It's wanting what you've got"

I will first say this I do not like Mr Trump at all, he should stay in the business he is with real estate and try his best as he is trying to own all of New York seriously I do not like him plain and simple. As far as Obama playing basketball I think people are way to senstive, because they generally believe that only Black people or a better word for me is African Americans enjoy and play basketball, there is true because on a professional level most of our players are African American, but to compare Obama playing basketball and call it racist is just putting a label on someone, there are millions of people of every color who enjoy and love the game of basketball... Peace and blessings to all... Catherine

Trump's an idiot, so I really don't pay any attention to anything he says.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

I think it came in combination with the fact that Trump has decided that he now needs to prove how well he did in college. And how he got into college in the first place. He implied that it was affirmative action that got him into college and that he was not qualified to be there. I don't believe any other sitting president has ever had pressure to not only prove his place of birth but now whether he deserved to be in college. Whether he took a place from a supposedly more qualified applicant. Put those together and it smacks of racism. Trump is an ass and a sexist and now in my mind a racist.

I remember Bush being hounded about his college records. It was always insinuated (and sometimes even stated outright) that the only reason he got into an Ivy League school was because of who he was and not because he was qualified.

So... if it has been said that Obama got in because of affirmative action, it's basically the same thing... a statement that he didn't get in because he himself merited it, but rather because of some characteristic not related to qualifications.

I think I'd be more offended by being accused of only getting in because of my daddy than my race.

It will be interesting, though, if we ever see Obama's grades and they are sub-par. I say that because during the last election, it was asserted that he was the smartest individual who had ever run for the office.

Here is academic info for Bush, Gore, and Kerry: Bush/Gore Grades and SAT Scores

bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think anyone who supports Trump has rocks in his head.

Really? Why???

I don't know why. I guess that there is a perception that blue blood kids are spoiled and bratty and have an attitude of entitlement not just for the basics, but for 'better than everybody else has'. I find that pretty unappealing. In a school setting, to be thought of as not only *not* having the brains, but as somebody whose 'daddy' paid my way in would feel like a real embarrassment to me.

I'm not for affirmative action, but I assume that generally people who do get into Ivy league schools because they are quota-fillers probably do at least have a solid level of ability. There are probably a number of minority students who apply to those schools, and if they were accepting a certain number of them, to even make that cut probably isn't entirely easy.

If I were... say... a fireman who scored very poorly on a civil service test and yet was given employment solely because they needed to fill an affirmative action quota, then I would not feel good about myself.

Neither entrance situation (money or a.a.) is a recipe for the *most* personal pride and confidence... but if I had to pick, I do think I'd rather be seen as somebody who got in because the deck was stacked against me than because my family could sweep in and stack it for me.

ETA: The reason I'm on the fence about Trump is because I'm not convinced he's a real conservative. He is an incredibly adept salesperson, and it'll take a lot of convincing for me to believe his core philosophies are what he is saying they are. In the meantime... it's undeniable that he can get things done, and I think his blowhard way of doing business may force others to just lay their stances all out on the table in ways they have been too PC to do.

I really don't care for Donald Trump BUT I do like his in your face outspokeness (sp). If he makes all the other candidates be more honest and forthcoming then I've got to hand it to him for that. I will say that he must be doing something right because he has really, really awesome kids and growing up in such a rich lifestyle and turning out as well as they have does say something about him. I don't dislike him near as much as I used to.

Well, I don't agree with you, but I have resolved not to enter into any one-on-one debates touching on political issues until closer to the 2012 elections. Sort of like an extended Lent, or maybe more appropriately, a drying out period.

With regard to Trump, I thought Rand Paul had most clever response to Trump's possibly running as a Republican in the 2012 race:

I don't care for Rand Paul, but I'll credit where credit is due. That was a great zing. Short, pithy, and carried a punch.

Donald Trump may be good at business however he has shown in the past he can't take criticism. Anytime anyone publicly criticizes him he starts a feud. He is hot tempered, too blunt, and somewhat self serving to be President. Plus, he may be smart about some things however I'm not convinced he is generally intelligent.

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.

Most people know I am not an Obama fan, however, even if he did get into school on an Affirmative Action Program, he still had to prove himself and make the grades in order to stay in school. So I don't see that it's that big of a deal.

As far as the basketball statement, I didn't hear it so I don't know, but my husband is always saying he needs to quit doing this and that (vacations, picking basketball team winners, etc.) and get back to taking care of the country, so it could just be a general statement. Seems like he does take an awful lot of vacations, although maybe no more than anyone else in the past?

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

Danny, I guess I didn't see what I explained as political as much as personal.

A wealthy young person likely had all the educational benefits money can buy and their disposal, and despite that, either were too irresponsible to or not academically capable of living up to the family expectation that Jr. would go to Harvard... so Daddy fixes it by writing out a big check.

Or...

A kid who didn't have the advantage of pricey opportunities and who happens to be from a racial minority has the desire to pursue his education at Harvard, and gets special consideration by the institution even though his grades or SAT aren't quite as high as Harvard would typically consider...

Yep, I'd rather be the minority kid than the spoiled kid.

I mentioned the firefighter scenario because you do occasionally hear of cities in which individuals who score poorly on exams for such vocations are hired over individuals who score better simply because they are filling racial quotas. I think that's not good. I don't care what color my fireman is. If my house is burning down, I just want to know that he is there with the hose because he is the best guy to save my house. Those roles need to be filled because of competence, not as a method of social architecture.

At this point in our history, I'm not for maintaining quotas. There may have been a place for them at one time, but today, when as many or more women than men attend college, etc., well... things have changed, and the gender and race(s) that have historically needed a boost are not likely to encounter discrimination when entering college. In fact, the opposite is probably true. Admissions standards are pretty much standardized and few institutions of higher learning turn away students who qualify for enrollment. People are not - or are rarely - denied entrance based on discriminatory practices. By and large, colleges and universities are populated with left-leaning individuals, and one would assume that they would have those issues as a high priority if they were ever in a position to make admissions decisions.

There are still huge numbers of prejudiced people in this country and to remove the affirmative action rules would simply give them allowance to behave as they wish. Just because it may be rare that people are discriminated against, ( and I sincerely doubt that, living where I live), doesn't mean it wouldn't quickly convert back to the way it used to be, because the underlying attitudes have not changed sufficiently. To do that, we need a generation or two to die. I hope we can get to a time and place that we don't need that, but for now we still do. And I might ad, that our "new black" is Muslim, as the country seems determined to find a new target for their bigotry, since it's become less acceptable to "voice" their attitudes towards people of color, they seem to not feel the same constraint about Muslims.

My take is that forced quotas actually make those attitudes worse.

And I disagree that our 'new black' is Muslim. I think it's Christian, at least from the PC crowd.

Forced quotas might make some worse, but the inclusion of those discriminated against into our society also works to make those around them realize that their attitudes perhaps are wrong. If you've never been put in close contact with a sector of society and have only heard from parents and peers how dreadful they are, and then have to work or live next to them, gives people the opportunity to change their minds on what those people truly are like.

Also, since I'm probably included in that "PC crowd" many of you so often refer to, I dislike all religions. I do not discriminate in that. But I also will not burn your church, temple or any other place of worship, I do not want anyone to discriminate against you because you have a certain religion, but I would also hope that you would be able to see beyond any beliefs that may be promulgated by your particular religion, and see that other religions have the same rights to exist as yours does. Every single person on this planet deserves respect, (until they prove that they don't), the ability to provide for themselves and their families, and the right TO believe or NOT believe in a higher power and/or religion.

Personally, I consider the PC crowd to be a set of people who view themselves as more enlightened than traditionalists, and who have a tendency to mock beliefs or those who hold beliefs that they consider outmoded. They have a smug attitude that says, "If most people think it, it's probably wrong. If it's the 'underdog' position, it's probably right, and it deserves my support." They don't analyze positions on their merit, but rather on whether they are traditional or novel, and if they're novel... they are all over them. Not all liberals are PC, so I can't tell whether or not you fit the label as I define it.

I don't disagree with your premise that everybody has the right to believe what they want to believe. I disagree that every belief deserves respect, because some beliefs are downright not deserving. The beliefs of the terrorists that they'd get 40 virgins if they martyred themselves and blew up Americans come to mind.

I didn't say religion deserves respect, I said every single person deserves respect until they prove otherwise. I believe that if you want to worship toads, trees, Satan or cow dung, you can, as long as you don't expect me to follow suit and your worships habits do not harm anyone else, (and I have to add, any animals). The terrorists use religion as an excuse to behave they way they want to behave, just as so many other people have used religion to excuse their bad behaviors.

I don't know any liberals so I can't tell if I would fit in with them either.

Last night LaToya (sp?) met Trump in his office in a bid to get back on the show. As she left, he told her he liked her pants.

Sexist over and over.

dl

wowitsdark-I always love your posts!

I'm not aware that "forced quotas" are being imposed in any setting. There are "goals and timetables," in affirmative action plans, and certain conditions have to be met before they are legally required and/or permissible.

The difference as I understand it is that a "forced quota" would say, "X positions must be filled by minority candidates." "Goals and timetables" say that we want to have X percentage of our workforce be representative by X date. Goals and timetables tend to be more aspirational. They are subject to competing and overriding concerns. They aren't supposed to be quotas, in the sense that a job or position must go to a minority.

Of course, YMMV as to whether you regard goals and timetables as the equivalent of forced quotas.

Dannyboy I am so happy you have returned missed your posts and love your posts, thanks so much. Peace and blessings to all...Catherine