Merck CEO resigns from President's Manufacturing Coucil

[WilliamE]

Of course, trump had to try to save face by retreating to insults on twitter. He has all the impulse control of a nine-year-old

It’s not very charitable to insult nine-year-olds in this manner. :tsktsk:

 

[Sy_Noe]

Let’s be honest with this. Trump is being criticized because he didn’t “go racial” and say “white” in talking about “hatred and bigotry”. He just condemned “hatred and bigotry” that occurred in the confrontation.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say there are not many white supremacists who are not white. And that is why it was so important that he go there on Saturday when he was supposedly addressing the violence of white supremacists that was going on at that time… in that place… on that day. And not simply to brush off what occurred on Saturday onto all sides and then to make matters worse, change the subject to job numbers. That merely added insult to injury. He did a disservice to the nation not to unequivocally call out white supremacy and to make it clear to all concerned that he does not want their votes. At least today, finally, 2 days later, but not until he received a backlash of criticism across the aisle, was he able to utter the words “white supremacists” alongside the words “criminals” and “thugs”. And for whatever his words today are worth, I’m at least grateful he did finally go where he did today, albeit if it took a 2-day backlash and possibly a teleprompter for the words to come out of his mouth.

 

[Sy_Noe]

No. He said “on all sides” when only one side were un-American, un-patriotic domestic terrorists. Can you at least be honest and call it terrorism?

Possibly I have not read or heard enough of the news. I think I would want to know more about both groups and what they did before saying an honest and knowledgeable answer can be given.

At this point, all I really know is that one group, or at least some parts of the group, were members of white supremacy groups of some kind. I also know that fights broke out among some of them and at least some members of a counter-protest group or bunch of groups. In the course of it, some person, apparently from Ohio, decided to run over people (or seemed to) and killed more than one person and injured several in doing it. More needs to be known about him, but at this point he seems a dastardly murderer. Whether he can be rightly be called a “terrorist” in addition to “murderer” I don’t know at this point.

Since this seems to have turned into a “Trump-hate-fest”, I think reserving judgment until more facts are known is the wisest course, since hatred of Trump doesn’t determine the facts of the occasion itself.

The short answer to your question, Randomuser, appears to be no.

 

[CatholicFireman]

*"Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier is resigning from President Donald Trump’s manufacturing council.

“America’s leaders must honor our fundamental values by clearly rejecting expressions of hatred, bigotry, and group supremacy, which run counter to the American ideal that all people are created equal,” Frazier said in a statement on Monday.

He added: “As CEO of Merck, and as a matter of personal conscience, I feel a responsibility to take a stand against intolerance and extremism.”

Frazier is one of the few black CEOs of a major US corporation and was the only black member of the council."*

businessinsider.com/merck-ceo-kenneth-frazier-resigns-from-trump-manufacturing-council-2017-8

The President’s response (via Twitter):
Now that Ken Frazier of Merck Pharma has resigned from President’s Manufacturing Council,he will have more time to LOWER RIPOFF DRUG PRICES!
5:54 AM - 14 Aug 2017

(This of course raises the question: If the President thought this CEO was ripping of his customers, why did he choose him in the first place?)

youtube.com/watch?v=2I91DJZKRxs

 

[sallybutler]

Perhaps you are conflaiting the many ideas they support.

I’ve never seen anyone here support their real bigotry, but many liberals here conflate supporting the rule of law with bigotry.

What part of White Supremacy is not bigoted? Note this definition of bigoted from Merriam Webster

especially : having or showing an attitude of hatred or intolerance toward the members of a particular group (such as a racial or ethnic group).

The name itself is bigoted.

 

[jesucated]

Had he done so, he would have elevated “white supremacy” to the status of a movement worthy of note instead of the miniscule and disparate collection of fringe groups that it really is.

White supremacy is more than a “disparate collection of fringe groups.” It’s a structural feature of American society that we must continue to challenge and overcome.

 

[stinkcat_14]

White supremacy is more than a “disparate collection of fringe groups.” It’s a structural feature of American society that we must continue to challenge and overcome.

Can you explain what you mean by “structural feature”?

 

[EasterJoy]

Can you explain what you mean by “structural feature”?

Good question.

White supremacy is not the same thing as an habitual privilege. White supremacy is a chosen philosophy, an active insistence that whites ought to be privelged.

The great irony, actually, is that it is the least-priveleged whites who are most often drawn to this philosophy. One has to wonder if they’re feeling like there was an ice-cream line for this birthright privlege, and they’re angry because they never got their helping. Or perhaps they were angry because without an established second-class, they could not count on a wall of people standing between them and the bottom.

A Christian shouldn’t be worried about being the last of all and the servant of all, but that is a hard way for any of us to learn. That’s why it takes a long time to become a saint.

 

[sallybutler]

Good question.

White supremacy is not the same thing as an habitual privilege. White supremacy is a chosen philosophy, an active insistence that whites ought to be privelged.

The great irony, actually, is that it is the least-priveleged whites who are most often drawn to this philosophy. One has to wonder if they’re feeling like there was an ice-cream line for this birthright privlege, and they’re angry because they never got their helping. Or perhaps they were angry because without an established second-class, they could not count on a wall of people standing between them and the bottom.

A Christian shouldn’t be worried about being the last of all and the servant of all, but that is a hard way for any of us to learn. That’s why it takes a long time to become a saint.

God is the only one that should have supremacy.

 

[Theo520]

If he really does deliver health care for everyone at a better cost without killing anyone financially, which he promised, and really has not done anything that will get him removed from office, he’ll get re-elected. The border wall will drop out of the headlines.

I think his delivery on reducing the flow of illegal aliens is what will get him support. Only democrats care whether it was accomplished by completing a wall or just enforcing our existing rule of law. These dems were never voting for him anyway.

Making some progress in reducing the cost of healthcare will further cement his re-election.

His supporters expect progress, not perfection.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The short answer to your question, Randomuser, appears to be no.

Cute, but an unnecessarily mean-spirited comment.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say there are not many white supremacists who are not white. And that is why it was so important that he go there on Saturday when he was supposedly addressing the violence of white supremacists that was going on at that time… in that place… on that day. And not simply to brush off what occurred on Saturday onto all sides and then to make matters worse, change the subject to job numbers. That merely added insult to injury. He did a disservice to the nation not to unequivocally call out white supremacy and to make it clear to all concerned that he does not want their votes. At least today, finally, 2 days later, but not until he received a backlash of criticism across the aisle, was he able to utter the words “white supremacists” alongside the words “criminals” and “thugs”. And for whatever his words today are worth, I’m at least grateful he did finally go where he did today, albeit if it took a 2-day backlash and possibly a teleprompter for the words to come out of his mouth.

Those who dislike Trump wanted him to make it a racial thing ab initio instead of condemning bigotry and hatred more broadly. We know.

But it wouldn’t have mattered much if he had to those who dislike him. They would have said it “elevated” white racism and given it more of a “movement” appearance than it really is.

 

[sallybutler]

Those who dislike Trump wanted him to make it a racial thing ab initio instead of condemning bigotry and hatred more broadly. We know.

But it wouldn’t have mattered much if he had to those who dislike him. They would have said it “elevated” white racism and given it more of a “movement” appearance than it really is.

People did the same thing with Obama. And they will do the same with the next president of the party they don’t agree with. As the saying goes, ain’t nothing new under the sun.

The main difference here, is has he called the guy who used his car, ala ISIS, to run down people, a radical domestic terrorist? He wanted Obama to call those in Europe that used vehicles in such a heinous way radical Islamic terrorists.

 

[Theo520]

What part of White Supremacy is not bigoted? Note this definition of bigoted from Merriam Webster

especially : having or showing an attitude of hatred or intolerance toward the members of a particular group (such as a racial or ethnic group).

The name itself is bigoted.

If a white supremacist also supports legal immigration but not illegal immigration, you are claiming that I must be racist for holding that same belief. You are wrong in that assumption.

 

[sallybutler]

If a white supremacist also supports legal immigration but not illegal immigration, you are claiming that I must be racist for holding that same belief. You are wrong in that assumption.

Supporting legal immigration and not supporting illegal immigration does not make you a white supremacists. It also doesn’t make you a conservative. According to most on these forums, I am a flaming liberal. However, I support legal immigration, am opposed to illegal immigration, H1B and H2B visas, despise outsourcing, do not believe in abortion, practiced NFP (was taught it at St. Dominic’s in San Francisco) before it was popular. And I am not a white supremacist.

If you believe you are better than others because you come from a European background (except, of course, Spain), then feel free to call yourself a white supremacist. But don’t accuse me of calling you that. And don’t use your position on immigration as your reason.

 

[SyroMalankara]

If a white supremacist also supports legal immigration but not illegal immigration, you are claiming that I must be racist for holding that same belief. You are wrong in that assumption.

A white supremacist would by definition, only support white legal immigration, however it is they define white today - not sure if Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards and Poles are considered in or out these days. My inclination is out, since Catholic.

The supremacists in the UK are anti Indian, Polish, Pakistani, general Muslim, Catholic and Jewish

 

[Theo520]

Supporting legal immigration and not supporting illegal immigration does not make you a white supremacists. It also doesn’t make you a conservative. According to most on these forums, I am a flaming liberal. However, I support legal immigration, am opposed to illegal immigration, H1B and H2B visas, despise outsourcing, do not believe in abortion, practiced NFP (was taught it at St. Dominic’s in San Francisco) before it was popular. And I am not a white supremacist.

If you believe you are better than others because you come from a European background (except, of course, Spain), then feel free to call yourself a white supremacist. But don’t accuse me of calling you that. And don’t use your position on immigration as your reason.

Many many trump supports are behind him because of his position on illegal immigration, yet above they were called racists.

So is your position that whether or not you support trump is what makes one a racist, regardless of policy views?

 

[sallybutler]

Many many trump supports are behind him because of his position on illegal immigration, yet above they were called racists.

So is your position that whether or not you support trump is what makes one a racist, regardless of policy views?

No. My position is that is if you think whites are better, aka a white supremacist, a Neo-Nazi, an alt-righter, regardless of other policy views, then you fit the dictionary definition of bigoted.

The “you” in the previous sentence was meant in the general sense, not in the Theo520 sense. Please do not accuse me of calling you personally any of those terms again. I do not know you or what groups you may or may not belong to. If you want to identify yourself as one of the above mentioned groups, I will then call you that. If you don’t identify yourself as affiliated with one of those groups, then I won’t either.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think his delivery on reducing the flow of illegal aliens is what will get him support. Only democrats care whether it was accomplished by completing a wall or just enforcing our existing rule of law. These dems were never voting for him anyway.

Making some progress in reducing the cost of healthcare will further cement his re-election.

His supporters expect progress, not perfection.

Yes, but if he actually does half of what he promised on health care, that would be an extraordinary accomplishment. If he doesn’t, his opponents will not let anyone forget it.

 

[chero23]

Many many trump supports are behind him because of his position on illegal immigration, yet above they were called racists.

So is your position that whether or not you support trump is what makes one a racist, regardless of policy views?

In a sense yes, supporting someone like Trump makes the person a racist.