:rolleyes: What, you can’t believe there are racists in NYC? I’ve only been there a couple of times and even I know better than that.
So what word would you use to describe his essentialist statements about ethnic, cultural, religious, and nationalist groups? What word would you use to describe someone who, when evidence surfaces that his employees are discriminating against black people, instead of firing those employees turns around and attacks the people who uncovered the evidence?
“Racist” serves just fine for me, but if there’s a different word you think works better, what is it?
And I want to say that the problem is by no means limited to Trump supporters. I’m in a big Facebook argument with a guy who’s claiming that the reason 97% of over-30 black South Carolinians voted for Clinton is that they’re a bunch of bible thumpers who always go for the most reactionary candidate around. “Fuck the South,” he said.
Dude’s a Sanders-supporting racist.
Because it is racially motivated. If, all other sociological and economic things being equal including the poverty and the drug-dealing and the alleged wage-depression, the illegal-immigration pressure were coming from Canada instead of Mexico, this would hardly even be an issue.
Probably a “non-politician”, who did not intend to make any “essentialist” statements.
“Businessman” sounds about right.
Nonsense. This is a common belief among racists; they believe that everyone secretly agrees with them but most people are afraid to say it out loud.
Racism is not a normal part of politics or business.
“Bigot” tends to cover everything - racism, sexism, sectarianism, homophobia, etc.
Are you sure?
You would not believe the dumb arguments that get trotted out when you make such a claim. “Bigot” totally covers Trump’s modus operandi, but lots of people can’t stand to think of the word applied that way.
I’m not especially concerned about his intent.
No, it doesn’t. The savvy business move when illegal action by employees is revealed is not to threaten to sue the government; it’s to remove the employees engaged in illegal actions.
Your logic is circular.
You should be.
Depends on the strength of the evidence and other aspects of the circumstance.
No, it isn’t; sounds like a statement based on data, not logic, and data are better.
It’s circular because it argues against the “non-politician” and “businessman” alternatives by saying “Racism is not a normal part of politics or business”, when the very point in dispute is whether these statements and acts are in fact racist. So it’s presuming its conclusion.
BTW, here’s an article from the WP on the Trump rental lawsuits. Hard to definitively say whether it was a bad business move to fight it, based on the outcome. (Need to know what the government was initially willing to settle for)
Well, there’s no reasonable doubt whatsoever as to whether Trump’s statements and acts are in fact racist, is there? You know there isn’t. He might not actually be a racist, to the extent he even thinks about such things at all, but he is making a considerable conscious and intentional effort to talk and act like one.
To answer the OP question – because he repeats racist claims from others; says racist things (that he later says were misconstrued) like “they’re racists” when referring to Mexican immigrants; advocates for bigoted policies like banning Muslims from entering the country; pretends to not know about prominent racists (that he’s previously criticized!) like David Duke who support his campaign; and more.
I don’t know if he has racist beliefs, but pandering to racists and attempting to appeal to racists is almost as bad as saying or doing racist things.
The point is that you have to choose the poison. The more, in this case, one insists that Trump is not a racist, then the other option is a clear one. Based on the people that he is joining at the hip now.
But frankly, after the David Duke blunder (that several powerful Republicans condemned), the option of Trump to just be an incompetent judge of the people he travels with is less possible. A bigot with money is more likely IMHO, and that is based too on the longer that Trump goes by not refuting and condemning Arpaio and others whom Trump is “proud” to get their support from.
No, you don’t. You’re thinking of this in terms of supporting or opposing Trump.
I despise Trump. But based on the evidence to date ISTM that he’s not a racist. That’s the question raised in this thread and the only question I’m discussing here.
Whether he should have condemned this or that guy is a more complex matter and one that I’m not interested in.
And I pointed already at what he should be doing regarding the racists that are supporting him, the longer his equivocations and continuing to look for the support of racists then we are getting more evidence of what Trump really is.
If there is another option here is another that I have noted many times before in discussions like this in the past. As a Hispanic I have to tell you that I’m getting very tired of enablers of racists like Trump is then.
Anyone remember how the 2005 season of the Apprentice ended? We talked about it in this thread. I stopped watching the show after this season precisely because Trump convinced me he is racist. In short, he made the unprecented decision to pressure the winner of the show, an inarguably talented, highly qualified businessman who happened to be black, to share the title of apprentice with a white person who was so poorly qualified she should have actually been fired after the first challenge. Here is my analysis of the two players in case anyone is curious.
I doubt Trump would have acted with this level of insensitivity if he viewed Randall in an unbiased manner. At best, the move showed him to be completely oblivious and/or indifferent to how his actions could be perceived by a race-conscious public.
But he does make a point of talking and acting like one, so what practical difference does it make?