Is Donald Trump racist?

[tytlyf]

why not seems that those of the non-conservative thought process seem to want to equate anyone that disagrees with them are called Nazis, racist, and other demeaning terms.

I hear republicans say this all the time, but they have no examples. This was popular for 8 years under Obama.

 

[Underhill]

With identity politics, the important thing is to put someone in a little box.
Once that's done, people are conveniently reduced to labels. Then, name
calling can replace thoughtful discussion of issues. If Trump is a "racist",
then everything he does, everyone who supports him, everyone who voted
for him becomes "racist". And all things become proof of their racism.

But because Democrats are "progressive" & "liberal" they're incapable of
racism. Try to accuse them of it, & out come the cries of "False equivalency!".
So it's the demonization of the other side, & the sanitization of one's own.
It's why we see so much about what's wrong with Trump, but much less
about what's wrong with his policies.

Yeah sure, except this is not that. There is 'republicans don't care about poor people' which has a ring of truth to it, even if it's not entirely justified. But 'republicans are all nazi's' takes it a bit far.

I would say that out of my many hundreds of facebook friends from both sides of the aisle, the only ones I see denouncing the nazi's are democrats. All I hear from republicans is, "why do you people lump us all together?" Well perhaps if they did more of the former they wouldn't hear so much of the latter.

But thus far the only examples I have seen of the left calling all republicans nazi's come from right wing media. Oh I'm sure there are few crackpots out there, always is on both sides. But the whole notion that all democrats view the situation is a very real example of fake news.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It's not just more convictions. It's a higher conviction rate. They also tend to be given longer sentences on average.

Ya, I can't imagine why the more violent crimes would result in a higher conviction rate, and more severe violence, longer sentences.

It has to be some conspiracy against the black man, and not the sort of individual churned out by ghetto culture.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah sure, except this is not that. There is 'republicans don't care about poor people' which has a ring of truth to it, even if it's not entirely justified. But 'republicans are all nazi's' takes it a bit far.

You're ignoring that "compassionate conservative" element.
Pubs also favor social safety net programs

I would say that out of my many hundreds of facebook friends from both sides of the aisle, the only ones I see denouncing the nazi's are democrats. All I hear from republicans is, "why do you people lump us all together?" Well perhaps if they did more of the former they wouldn't hear so much of the latter.

If you're reading Nazi sympathies into that, you're just flat out wrong.
It's typically more complicated than that.
I don't see you defending the rights of men, but that's likely cuz you
don't see it as necessary, & that others are more in need of defense.
So I won't conclude that you're a misandrist.

 

[Underhill]

You're ignoring that "compassionate conservative" element.
Pubs also favor social safety net programs

Right, except when they don't, which is just about every time one comes up for a vote on the house or senate floor since the 80's.

It's why Trump hasn't been able to replace Obamacare.

If you're reading Nazi sympathies into that, you're just flat out wrong.
It's typically more complicated than that.
I don't see you defending the rights of men, but that's likely cuz you
don't see it as necessary, & that others are more in need of defense.
So I won't conclude that you're a misandrist.

The rights of men isn't up for debate. Nazi's were marching. They killed someone. It is the topic of the day. And instead of denouncing them, the right is complaining about being lumped in with them. If they did more denouncing then they wouldn't be getting lumped in. It isn't that complicated of a concept to understand.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right, except when they don't, which is just about every time one comes up for a vote on the house or senate floor since the 80's.
It's why Trump hasn't been able to replace Obamacare.

Oh, if only Pubs really did care less about the unfortunate.
But they too believe in taxing & spending for a bloated social welfare system.
I submit that your problem with them is that they just do so less than the Dems.

The rights of men isn't up for debate. Nazi's were marching. They killed someone. It is the topic of the day. And instead of denouncing them, the right is complaining about being lumped in with them. If they did more denouncing then they wouldn't be getting lumped in. It isn't that complicated of a concept to understand.

Here's your error in thinking......
You say "they killed someone", when in fact it was an individual
who did the killing, & it appears that he did so independently.
It's highly prejudicial to divide people up into groups of all good or
all bad, with no allowance for the complexity & individual variation.
To quote a sage....It isn't that complicated of a concept to understand.

 

[Revoltingest]

Something interesting in the news.....
http://nypost.com/2017/08/22/wapo-quietly-settles-age-race-discrimination-lawsuit/

The Washington Post quietly settled an age and race discrimination suit filed by former
advertising executive David DeJesus, who is black and who claimed that discrimination
was the reason he was terminated by his white boss in 2011 after an 18-year career.

Is the Washington Post racist?
Is its owner, Jeff Bezos, racist?
Is his other company, Amazon, racist?

 

[Underhill]

Oh, if only Pubs really did care less about the unfortunate.
But they too believe in taxing & spending for a bloated social welfare system.
I submit that your problem with them is that they just do so less than the Dems.

No it isn't. It's that they complain every time the left suggest something and offer no good alternatives.

Here's your error in thinking......
You say "they killed someone", when in fact it was an individual
who did the killing, & it appears that he did so independently.
It's highly prejudicial to divide people up into groups of all good or
all bad, with no allowance for the complexity & individual variation.
To quote a sage....It isn't that complicated of a concept to understand.

If you are marching with guys holding the nazi flag you don't get to claim you are a good guy.

 

[metis]

The rights of men isn't up for debate. Nazi's were marching. They killed someone. It is the topic of the day. And instead of denouncing them, the right is complaining about being lumped in with them. If they did more denouncing then they wouldn't be getting lumped in. It isn't that complicated of a concept to understand.

And when one actually does the research on Trump, there should not be any doubt that he has said and done some racist things in his past. And even if there were to be any doubt, his recent actions and even his friendliness with the Alt-Right should tell us something. And then he also said last night that Arapaio "has nothing to worry about", even though the latter has been convicted of the racial-profiling of Hispanics in defiance of a court order to stop it.

BTW, just a mention that anti-Hispanic bigotry is still a form of "racism" since the definition now has a broader scope than with its original usage.

 

[Revoltingest]

No it isn't. It's that they complain every time the left suggest something and offer no good alternatives.

They fight because they're on opposite sides of a line.
This line is well into the zone of social welfare....they
just fight over which direction it should move.

If you are marching with guys holding the nazi flag you don't get to claim you are a good guy.

What if different groups march for a common cause, one which isn't Naziism?
But applying your approach more generally, what of people who march with socialists & BLM?
Would this make them all fascists & would be cop killers?
I recommend looking more for diversity of thought, & less for brushing so broadly.

 

[Revoltingest]

And when one actually does the research on Trump, there should not be any doubt that he has said and done some racist things in his past.

You allude to research, but then don't present it.
Why let all that sophisticated work go to waste?

 

[metis]

There's quite a few sources that cover this, such as: Trump and race: Decades of fueling divisions

or: Trump Condemned Racism As 'Evil.' Here Are 16 Times He Embraced It.



Here's another I just added, although it covers other disgusting things he's said as well:

 

[Revoltingest]

There's quite a few sources that cover this, such as: Trump and race: Decades of fueling divisions

or: Trump Condemned Racism As 'Evil.' Here Are 16 Times He Embraced It.

Your first link has a demand for money.
The 2nd link begins with several items which don't support the accusation of racism.
I skipped the rest, assuming they'd be of similar non-cromulence.
Any of your own research to share?

 

[metis]

They say "you can't fix stupid" but I also have to add that "you can't fix dishonesty" as all three sites give plenty of examples. Yep, "birds of a feather...".

Disgusting, and it ain't worth any more of my time.

 

[Revoltingest]

They say "you can't fix stupid" but I also have to add that "you can't fix dishonesty" as all three sites give plenty of examples. Yep, "birds of a feather...".

Disgusting, and it ain't worth any more of my time.

There are plenty examples of bad behavior by Trump.....prejudice, bigotry, exism, boorishness.
But none cited show racism...unless you think Muslim, female, nationality, etc are races.
Having studied anthropology, I know better.
I understand supporting your claims would not be worth your time....which would be spent
in continued flailing about.

 

[metis]

^^ignore list^^ [I posted about two days ago, and I repeated it again several posts ago, that the definition of "racism" has expanded over the decades to include anti-nationality bigotry, and some also use it to cover anti-Muslim bigotry that also is implicit against certain peoples. I also provided this link: Racism - Wikipedia

Bigotry is bigotry, regardless as to whether they may not like how we now use the word "racism", and anyone who justifies or excuses bigotry are themselves operating out of their own bigotry. It was clear long before the election that Trump was involved with and spouting bigotry, but some didn't think that it was important enough to not vote for him.

As Gandhi said, "To cooperate with evil is evil", and I think that speaks for itself]

 

[Underhill]

They fight because they're on opposite sides of a line.
This line is well into the zone of social welfare....they
just fight over which direction it should move.

What if different groups march for a common cause, one which isn't Naziism?
But applying your approach more generally, what of people who march with socialists & BLM?
Would this make them all fascists & would be cop killers?
I recommend looking more for diversity of thought, & less for brushing so broadly.

I couldn't care less what your common cause is. The march was organized by David Duke and included Nazis and Klan members. So no, there is no justification for marching with these people.

The comparison to socialist and BLM just does not hold water.

 

[Revoltingest]

I couldn't care less what your common cause is. The march was organized by David Duke and included Nazis and Klan members. So no, there is no justification for marching with these people.

The comparison to socialist and BLM just does not hold water.

Socialists favor a system which has historically always resulted in famine & oppression.
BLM has support murdering cops.
If you'd lump all marchers together in one case, but not in the other, then your method is inconsistent.

 

[Underhill]

Socialists favor a system which has historically always resulted in famine & oppression.

Always? Really? That's nonsense.

BLM has support murdering cops.

No, they haven't. Sometimes some marchers get carried away, but the organization has never advocated for that.

If you'd lump all marchers together in one case, but not in the other, then your method is inconsistent.

The goals of BLM are positive. The goals of socialist are political reform, agree with them or not. The goals of the nazis and the klan is to exterminate jews and blacks.

No large group of people is perfect, but if you cannot see the difference you have some serious cognitive issues.

 

[Revoltingest]

Always? Really? That's nonsense.

Bold claim.
But not backed up by a single example of successful socialism.
I offer The USSR, The PRC, Cuba, & N Korea.

No, they haven't. Sometimes some marchers get carried away, but the organization has never advocated for that.

Sounds like a double standard there.

The goals of BLM are positive.

It's a diverse group, & not all want things positive.

The goals of socialist are political reform, agree with them or not.

I disagree with them, & find their idea of "political reform" horrible.
What they'd effect is no better than white supremacist goals.

The goals of the nazis and the klan is to exterminate jews and blacks.

But you'd attribute these beliefs to all who march with them.
You haven't supported this claim.

No large group of people is perfect, but if you cannot see the difference you have some serious cognitive issues.

Tis cognitive dissonance to not see where socialism & communism lead,
& to hold progressive values, but not condemn advocacy for such eventualities.