Not all Trump supporters are racist. Some are just idiots, or people who don’t mind racism as much as other issues that they (for some reason) think Trump will be better on.
But Trump himself? The only issue he’s consistent about is bigotry. Look at all of the points that he’s never backtracked on, and every single one of them is racist or otherwise bigoted.
Trump’s attack on Obama which implied that he is not genuinely American were based on his foreign roots, not his blackness. I haven’t heard reports of Trump insinuating that Kanye or Oprah are not true Americans. Or anyone else that would indicate that the smear was race-based. On the other hand he made the similar insinuations that Ted Cruz was actually a dirty Canadian, and therefore unqualified to be president.
These claims are the height of hypocrisy considering that Trump married an immigrant and so his children are just as “foreign” as Obama and Cruz. But the patterns indicate that they are nativist and not racist in nature. (Black Americans can havejust as much tensionwith immigrants from Africa as other Americans.)
It was an outlandish claim and at the same time it turned out to be a brilliant maneuver seeing how the coverage it gained him started the process that led to Trump winning the presidency.
Politics is nasty business all the way around. It seems Hillary’s camp wasn’t above featuring Obama’s foreign roots, Trump turns out to have done it more effectively.
Actually, no, that isn’t the case, and the author is fairly clear on that point; his concern is with those who would shout, “KKK WHITE SUPREMACY RACISM!” about matters which - he feels - range from anywhere to perfectly neutral to bigoted and racist but not necessarily of a white nationalist, fuck everyone else-type viewpoint.
I think a reasonable characterization of the article is that the author thinks that Trump might very well be a racist person, and that he holds positions which, again, might very well be racist or be motivated by racism, but that Trump is not an “openly racist white supremacist KKK” guy, and that calling him that is an error that could lead to problems down the line.
Er, the other way around, and also you’re not quite there. Part of my rebuttal is that the author makes statistical comparisons - and otherwise goes deeply into examining the meanings and causes and motivations behind statements - when they are supportive of his viewpoint, but neglects to for the other side of the argument. Even when, as I point out, he cites a article talking about exactly the type of poll he later goes on to try and find but doesn’t use it, or even refer to it.
That isn’t how it has to work; he’s under no obligation to provide that level of detail. But he does, several times, pro-his position, and doesn’t anti. This also serves to undercut his overall point; his big problem is that people aren’t actually looking at what’s really being said or done, but he himself isn’t doing that.
Actually, you’re wrong on this point. He gives two examples of candidates endorsed by deplorables; one of them is the head of the Communist Party, who, while they have a political viewpoint I would disagree with, I would not consider a “deplorable”. Possibly I’m just not educated as to the crimes or hateful language of the Communist party leader, but certainly the author seems to treat “communist” as the problem in and of itself. And - at least to me - “communist” is not a horror on the level of “white supremacist”. I see no particular reason for the media to focus on such an endorsement.
His other example is not another candidate; it’s Trump, himself, being endorsed by a black supremacist. This particular person, based on the article cited by the author, believes that Obama is the Antichrist, has called for black public officials to be set on fire, and believes Hillary (among others) is in the KKK herself. This guy is, not to put too fine a point on it; a nut. I too do not find it odd that the media has not made more of a story about this guy (who, personally speaking, I had not heard of and the tone of the articles suggests has had no lasting public profile for the years he has been active politically) as compared to David Duke or the KKK.
And, of course… this actually works against the author’s point, anyway! His idea is that the media are working to paint Trump as racist. And yet he’s using this example of a racist person giving Trump support in terms of him not being noticed or picked up by the media. If the “media narrative” was to portray Trump as a racist, and this guy is a notable figure, then this is the exact kind of thing they would endlessly bring up. Yet, the author says, they don’t.
It most certainly is* not* clear by all of the other things that Trump has said; as I pointed out, he made reference to his rejecting such an endorsement “if it would make you happy”. Not out of, you know, Duke’s views or opinions being bad, but so that people will be happier with him as a candidate. That puts into question his motivation for repudiating Duke.
Here, you’re also moving slightly away from the point of the article. The author points out that the white supremacist organisations and persons aren’t a huge number (though, again, see above for questions about the sources he doesn’t use), but it’s in the context of claiming that a high percentage of Trump’s support comes from them. Even if every white supremacist voted Trump, this would be a very small total of his entire support… but in terms of him “gaining some advantage”? It was a close election. By his own cites, the author suggests that somewhere between 1-11% of the American population hold some kind of racist viewpoint. That’s enough to swing an election, if pandered to.
To the contrary; the part you cite, and the thrust of the article, is that there is no evidence for Trump being a great racist figurehead, openly white supremacist, “the candidate of the KKK” and suchlike. It is not that there is no evidence that Trump is racist. Nor that there are not supporters of his that are racist, but that lots of his support as a percentage is racist. And I disagree, beyond that, with his own washing away of some of that evidence, and ways to look for that evidence; the way he several times gives Trump either the benefit of the doubt or looks deeply into the context while not doing the same for an anti-his position (while denigrating all examples of trying to place Trump’s words and deeds “in context” himself); and the hypocrisy of some of his points as related to his own argument.
The assertion that Trump “made gains” with Black and Latino voters is a fallacy. Looking at the minority turnout for the first minority, major party candidate in U.S. history is understandably deceptive.
In 2004, George W. Bush (the most recent republican victor) received 11% of the Black vote and 44% of the Hispanic vote. For Trump, it was 8% and 29%, respectively.
Who to blame? Democrats for staying home, but most of all, anyone willing to endorse a candidate as vile and reprehensible as Trump.
ETA: The idea that Trump’s birtherism isn’t racist is complete horseshit. Foriegn roots, please. Must have been Obama’s Kenyan accent. Apologist nonsense.
Despite sometimes crossing lines, Oprah and Kanye are not political figures and whether they were American-born or not would have no relevance since they do not occupy positions that require them to be. There is literally no other job in the U.S. Government that requires anyone besides the president from being a natural born citizen (with the possible exception of the vice president though this is not specifically mentioned in the constitution).
Two immigrants. Ivana was born in then-Czechoslovakia. And nativism goes part-and-parcel with racism since race/ethnicity are the inherent differences between (white) native Americans and Mexicans, Kenyans, etc.
Praising the effectiveness of Trump’s appeal to bigotry and xenophobia is not the most effective way of rebutting the argument that he is racist or has deliberately appealed to racists.
Even if Trump’s campaign was completely devoid of racism, him being the self-appointed leader of birtherism is enough to put him in the Racist Hall of Fame. There is no non-racist explanation for him attacking Obama that way. None.
Second to that is when Trump went out of his way to challenge Obama’s college qualifications by claiming he was a terrible student, the implication being that he was undeserving of admittance and obviously one of those affirmative action losers. It doesn’t take any squinting to see the racism in this, as “black people are too dumb to get into Ivy Leagues without stealing a seat from a more deserving white person” is right beside “blacks have an extra fast twitch muscle in their legs” on the list of Things American Racists Most Commonly Believe.
Looking back, it’s horrifying that the media gave him a platform to attack Obama in both these ways. But fortunately for me in this discussion, they provide all the evidence needed to point to Trump’s racial prejudice. And more importantly, they point to his willing to exploit others’ racial prejudice to advance his own interests.
Everything in his campaign is consistent with this.
You’re describing bigotry. Maybe it was the racist kind of bigotry, or maybe it was just related. Either way it’s bigoted. And entirely fact-free, showing that Trump is either colossally stupid or just cynical and dishonest enough to say baseless and bigoted things to appeal to bigots.
Doesn’t matter if it was race-based or not – still bigoted. And fact-free.
None of this excuses Trump’s recurring bigotry and deliberate appeal to white supremacists.
You say “similar” insinuations here. Similar in what degrees?
The reasonable characterization is the one that the author himself made, that “There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter).”
IOW there is no evidence that Trump is any more racist than Bernie who assumed a brown guy was Muslim just because he was brown, or Bill Clinton who posed for this picture.
Yes, just like any of us here or any where else might very well be.
When trying to determine whether or not a candidate is racist the obvious thing to do is to examine his statements about race, which in the case of Trump aren’t just devoid of racism but are anti-racist.
He points out effectively that the evidence that Trump is particularly racist is non-existent, and consists of the fact that he is an old white guy, many of whom are racist. The same evidence as there is for the racism of any random old white American guy that might be posting here or walking down the street.
Well, I do. But our individual opinions don’t matter, what matters is how Americans see Communism. From my searches it seems to be about as popular as cockroaches and the BP oil spill (still not that far below Hillary and Trump though :D).
There is just as much reason as there is to try to associate Trump with a marginal and reviled world view. The reason being to smear the candidate. And right wing polemicists do try to use these types of endorsement to smear Democrats as neo-Marxists.
Farrakhan is every bit as or more prominent than Duke and CNN did not broadcast blanket coverage of his endorsement of Obama and demand repudiations every time Obama was interviewed. Right wing media did. This goes to show that so-called mainstream media isn’t any more credible than the right wing tabloids when the subject is the politicians they favor, which are almost always Dems.
You just fabricated this part. Trump said “if it would make you happy”. The “you” being the interviewer, not the electorate. He was being dismissive of the importance of the endorsement and fighting back against the attempt to make him sound defensive about something that he had no control over.
If he was pandering to racists he would not be explicitly anti-racist in his campaign statements referencing race. He would, oh I don’t know, maybe pose for pictures in front of chained up black prisoners instead.
It might not matter to you. From an anti-Nationalist, humanist perspective it is easy to argue that it is just as immoral to malign a non-American for being born somewhere outside of the US as it is to malign someone for being born a non-favored race. Both are outside of the person’s control. But there is a very clear reason that the media and Trump’s opponents have tried to brand Trump’s explicitly multi-racial nativism as racialism. The reason is that while racialism is very unpopular with Americans, multi-racial nativism has very broad appeal, and is a deadly threat to traditional left wing identity politics, with the potential to unravel bases of support that the left depends on. It’s too early to tell if Trump has actually managed to spark this change rather than merely capitalizing on the misunderstood political landscape for his own success.
Again, there is nothing at all indicating that Trump deliberately appealed to white supremacists or any reason that he would want to.
That’s what birtherism is - an appeal to white supremacists and similar. There’s no other reason for it. That’s also the best explanation for repeated retweets of white supremacist nonsense, and denouncing a judge based on his ethnic background, and pretending he didn’t know who David Duke was, and wanting to ban Muslims, etc.
That some very small number of black and Hispanic voters tolerate this doesn’t mean it’s not bigoted. It turns out the audience for it, and those willing to tolerate bigotry for issues they think are more important, is larger than we thought.
Your selective memory is telling. Clinton BTW apologized for that, no such luck with Trump, he has never apologized for joining racial profilers like ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio to the hip.
BTW virtually all the media - right wing and the so called “liberal” one - did not bother to demand that Trump repudiate Joe Arpaio, and going back I do remember how the media did indeed hound Obama to even leave his church because one preacher there had peculiar notions about the reason why the 9/11 WTC terror attack took place. There was no support for a guy like the preacher and Obama did condemn his opinion.
Trump’s condemnations of the racists that supported him have not come at all. And so the message that he does not mind the bigots that he his appointing to his cabinet remains to the racist supporters out there.
Again, not all Republicans are racists; some, as the president elect could say, are good people.
Similar in that Trump, for his own personal political benefit, tried to play up Cruz’s foreignness due to his Canadian birth, and claim that he was not eligible to be president, just like he did with Obama.
Trump never insinuated that Ben Carson, who Trump fans seem to adore, as being not completely American. This was an appeal to nativism, not racism.
Even Ben Carson had to admit that Trump better stop doing his now old bigoted rants.
The “black friend” shit really doesn’t fly. Having a black friend, or even a black spouse or child, doesn’t necessarily mean someone can’t be racist, and especially doesn’t mean someone can’t be accused of trying to appeal to racists to benefit. Racism isn’t just about hatred. That he married an immigrant, or likes a black guy, says nothing about the bigotry of his words and actions.
No, it isn’t, because the article doesn’t actually reason that one out.
Could you cite the Bernie thing?
That aside; no, the article doesn’t claim that. To the contrary, it claims that Trump might well be more, or less, racist than at least the Clinton example. Which is interesting, because if he thinks that Trump might be different from those people, then presumably he’s basing that on… something.
Indeed so! There’s certainly a possibility.
Not so; I gave you examples of where I disagreed with the author’s position on the “they’re sending the rapists” little quote. I also gave you the example of Trump’s position on denouncing Duke’s theoretical endorsement on the basis of “if that would make you happy”, and not on the basis of “he’s a shit.”
It’s a fair point to say that Trump has said anti-racist things. He has, however, also said things which are racist. How to comprehend the disconnect? Part of it is easy - many of the examples given in the article of Trump being a good and open-minded guy aren’t actually anything of the sort. But there are some which certainly are anti-racist. So what do we do with these seemingly incompatible viewpoints? The article’s author seems to want me to look at the anti-racist statements and see Trump’s other, potentially flawed words and deeds in light of them. To which I guess I’d ask; sure, but shouldn’t we also do it the other way, too, and use his potentially flawed words and deeds in to examine his anti-racist statements? I don’t see how the one negates the other.
No, he does not. As I’ve said, I disagree with the author’s assessment of the examples he gives. But the author does not claim that the evidence that Trump is particularly racist is nonexistent. That would be a foolish claim to make. The author claims that, as regards some specific accusations, they don’t count as evidence. That’s a very different matter from “Such evidence is non-existent.”
I don’t *think *he says that of old white guys, “many of whom” are racist. That isn’t a viewpoint he backs up, anyway.
I must admit I’m curious what about “communist” makes it as bad as “white supremacist” in your eyes. Certainly there have been bad communists; terrible communists, in fact. But also, plenty entirely fine ones, even if I disagree with their viewpoint. On the other hand, white supremacists? Kindof all shits. I would guess that, to an average American, a white supremacist would be a long way below even a cockroach.
No, that’s the same type of reason, not “just as much” reason.
I’m going to have to call for cites as to the extent of the coverage for Farrakhan and for Duke.
What fabrication? I didn’t claim that he was speaking about the electorate.
I agree he was quite possibly being dismissive of the importance of the endorsement, though I see no reason to share your certainty. Unfortunately, he was also being dismissive - deliberately or not - with his motivations for rejecting Duke. This is not a good thing.
Certainly he would, for reasons the article makes clear; he can’t win with racists alone. He had to win not just racists, but also non-racists. If he - or anyone - were to pander to the minority that is racists, they would need to do so in a way that doesn’t put off absolutely everyone else. “Vote for me, and I’ll send 'em all back!” might well be a great vote-winner among white supremacists, but wouldn’t get someone support from anyone else. Subtler measures, on the other hand, would. And those subtler measures - in theory - could and would certainly include anti-racist statements.
Again, this is not to say that this means racism. But pointing to anti-racist statements is absolutely* not* proof that someone is not pandering to racists. You know; like you’re insinuating Clinton is, here. This is a problem with “That side does it too!” arguments; there’s a “too” in there.
He didn’t go after Carson because he knew he posed no threat to him. He targeted Obama because he knew doing so would advance his interests.
Again, I think you’re confusing “type” with “extent”. Did he spend as much time talking about Cruz as Obama? How long did his campaign against Cruz last? Did he have more reason to attack Cruz at that time than Obama when he made claims about him? Was evidence provided to show Trump wrong about Cruz, and did he stick with his concerns to the same extent as Obama?
It’s not enough to, as the author of the article did, point to “Trump attacked black people, but hey, he attacks everyone!” and say that’s enough to call him an equal-opportunity offender. Put another way; was it “just” like he did with Obama?
Carsons’s parents appear to be both American born. There doesn’t seem to be the same molehill to make into a mountain for nutjobs (or racists) with him.
I am very weary of Trump, but I think you mean “wary.”
Weary of Trump is something I recognized as a thing about last year sometime, especially thinking about the people who voted for him and their expectations. Like how long will that take for them to get weary too? Seeing his open flaming andrew mccarthy tunnel shaped pie hole lying and baiting other americans. God! Now it seems that it will be part of the human condition with no fixed expiration date.
The only way out is if he fails publicly and/or goes to jail.