Trump and Bigotry: A False Association (2 Viewers)

[Gr00vus]

Yeah that poll isn't accurate.

How so?

 

[ilikedwight]

How so?

I would answer yeah she is the devil for a laugh if I was asked it. I wouldn't literally think she was the devil or treat her supporters accordingly. You really believe 40 percent of Trump voters think Hillary is Lucifer? You're smarter than that.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

clearly it needs to be said since it is happening. What dont you get about that?

Clearly. Hopefully those guys have a Footballguys subscription so that they get the message that we're no longer going to stand for crap like that.

 

[Hov34]

Shouldn't the same hold true on the other side though? Obama was going to bring upon the apocalypse, and Hillary was just a continuation of the anti-christ.

So you wanna be just like them?  Carry on.

 

[Gr00vus]

I would answer yeah she is the devil for a laugh if I was asked it. I wouldn't literally think she was the devil or treat her supporters accordingly. You really believe 40 percent of Trump voters think Hillary is Lucifer? You're smarter than that.

I only know what the number say. I don't know why people answered the way they did. Beyond that, the fact that it's even a question in the poll indicates that enough people were serious about it to have it be included in the poll. And beyond that though, calling someone the devil, even in jest, isn't that contrary to your assertion that you shouldn't call people names without any proof, that such things have serious negative consequences for those being so labeled? Shouldn't you be decrying that as much as you're decrying people getting labeled as racists?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I read this before when someone else posted it in another thread, and two specific issues with it jumped out at me.

1. The statistical analysis regarding minority support for Trump is flawed and misleading.  First and foremost, it compares 2012 and 2016 minority support for the GOP candidate without a single mention of a somewhat important variable- the fact that there was a black guy running for president on the other side of the ticket in 2012.  To leave that variable out of the analysis and the discussion is a fatal flaw. 

Also this is less important, but the "jump of greater than 5%" was actually a very small jump from something like 6% to 8% of the black vote or thereabouts.  It's not what most people think of when they think of a 5% increase (jumping from 45 to 50 or 10 to 15 or what5ever).  It's simply >105% of Romney's ridiculously low support level among African-Americans to a still-ridiculously low number.

Bottom line- if Romney was running for president against a black guy universally loved by the black community and you're running for president against a white woman the black community is kinda "meh" on and you still barely outperform Romney, you can't really argue that you've appealed to the black community in some significant way.  It's like saying if I score 21 points on the Cleveland Browns defense and you score 20 on the Minnesota Vikings defense, I have a better offense than you do.

2.  The examples he chooses for Trump's racism that he then rejects seem flawed.  They're mostly about his supporters. Yes, having racist supporters doesn't make you racist.  But getting sued by DOJ for racism in rental practices- and then again for violating the terms of your settlement agreement- makes you racist.  Getting fined by the Casino Control Commission for agreeing to keep black employees away from certain patrons makes you racist. Conflating black people and "inner cities" as if no black people live anywhere else when in fact most of them do makes you racist.  None of these things are mentioned in the article.  And the few actual examples he does cite- birtherism, his comments on Curiel, etc.- are dismissed as just Trump being crazy.  But you can be crazy and also racist.  If your racism comes from insanity instead of well-thought-out hatred of minorities, it's still racism.

I agree that strength of schedule should be taken into account, but did people think that black support for Hillary was meh before the election? She did pretty well with blacks in the primaries if I recall... In any case, it's a potential correction of a few percentage points. Scoring 21 against the Browns puts you in the same league as scoring 20 against the Vikings.

I don't think the DOJ stuff is all that compelling. Trump didn't get sued for racism. His dad's company got sued for discrimination. The discrimination could have been motivated by racism (maybe his dad's?), but it could also have been motivated by greed if having black tenants reduced the overall rental value. I mean, it's terrible either way, don't get me wrong. But I don't think it's compelling evidence of Trump's personal racism. Same with accommodating high-rollers in the casino.

 

[Sabertooth]

  

 

[ffldrew]

Well the previous norm in our political process was that if you tactlessly accused Mexicans of being nothing but rapists, drug-dealers and murderers - it was pretty much the end of the show for you

Wrong. He did not say Mexicans were nothing but rapists, drug-dealers, and murderers. He said that it's too easy for those that are rapists, drug-dealers, and murderers to get into this country. That's it. That's not racist, that's fact, and it's the same thing Bill Clinton said as president.

Try reading. Sound out the big words if you have to.

And If you read what I said - I said tactlessly - not racist. I agree I should have avoided the word of nothing - although if you flip the word "best" - it nearly implies nothing. His statement was poorly said, the fact that you have to parse it in such a way to give him the all-clear shows the lack of tact and it would have been the kiss of death in the past if something had been delivered so bluntly. Candidates have been characterized and drummed out for being emotional(Muskie), not sure how to call it -wild and  crazy with Dean, Ford and Poland, Goldwater with bombs in Vietnam, Carter nearly did with his lust comment - it used to cost you the election. You didn't have Presidential "timber",  if you were inarticulate especially in the spotlight of a campaign - and I think that was an expectation here when he said it - especially when he said it early in a crowded primary field where the result would usually mean people would pile on a statement like this.

 

[Gr00vus]

I don't think the DOJ stuff is all that compelling. Trump didn't get sued for racism. His dad's company got sued for discrimination. The discrimination could have been motivated by racism (maybe his dad's?), but it could also have been motivated by greed if having black tenants reduced the overall rental value. I mean, it's terrible either way, don't get me wrong. But I don't think it's compelling evidence of Trump's personal racism. Same with accommodating high-rollers in the casino.

Donald was president of the company and heavily involved in its operation leading up to the lawsuit. The discrimination was based on race, they coded applications based on race, not based on economic situation. Using race as a shorthand for economic situation is racism.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The point is that Trump is not the wolf you're looking for.

Oh no I think he is.

Here's why I think he's racist: the argument over Curiel and demanding that he be removed because Trump claimed that he could not be fair because of his background. And then he insisted he was actually 'Mexican', as opposed to acknowledging he was just American. 

I could go on but he assigned proclivities and behavior tova man because of his background and then he classified him racially just because of his heritage.

I think the Muslim bam thing is arguably racist/chauvinist as well.

eta - If you're ascribing behavior to people based on their 'race' or just defining 'race' based on how they look or what their name suggests about their heritage instead of who they you're a racist. And if you're calling g for public actions or legislation based on such classifications you are really a racist.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Candidates have been characterized and drummed out for being emotional(Muskie), not sure how to call it -wild and  crazy with Dean, Ford and Poland, Goldwater with bombs in Vietnam, Carter nearly did with his lust comment - it used to cost you the election. You didn't have Presidential "timber",  if you were inarticulate especially in the spotlight of a campaign - and I think that was an expectation here when he said it - especially when he said it early in a crowded primary field where the result would usually mean people would pile on a statement like this.

I recall the Presidential standards as well. Those standards were definitely put on their ear with Trump. Hillary tried to abide by the norms, but the deplorables comment really cost her, as it should have. But Trump for some reason was able to eschew all of the standards, no matter what he said it wasn't disqualifying. Dozens of comments, literally, that may have been disqualifying in the past. Certainly an interesting part of the election. It seems perhaps that Trump was such an outsider, the electorate was willing to give him a pass on all of it. 

 

[beavers]

So the appointment by the trump administration of people who have a history of racism is supposed to be ignored?

Silly you. You're following MSM. That never happened, and those people aren't racist. It's all made up by the media. And, it was Obama and Hillary who suggested these appointments. 

 

[ilikedwight]

Oh no I think he is.

Here's why I think he's racist: the argument over Curiel and demanding that he be removed because Trump claimed that he could not be fair because of his background. And then he insisted he was actually 'Mexican', as opposed to acknowledging he was just American. 

I could go on but he assigned proclivities and behavior tova man because of his background and then he classified him racially just because of his heritage.

I think the Muslim bam thing is arguably racist/chauvinist as well.

Saints what do you think of this article?

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145560612726/the-robot-judge

If you have been watching CNN, you know Anderson Cooper has been reporting about the discovery that a sitting judge is actually a robot. His name is Gonzalo Curiel and he is presiding over the Trump University case.

Curiel looks human on the outside, and he has passed as human for decades. But Cooper made it clear in his interviews yesterday that while science understands that 100% of humans are biased about just about everything, this robot judge is not susceptible to being influenced by his life experiences. It sounds deeply implausible, but no one on CNN challenged Cooper’s implication that Judge Curiel is the only bias-free entity in the universe. Ergo, he must be a robot.

Anyway, lots of folks on Twitter are asking me why Trump would accuse the robot judge of being “Mexican” when that is obviously a racist thing to say. Did Trump make a huge mistake, or is it some sort of clever persuasion thing?

Let’s dig into that.

For starters, it isn’t appropriate to label people – or robots – “Mexicans” if those people or robots are created in America. For example, I have an American friend with Italian heritage who often refers to herself as “Italian,” and obviously that is a case of self-racism. I find it offensive.

This problem isn’t limited to my one friend. I also know an American who calls herself Croatian and another American who calls himself Indian. I can barely stand to be in the same room with those racists. Worse yet, they seem unclear about the distinction between their ethnicity and the country where their parents grew up. It isn’t the same thing, people!

But right-and-wrong aside, is it a good legal strategy for Trump to sow doubts about the objectivity of the robot judge? It seems to me that the trial can go one of two ways.

1. Trump wins in court, in which case, Trump wins.

2. Trump loses in court, in which case, Trump says Democrats rigged the system to give him an unfair trial. We’re already primed to believe it.

From a legal perspective, race is not a reason to remove a judge. I haven’t heard anyone argue otherwise. But from a persuasion perspective, Trump is setting the stage for whatever is to come. So yes, it is smart, albeit offensive.

Some have asked why Trump’s legal team hasn’t asked for the judge to be replaced. My guess is that they want to keep him because they expect to lose the case and they plan to pin it on the judge. That’s how I would play it.

The one small problem with Trump’s strategy of questioning the robot’s objectivity is that it creates one more point of confirmation bias that Trump is a racist. Here’s what we have so far:

1. Trump wants to protect the melting pot that is America from the non-Americans who want to get into the country illegally. That’s the job of the President, and yet…it sounds a bit racist. That’s point-one of confirmation bias.

2. Trump said immigrants from Mexico are rapists. Under normal circumstances, a listener would understand him to mean that the socioeconomic circumstances of being an immigrant are correlated with higher-than-average crime rates of all types. But because you think Trump is a racist, your cognitive dissonance turned it into an accusation that all Mexican men, women, children, and unborn babies are rapists. 

To make things worse, Trump is pro-life. The implication is that Trump believes one-month-old fetuses from Mexico somehow escape the womb at night to do their raping. It sounds implausible, but once you know Trump is a racist who thinks every single Mexican is a rapist, you have to assume he was talking about the fetuses too. That’s a tell for confirmation bias.

3. During one CNN interview Trump did not disavow the KKK in a clear and quick fashion that viewers expected. He did disavow the KKK and David Duke before the interview, and plenty of times afterwards. But that one time on live television he didn’t hear the question (he says) and he responded inadequately. It seems implausible that a candidate for president would intentionally avoid disavowing the KKK on live TV, but once you assume Trump is a racist, confirmation bias kicks in, and you assume he did just that.

4. Trump suggested a temporary ban on Muslim immigration until we can figure out what’s going on. That sounds totally racist…unless you know that Islam is open to all ethnicities…and as practiced in many places is incompatible with the Constitution of the United States. And ISIS is trying to get terrorists into the country by posing as immigrants. Viewed in isolation, the ban on Muslim immigration is offensive and problematic. But viewed in context with all of the other confirmation bias about Trump, it turns into evidence of racism.

5. And now Trump believes a judge might be biased because his parents grew up in Mexico. On one hand, every person in the world thinks that is a legitimate risk. On the other hand, when viewed in context of all of Trump’s other confirmation bias, it looks racist as hell.

I’m probably leaving out a few points of confirmation bias. But you get the point. Once you see Trump as a probable racist, you see “evidence” everywhere, even if there is none. That’s confirmation bias.

Judges have bias too. Except for the robot kind like Curiel.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Everyone is in agreement that Trump is sexist, right?  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

"The media took Trump literally, but not seriously. The voters took Trump seriously, but not literally."

Every single thing the president does is taken literally, part of the job description and others will act accordingly.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Trump said that:


When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.



Note how totally non-racist this statement is. I’m serious. It’s anti-illegal-immigrant. But in terms of race, it’s saying Latinos (like every race) include both good and bad people, and the bad people are the ones coming over here. It suggests a picture of Mexicans as including some of the best people – but those generally aren’t the ones who are coming illegally.

There are some decent points in the article, but I'm sorry, this is one of the sillyest things I've ever read.  Some are good and some are bad?  Give me a break.  The last sentence was a sideways qualifier the same way someone says "but I have black friends!" on the internet.

His tone was pretty clear.  Bitter vitriol in all but the last sentence, and then just kind of a shrugging aside about the good people at the end.  "Ugh, and I guess there are probably a couple of good ones in there too.  Maybe".

And what is this nonsense about "It suggests a picture of Mexicans as including some of the best people"?  That's not what the first sentence says at all.  This is basic reading comprehension.  If I say "the Browns didn't play their best today" that doesn't mean I'm saying the Browns typically play the best in the NFL.  What the heck?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The point is that Trump is not the wolf you're looking for.

Oh no I think he is.

If you use up all of your "openly racist" accusations on Donald Trump, you will be ignored when an actually openly racist candidate like David Duke throws his hat into the ring.

From the article:

What if, one day, there is a candidate who hates black people so much that he doesn’t go on a campaign stop to a traditionally black church in Detroit, talk about all of the contributions black people have made to America, promise to fight for black people, and say that his campaign is about opposing racism in all its forms? What if there’s a candidate who does something more like, say, go to a KKK meeting and say that black people are inferior and only whites are real Americans?

We might want to use words like “openly racist” or “openly white supremacist” to describe him. And at that point, nobody will listen, because we wasted “openly white supremacist” on the guy who tweets pictures of himself eating a taco on Cinco de Mayo while saying “I love Hispanics!” ...

God forbid, one day we might have somebody who doesn’t give speeches about how diversity makes this country great and how he wants to fight for minorities, who doesn’t pose holding a rainbow flag and state that he proudly supports transgender people, who doesn’t outperform his party among minority voters, who wasn’t the leader of the Salute to Israel Parade, and who doesn’t offer minorities major cabinet positions. And we won’t be able to call that guy an “openly white supremacist Nazi homophobe”, because we already wasted all those terms this year.

 

[squistion]

I think Maher had a point (and it really wasn't his) that by attacking Romney and McCain and other truly 'normal' Republicans as fascists and misogynists and racists etc. they were just inuring voters to the accusations when an actual instance of such travesties would occur.

However I used to hear this in the Hillary thread and my response was that people are forgetting the point of that story. There was a wolf. Just because people have grown weary of hearing about or just because accusations had been exaggerated in the past doesn't mean that the 'problem' isn't real. That's the real moral of that story. Same is true here with Trump.

No, that isn't the moral of the story. Here is the real moral:

http://fablesofaesop.com/the-boy-who-cried-wolf.html

Moral


Liars are not believed even when they speak the truth.

 

[skol asylum]

If Trump wants to send a sign to the country that he is not a racist bigot he would immediately fire Bannon. He wants it both ways. Screw him.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'm pretty certain that we'll never have someone like David Duke as a major party nominee.  

 

[JIslander]

If you use up all of your "openly racist" accusations on Donald Trump, you will be ignored when an actually openly racist candidate like David Duke throws his hat into the ring.

From the article:

The counter point here is, he IS the wolf or at least tending to a den of wolves.

 

[msommer]

Everyone is in agreement that Trump is sexist, right?  

I think I remember MT disputing that too

 

[ilikedwight]

If Trump wants to send a sign to the country that he is not a racist bigot he would immediately fire Bannon. He wants it both ways. Screw him.

No he wouldn't because Bannon isn't a racist.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No, that isn't the moral of the story. Here is the real moral:

http://fablesofaesop.com/the-boy-who-cried-wolf.html

Moral


Liars are not believed even when they speak the truth.

"The Truth." 

Sure enough. There's a wolf there all right.

Maybe tie this in to Trump. Is he not a racist in your opinion? Is the fact that people are inured to it make you feel less impelled to speak the truth?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Everyone is in agreement that Trump is sexist, right?  

Counterargument from the same author.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm pretty certain that we'll never have someone like David Duke as a major party nominee.  

...in 49 out of 50 states at least...

 

[ilikedwight]

I think I remember MT disputing that too

In what way is Donald Trump a sexist? Joking remarks in a private conversation shouldn't be your proof here. Attacking men and WOMEN equally that attack him first shouldn't be your proof here. Being one of the first to give women executive positions shouldn't be your proof here.

 

[dgreen]

I only know what the number say. I don't know why people answered the way they did. Beyond that, the fact that it's even a question in the poll indicates that enough people were serious about it to have it be included in the poll.

No, it was in the poll because part of the polling was based on things Trump recently said:

Donald Trump said a lot of different things last week so we polled to what share

of his supporters bought into each of them:

-Trump said last week that Hillary Clinton is the devil, and 41% of Trump voters

say they think she is indeed the devil to 42% who disagree with that sentiment

and 17% who aren't sure one way or the other.

 

[Statorama]

Would it be great if he condemned certain statements more forcefully, and avoided making statements that generalize an entire group of people? 

Hey, quit stealing my Obama schtick.  That line is one of my classics.

 

[Gr00vus]

No, it was in the poll because part of the polling was based on things Trump recently said:

How does that conflict with what I said? People weren't taking it seriously because Trump said it? I don't understand your point.

 

[whoknew]

If you use up all of your "openly racist" accusations on Donald Trump, you will be ignored when an actually openly racist candidate like David Duke throws his hat into the ring.

From the article:

That's kind of a weird position to take, though, right? Because I agree with Saints and Gr00vus (and others) that Trump has said and done a bunch of racist stuff in his life and during the campaign. But because he isn't openly calling black people n-words and burning crosses on their lawn, we should just kind of let it slide?

I think, as a society, we've come a long way in the fight against "open racism". But there's still A TON of just below the surface racism out there - including institutional racism. If we just let that slide, how are we going to eradicate it?

 

[ffldrew]

I'm pretty certain that we'll never have someone like David Duke as a major party nominee.  

...in 49 out of 50 states at least...

I can think of 2 or 3 others

 

[squistion]

"The Truth." 

Sure enough. There's a wolf there all right.

Maybe tie this in to Trump. Is he not a racist in your opinion? Is the fact that people are inured to it make you feel less impelled to speak the truth?

There wasn't a wolf there all the time. The first few times the kid was lying about it. When there really was a wolf, no one would believe him, hence the moral:

Moral


Liars are not believed even when they speak the truth.



If you disagree maybe contact Wiki and tell them they got the moral in Aesop's fable wrong, that the moral is: There really is a wolf and it has nothing to do with lying, contrary to how the fable was written and what people have believed for hundreds of years.

 

[msommer]

I love the argument ( I have stated this before) that because Trump truly has offended all Mexicans, a judge, who was appointed prior to Trumps offensive remarks, who is an American citizen, born in the US, but of Mexican heritage, should be excused from the case (presumably replaced by a judge who is neither this nor that which Trump has offended) because at this point the judge is deemed to be biased against Trump - because of Trump's remarks.

So, any judge that presides over a Trump case must be extreme vetted to see that Trump has not done something that this judge would deem offensive. 

Clearly we cannot ask Trump to behave like a rational being, we have to have special rules to accomodate such as him.

Imagine if that actually was the precedent, how would the US justice system then function?

 

[The Commish]

I agree that strength of schedule should be taken into account, but did people think that black support for Hillary was meh before the election? She did pretty well with blacks in the primaries if I recall... In any case, it's a potential correction of a few percentage points. Scoring 21 against the Browns puts you in the same league as scoring 20 against the Vikings.

I don't think the DOJ stuff is all that compelling. Trump didn't get sued for racism. His dad's company got sued for discrimination. The discrimination could have been motivated by racism (maybe his dad's?), but it could also have been motivated by greed if having black tenants reduced the overall rental value. I mean, it's terrible either way, don't get me wrong. But I don't think it's compelling evidence of Trump's personal racism. Same with accommodating high-rollers in the casino.

Hell no....they were her "firewall" in the primaries.  There was no reason to believe that Trump would have any shot at maintaining the numbers of Romney and/or McCain...none.  Not only did he maintain, he grew.  If we want to take that away from him as a positive, then it should would require acknowledgment of how bad Hillary was.  I had a good chuckle a couple days ago.  Two of my friends were over ranting about Trump etc.  Now, it should be noted that they don't really have a clue.  They are pretty much caricatures of their parents (even in their 30s) and one of them essentially said "WTF, how did black people vote for Trump.  Don't they know what is good for them?"  I have to admit, this was my thought during the primary as well.  It just showed me, I have no real idea what matters to black people.  What I was sold as mattering clearly doesn't....at least in a significant manner.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Counterargument from the same author.

Author is way too concerned with dumb semantic arguments in my opinion.  The guy has said and done a ton of sleazy stuff when it comes to how women are treated.  I'm comfortable describing that as sexist.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I agree that strength of schedule should be taken into account, but did people think that black support for Hillary was meh before the election? She did pretty well with blacks in the primaries if I recall... In any case, it's a potential correction of a few percentage points. Scoring 21 against the Browns puts you in the same league as scoring 20 against the Vikings.

I don't think the DOJ stuff is all that compelling. Trump didn't get sued for racism. His dad's company got sued for discrimination. The discrimination could have been motivated by racism (maybe his dad's?), but it could also have been motivated by greed if having black tenants reduced the overall rental value. I mean, it's terrible either way, don't get me wrong. But I don't think it's compelling evidence of Trump's personal racism. Same with accommodating high-rollers in the casino.

My first point was really more about the credibility of the piece/the author than anything.  I don't think Trumps performance among blacks relative to Romney is meaningful to the issue of his racism- in addition to the obvious factor of Obama in the 2012 race, black people hated Romney too. And there's other variables, like new voter Id laws and limited polling stations designed to limit access for a certain kind of black voter.  And frankly when you're under 10% I'm not sure the details matter much.  You could get 8% of chickens to vote for Colonel Sanders.  Point is, the author tried to use it to make a point but clearly did so in a misleading way.

On your second point, this is really just semantics.  I  think most people would say that acting racist makes you a racist, even if your motivation wasn't purely based on a feeling that another race is inferior but rather your desire to profit financially from those who think that. If you discriminate based on race, you are a racist.  And again, I think it's telling that the author led with the easy case- that racist supporters don't make you racist- and relegated the actual examples of Trumps racism to brief asides or ignored them completely.

Still, it's an interesting point.  Trumps standard old rich white guy racism might not be the worst thing about him, and there's no harm in making people aware of the dangers of crying wolf.

 

[msommer]

So we have one guy who writes articles that specializes in cherry picking among Trump's transgressions and then arguing that Trump really is a nice guy, there are plenty worse out there.

 

[skol asylum]

No he wouldn't because Bannon isn't a racist.

Oh ok.

 

[ilikedwight]

Oh ok.

I know it must shock your world that I don't take everything the media says as gospel, and I am capable of being a free thinker.

 

[msommer]

Right on cue, White enters on stage, from the right

 

[Gr00vus]

I know it must shock your word that I don't take everything the media says as gospel, and I am capable of being a free thinker.

You might be capable of it, but you haven't displayed any evidence of actually engaging in it.

 

[ilikedwight]

You might be capable of it, but you haven't displayed any evidence of actually engaging in it.

That is just like your opinion, man.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Yeah, I was not as impressed with that article.  It not only left out the housing discrimination lawsuit, it left out, as near as I can tell, Trump's comments about the Central Park Five.  I'm sure the author would also chalk that up to Trump being weird.  I also don't think you can play some type of game where you count up the number of pro-diversity platitudes a public figure offers and contrast them to the number of racist or potentially racist statements that candidate has said.  We have a cultural norm that encourages every candidate to praise diversity.  Trump is at least smart enough to know that and to use that message when it benefits him.

But Trump has shown that he will use any message that benefits him, even when the racist implications of that message is pointed out to him.  It's not as if he retweeted some Stormfront crap only once.   When he started talking about a conspiracy of global financial and media elites, people pointed out how much that sounded like The Protocols of the Elder of Zion.  He didn't change his message.  Is this proof that Donald Trump hates minorities and Jewish people in his heart?  No.  It is evidence, however, that he is not above using coded language and soliciting the support of people who will respond to racist and anti-Semitic messages even when informed of the content of those messages.  Which is one reason, for a day at least, Donald Trump was apparently reluctant to condemn David Duke.  Because there was a part of Donald Trump at that time thinking that he didn't want to alienate David Duke supporters.  Put simply, Trump is the same on race as on any issue.  He'll tell whatever audience what he thinks they want to hear.  You might argue that this does not qualify as "racism" just as you would argue that discriminating against African-Americans for financial reasons is not motivated by racism.  I disagree.  In both cases, you are knowingly committing a harm against a group of people for your own personal gain.  If that doesn't qualify as racism, then slavery wasn't racist. 

 

[beavers]

I know it must shock your world that I don't take everything the media says as gospel, and I am capable of being a free thinker.

Denial is real.

 

[Doug B]

So we have one guy who writes articles that specializes in cherry picking among Trump's transgressions and then arguing that Trump really is a nice guy, there are plenty worse out there.

The writer actually skewers Trump in the end -- he's no supporter of the man. I think Tobias grokked it in his post right above yours:

Still, it's an interesting point.  Trumps standard old rich white guy racism might not be the worst thing about him, and there's no harm in making people aware of the dangers of crying wolf.

 

[Gr00vus]

That is just like your opinion, man.

Maybe, but all your posts have been rehashes of well established right wing talking points and arguments. I have yet to see a critical argument from you that is distinct from those I've seen from every other person adhering to those ideas.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I wasn't persuaded. Probably the memory of Trump repeatedly saying, tweeting, re-tweeting obviously racists things getting in the way. 

 

[skol asylum]

I don't think that terms like racist, sexist, or bigot are necessarily the best to ascribe to Trump. I would say it's pretty clear he is an opportunistic fear/hate monger who has fed on a certain sector of society's emotions for his own personal benefit. "Build the wall!" is classic rhetoric designed to create division amongst the public and a strawman for people to feed into as the source of all their problems. I know people roll their eyes anytime comparisons get made to Hitler and the Nazis, but how is this nativism bull#### that much more different than how those #######s gained power by blaming the Jews for all of Germany's problems? 

 

[ilikedwight]

Denial is real.

You being a LGBT person more scared of Trump when Hillary was the one taking money from people that hate and want to murder you for being gay is quite telling.