You can give it whatever credence you want. If your takeaway from the article is not “Trump is racist because of his Muslim immigration ban efforts” at least in part, well, so it goes.
That’s not the question I think you should be asking. “Think” is different from “realize”.
Regards,
Shodan
I stand with you against the fantasy leftists (and a very few actual assholes who don’t want to talk) who aren’t interested in discussion.
The Left is so stupid. They think the guy that tweets neo-Nazi propaganda and said there are many fine people in the Klan is a racist!
The discussion thus far:
Article: Donald Trump admitted to sexual assault.
Clothahump: I don’t believe that Donald Trump admitted to sexual assault.
kaylasdad99: (quoted Donald Trump statement admitting to sexual assault)
Conclusion: Article is correct on this point.
John Mace: Donald Trump lies all the time. Maybe the quoted statement was a lie.
Conclusion: This is an interesting question to explore if and when we ask “Did Donald Trump commit sexual assault?”. It has no relevance to the actual question before us, which is “Did Donald Trump admit to sexual assault?”
Whether or not he admitted to it is irrelevant now.
A left-wing rebuttal of sorts:
Another data point about Trump being racist. In 1973 him and his father were called out for refusing to rent to black people.
In and of itself, the fact that he boasted about it might be nothing more than just adolescent braggadocio. The fact that his behavior has been corroborated by other women, most of whom don’t know each other and who have met Trump at different stages of his life, is corroborating evidence. There’s pretty strong evidence that he did it. Whether or not it would stand up in a criminal or civil trial is not really important - there’s no legal action. But people can fairly judge Trump to be a serial groper and if he were just an entertainer or even just a private citizen, he’d have a hard time claiming defamation.
Trump was made possible by people who are proudly racist, but a lot of people who voted for Trump are biased and unaware of it. This is the part that gets overlooked. I think economic anxiety is indeed a factor behind Trump’s victory, but that’s also an oversimplification. Economic anxieties are quite often racial anxieties because American society was, to a large extent, founded on a brutally competitive form of capitalist exploitation, and race and racism have been a major part of the equation. Slavery was an economic institution. Jim Crow was motivated by a desire to maintain economic and political power. Many of the massacres and lynchings that took place during the Reconstruction and Jim Crow eras were committed when black laborers tried to unionize and negotiate contracts with one-time slave owners. Other incidents of racial violence in the Midwest and North (East St. Louis in 1917, for example) occurred when white labor unions harassed and murdered black workers who were willing to do work for less money than their white counterparts. Greenwood (Black Wall Street) was burned to the ground because it had become too affluent. Chinese were run out of cities across the American West for similar reasons. Dark-complected immigrants from southern Italy and Sicily faced similar treatment in places like New Orleans. I could go on.
I agree that Democrats were blind to the concerns and growing anxieties of white America, and fair or not, any political strategy has to keep working class whites in mind. But let’s not pretend that this is the real defect in American politics here. It’s not. The defect is that we’re still unaware of and even unwilling to assess the relationship between creating a society that is economically fair and conflict among our many micro-cultures that exist in this society. Once you understand the history of the country and that economic security and strife have a causal relationship, it’s not too difficult to predict that we’re headed for rough times ahead, particularly when this administration, with a complicit congress, is assaulting and weakening the middle class and weakening institutions that serve the masses, in favor of giving special status for the wealthiest in our society. For much of the 20th Century, we successfully expanded the middle class, we strengthened institutions, we made advances in civil rights, women’s rights, and human rights generally. We operated with the understanding that progress depends to some degree on economic and political cooperation. Now that’s being replaced with a worldview of brutal, zero-sum winner-take-all competition among individuals and groups. That will probably not end well for most of us.
Her imagined flaws were almost as large as her real flaws.
If she ran against Rubio or Kasich the way she ran against Trump, we would STILL have a Republican in the white house.
OTOH, she did get more votes in California than any other Presidential candidate in history. If only she could have mustered a few more votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida. She could have flipped those states if she had flipped 100,000 votes there instead of building up the largest lead in California man has ever known.
That plus the cheating, it was hard for some people to go out and vote for a cheater who represented many of the worst things about the Democratic party.
Whatever makes them feel justified in voting for someone who produces fabrications on a daily basis, wants to let industry destroy the environment, works daily to promote a plutocracy, and flirts with nuclear war. People who even thought for a moment that there’s no difference between Trump and Hillary treat voting as a hobby and not as a civic responsibility. They’ll have a long fucking time to consider the consequences.
Anger and rage about black lives matter, NFL protests, and other efforts by blacks to stand up against discrimination and abuse (pretending critics of these things care because it is insulting to the troops. However those same people couldn’t care less when Trump insults the military, troops, intelligence agencies, etc).
Attempts to build a wall to keep latino immigrants out (under the guise of caring about rule of law. The same people who pretend they care about keeping latinos out becasue they care about rule of law couldn’t care less about Trump’s endless criminal behaviors).
Wanting to keep muslims out by claiming it is an effort to stop terrorism and supporting more government surveillance against them (conservative white men, along with muslim extremists, are behind most of the terrorism in the United States. I notice they never call for bans and surveillance against conservative white men. Worrying about terrorism is to a large degree just an excuse to persecute muslims, if truly stopping terrorism was the issue then conservative white men would be a major target for government surveillance).
Its pretty accurate. You guys have convinced yourselves that your hostility towards blacks, latinos and muslims has nothing to do with tribalism and persecuting outgroups. In your own minds, it is about respecting the troops, upholding the rule of law and stopping terrorism. However each of these false arguments is very easy to disprove because all the things you guys pretend you care about (respecting the troops, rule of law, terrorism, etc) you seem to have no problem with when someone from your tribe (ie Trump or right wing extremists) does those things.
Why do you think the left is asking the wrong question? Because you want to change the terms of the debate to a debate that is more hospitable to your views and agenda? Why would the left agree to that?
http://www.citypages.com/news/whoa-trump-supporters-are-racist-yes-say-u-researchers/444020583
I’m unsure how someone can look at Trump’s hostility towards blacks, latinos and muslims and come to the conclusion that tribalism and bigotry doesn’t play a role. You guys are just validating the article. Trump and his supporters want to support racist policies while pretending racism isn’t what motivates them.
Article: Trump and his supporters want to engage in racist policies while denying they are motivated by racism
Trump supporters: We support Trump’s policies and we aren’t motivated by racism.
Is that the best you guys can come up with as a way to disprove the validity of the article? Doing and saying exactly what the article said you would do and say? Is that the best you guys can do?
No one can force you to understand something if you don’t want to.
The Left: “You’re a racist!”
Anyone who Didn’t Vote for Hillary: “No I’m not.”
The Left: “See? Racists always deny that they are racists. That proves it!”
Anyone who Didn’t Vote for Hillary: “Whatever.”
Regards,
Shodan
To be fair, one didn’t need to be a racist in order to vote for Hillary’s opponent. One only needs to tolerate his racism, sexism, bigotry, sexual predatory behavior, utter lack of morality, stupidity, incompetence, being a Russian agent, hatred of the poor, and evil political agenda. Nope, you don’t necessarily have to be a racist, only tolerant of racism.
Great takedown of those straw-Leftists! Those straw-leftists will never recover from this beating.
If you’d like to have an actual discussion about what most actual liberals and liberal Dopers feel, let us know. If you just want to take down straw men and the fringe, then by all means carry on.
I fully understand your argument. ‘I’m not racist, and Trump isn’t racist’ is your argument. That is why I posted a bunch of links to articles and scientific studies that contradict that argument. Do you want more articles and studies showing Trump and the Trumpian movement is motivated by bigotry, racism, xenophobia, nativism, white nationalism, or whatever you want to call it?
https://www.thenation.com/article/economic-anxiety-didnt-make-people-vote-trump-racism-did/
The article in the OP said that Trump’s appeal is he appeals to people’s sense of tribalism and bigotry while letting them pretend they aren’t motivated by tribalism and bigotry. You and Clothahump are making rebuttals saying ‘Trump isn’t racist and we aren’t racist’ as if that does anything other than validate the argument. If the best Trump apologists can do is act exactly the way the article in the OP said they would act, you aren’t making a very good case for why the article is false.
Can you be a Trump support and not be a bigot? Yes. But you can’t be a Trump supporter without being ok with bigotry (of course by that logic, you can’t support Bill Clinton for president without being OK with rape accusations).
From Nate Silver:
"Strongest correlate I’ve found for Trump support is Google searches for the n-word. "
Interesting article. I found this which more or less says the same thing.
This doesn’t mean that Trump supporters are racist, it means that racists are Trump supporters.