A well written, sober article on Race, "Economic anxiety" and Trump

I think this is well written and well thought out. I would be interested in someone who supports Trump to read it and say what they think but really anyone interested even a little in politics should give it a read.

Lots of bullshit and several flat-out errors/lies.

For example, this statement:

It would have been nice to actually listed some of these policies instead of having them exist in the author’s dreams.

Or this:

Really? Trump admitted sexual assault? Details, please, not dreams.

All in all, a nice smear piece: let’s tie Trump to the Klan. The libs will love it. And apparently, they do.

The Trump supporters and racists will deny it. And apparently, they do.

Hate to bust your bubble, QS, but Trump got elected for one major reason - so that Hillary wouldn’t. Deal with it.

It is true that the imagined flaws of Hillary tended to loom larger than the actual ones of trump. But Clothahump’s “analysis” leaves out one major thing and that is how trump managed to win the Republican nomination in the first place in first place. I think that any Republican would have been not Hillary. It is the case that a significant number of white Americans are starting to perceive themselves as, and vote like, members of a minority group, and trump played into that to a degree that no one has done in modern times, abandoning the dog whistle in favor of the bull horn.

Trump got elected because Hillary failed to get out the vote among the Dems and Indys in key districts that were Dem’s to loose; And she did.

We ostensibly agree that HRC, as a candidate, left something to be desired.

We will never agree on the fact that Trump was anything but a win for the deplorable, aided by the unconscionable.

“You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”

Donald John [America-hating fuckstick], 2005

The above is not suddenly rendered a NON-admission of sexual assault when the fuckstick continues his statement with:

“And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

He said on tape that he kisses and fondles women without their permission. That’s Sexual assault. The first version of his Muslim ban was clearly racist that’s why judges threw it out. Each subsequent version were attempts to make it less racist but they aren’t there yet.

But consider that Trump is the lyingest liar who ever lied his way into liarhood. Are we to disbelieve most of what he says, but believe that one bit of braggadocio?

In short, your claim rests on the idea that Trump was telling the truth. But Trump and the truth are pretty much strangers, so unless there is some compelling reason to believe him, my default is to not do so.

He is certainly on the receiving end of many charges of sexual assault (even rape, IIRC), but the idea that he has confessed to it is a very weak argument. The rest of that article might be fine, but I would let that one go.

You are right that he is a serial, pathological liar but there are also 17 women who have said he has done what he bragged about.

Someone who brags about sexual assault is despicable regardless of whether his brags are true or not.

Guy accused of multiple sexual assaults admits on tape that he sexually assaults women and this is still somehow not enough?

So, you’re not going to let it go. OK. In his “confession”, he also says “they let you do it”. Since we’re believing this confession, it’s clear he was not talking about any of the instances where the groping was unwelcome.

Would this work as a defense? I admit to murder, but I’m also a liar, so I can’t be guilty?

So, Trump lies, but he doesn’t lie randomly, but about his fantasies. He tells the lies he wishes were true.

So, he either has committed sexual assault upon women, and admitted it on tape, or he fantasizes about committing sexual assault on women, and lied that he does.

I am not sure that’s all that much better.

“Let you”, and “want you” are two different things. I’ve seen many employees “let” their boss sexually harass them. “When you’re the boss, they let you do it.” Because the employee “let” the GM grab her ass, does that mean that it was welcome? I’m sure that there were many women that “let” weinstein abuse them as well.

If he has said, “I’m such a star, women come up to me, and they want me to grab them by the pussy.” that’d be different. But he was just pointing out that given his position, the women tolerated his actions, as they had little other choice.That’s pretty much the definition of sexual harassment, using your power to make people “let” you do things to them that otherwise, they would not.

I just skimmed the first paragraphs. (I’m a paid subscriber to The Atlantic but my issues arrive two months late! :eek: — to “get my money’s worth” I have to abstain from the on-line version. :stuck_out_tongue: )

What struck me is “David Duke picked up nearly 60 percent of the white vote” and would have won the 1990 U.S. Senate race in Louisiana if the GOP candidate hadn’t dropped out and supported the Democratic candidate. Let me repeat that in a larger font:

David Duke, Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, picked up nearly 60 percent of the white vote in the 1990 U.S. Senate race.

The Atlantic is one of the best news sources in the U.S. What was that funny site you cited in another thread that left us all stunned and amused?

Oh … and let me try an even larger font just for you.

David Duke almost won the 1990 U.S. Senate race in Louisiana.

The un-discussed elephant in the room (no GOP pun intended) is that one side wants everyone to be treated as if they are already equal, and the other side wants everyone to be treated as if inequality still exists.
For instance, if a black person says “I’m proud to be black,” or a Hispanic person says “I’m proud to be Hispanic,” society is likely to praise them for being proud of who they are, but if a white person says “I’m proud to be white,” society is likely to decry that sentiment as racist.
Hillary voters would likely say, “That double standard is because white people and minorities come from a different place in life, privilege, disadvantage, etc. so you can’t treat their statements equally.” But Trump voters would say, “That double standard is hypocritical; it’s not treating everyone’s words/feelings the same.”

The problem is is that you are not taking the context of the statements. “I am proud to be black, (in a country dominated by white men, where I am made to feel as a second class citizen in public, at work, in school, b the police, by the justice system.)” It is having pride in overcoming adversity, real or perceived.

For a white guy like myself to say, "I’m proud to be white (in a country dominated by white men, who keep me elevated above non-white socially, economically, and legally), isn’t the same thing. It’s having pride in being an oppressor, not in overcoming adversity.

ETA: To address your first sentence, everyone is equal. It’s just that people are not treated equally, either by society or by individuals, and that is something that needs to be addressed. No contradiction or hypocrisy there, just observation of reality.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. To the ears of Trump voters, this sort of thing is a double standard because they want people to be treated equally without context, as if history, etc. wasn’t there or isn’t a factor.

To be fair, we do have in this country a record of ignoring history and/or pretending that it’s not important on a variety of subjects, not merely race relations.

To me, for one, being proud of being black (or white or Asian or Hispanic or Irish or Italian) is like being proud of being tall. It’s your genetic make-up, fool.