Are all Trump supporters racists?

[Mumbles]

Sorry, y'all. I forgot to mention Trump's close partnership with white nationalist Steve Bannon, his nomination of white supremacist and civil rights opponent Jeff Sessions to the Attorney General post, his habit of retweeting white genociders, and his apparent signing on to voter suppression efforts that the GOP has been obsessed with ever since Obama was voted into office.

It's hard to keep up with all of the blatantly racist things Trump's done.

 

[The Don]

If Obama's policies worked so well for rural America, why exactly did they reject everything Democrat this past election?

A variety of reasons, may including the 40 year hatchet-job on the Democratic Party candidate resulting in low voter turnout, an anti-establishment vote

Doesn't seem to jive with your claims. Personally, I've seen more factories close and relocate out of Country under Obama here in KY. By the election results here, it would seem most here have seen the exact same.

I prefer facts to anecdotes - 1 million more manufacturing jobs under Obama

If Obama did such a great job, nobody here has seen any results from it.

I prefer facts to anecdotes - unemployment rate halved under Obama

Padding jobs numbers.

you keep alleging this - put up or shut up

and comparing with Bush won't do any good.

Why not ?

The response to the perceived failure of Obama is to elect someone who will continue the GOP's policies which, under Bush, reduced manufacturing employment by 30%

As even the common man realizes there are more people in need of a job now than there were under Bush.

Well that's what happens when you abandon facts in favour of the right-wing fact-free narrative.

We've also seen population increases, poverty increases, food stamp recipient increases, shrinking middle class, etc....
Chris B.

...and the measures that are typically taken to reverse those things - raise marginal rates for the very rich and thus redistribute wealth - like they did in the '50s are the opposite of what the GOP proposes.

Instead they propose to continue with "trickle down" which has been shown for decades to increase income and wealth inequality, shrink the size of the middle class and so on.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

No, he said that Mexico was sending us criminals and rapists, which is still absurd - and yes, he's effectively calling Hispanic immigrants criminals and rapists by doing this.



Actually, we're having far more of a problem with radical white right-wing people - the Bundys, sovereign citizens, white supremacists, and random idiots with guns and rage issues. And it seems like we already know how to properly check out immigrants and refugees.



He specifically stated that the vast majority of white people who are murdered are killed by black people - a laughably false claim that was attributed to a nonexistant federal office.



Obviously not, otherwise he wouldn't endorse advocate stop and frisk. Note that this will also lead to increased hatred of police, which means more danger for them as well.

And if he really thinks this would help anything, then he's an ignoramus and a white supremacist, which is even worse. Although, given his ignorance on most topics, it's probably the more likely option.

I must say, I don't envy the next 8 years for you. I guess you're gonna be bitter the entire time Trump is in office. If it makes you feel better to stew on falsities and split hairs, by all means please continue. It doesn't seem like a pleasant way to spend the next 8 years though.

Can you try to give Trump a chance you think? Just a few months? Then if you see nothing good happening in the Country, return to the previous discontent. It'd be better than stressing over something you have no control over for the next 8 years. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

A variety of reasons, may including the 40 year hatchet-job on the Democratic Party candidate resulting in low voter turnout, an anti-establishment vote



I prefer facts to anecdotes - 1 million more manufacturing jobs under Obama



I prefer facts to anecdotes - unemployment rate halved under Obama




you keep alleging this - put up or shut up



Why not ?

The response to the perceived failure of Obama is to elect someone who will continue the GOP's policies which, under Bush, reduced manufacturing employment by 30%



Well that's what happens when you abandon facts in favour of the right-wing fact-free narrative.



...and the measures that are typically taken to reverse those things - raise marginal rates for the very rich and thus redistribute wealth - like they did in the '50s are the opposite of what the GOP proposes.

Instead they propose to continue with "trickle down" which has been shown for decades to increase income and wealth inequality, shrink the size of the middle class and so on.

The facts have Obama doing well for the Country. Perhaps certain areas of the Country are in fact doing well. That's great. Of course we do have 50 states of which the majority of those haven't seen these great works of Obama's come to fruition.

I suppose you could blame Hillary's loss on the right wing conspiracy. Fact is she just wasn't much of a candidate. Bernie would have been a more likely candidate. But the facts are Hillary and the DNC conspired to take the nomination away from Bernie from the beginning.
Chris B.

 

[Mumbles]

I must say, I don't envy the next 8 years for you. I guess you're gonna be bitter the entire time Trump is in office. If it makes you feel better to stew on falsities and split hairs, by all means please continue. It doesn't seem like a pleasant way to spend the next 8 years though.

I'm not worried for myself. I'm black, but I'm also male and wealthy, and I've been through the Reagan era, when civil rights were denied, police were even more violent and racist than they are now (see: the Charles Stuart case), and money was drained out of black communities at the federal level. Even any wars he kicks off will, personally, benefit me - unless he sets off a world or nuclear war, of course. I'd feel bad for the chumps that voted the narcissistic conman into the presidency, but the truth is that they brought it on themselves. Maybe some suffering will teach them a lesson that logic didn't.

Can you try to give Trump a chance you think? Just a few months? Then if you see nothing good happening in the Country, return to the previous discontent. It'd be better than stressing over something you have no control over for the next 8 years. Chris B.

I follow Maya Angelou's advise - when someone shows me who they are, I believe them the first time. Trump has shown himself to be a white supremacist more times than I have fingers, so why should I "give him a chance" now? If he shows that he's reformed, *then* I'll change my opinion accordingly, but so far, there's nothing suggesting any change in him.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Here's Trump's quote:

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. 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.”

So no, he did not say that Mexicans that raped were rapists. He said that the people Mexico sends to the US are rapists, among other things.

But some, he assumes, are good people, so it's all good, right?

So he didn't call all Mexicans rapists after all. Point taken. Chris B.

 

[varwoche]

I think he did call the Mexicans that raped people rapists. And? Did they not? Are you spreading false information and claiming Trump said ALL Mexicans are rapists? That's simply false as he never did.

No to your question. And what The Don said.

Is crime a problem? It certainly is. Color has nothing to do with it though he did note Black crime was higher overall than White crime when you base it on population numbers.......He wants to make the inner cities safe again for everyone. Is this a bad thing?

Please stop moving the goalposts. Do you acknowledge that Trump propagated false information emanating from a neo-nazi source concerning black on white crime? And that he has never retracted, even once the source was debunked?

Trump has disavowed David Duke dozens of times, you didn't get that info yet? You are really deep in the rhetoric. Try a dose of reality. Chris B.

When a person reveals something that's damning, and a **** storm ensues, and then the person says something self-serving to mitigate, are you able to ignore the original damning statement? I'm not, because I'm not a sucker.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I'm not worried for myself. I'm black, but I'm also male and wealthy, and I've been through the Reagan era, when civil rights were denied, police were even more violent and racist than they are now (see: the Charles Stuart case), and money was drained out of black communities at the federal level. Even any wars he kicks off will, personally, benefit me - unless he sets off a world or nuclear war, of course. I'd feel bad for the chumps that voted the narcissistic conman into the presidency, but the truth is that they brought it on themselves. Maybe some suffering will teach them a lesson that logic didn't.



I follow Maya Angelou's advise - when someone shows me who they are, I believe them the first time. Trump has shown himself to be a white supremacist more times than I have fingers, so why should I "give him a chance" now? If he shows that he's reformed, *then* I'll change my opinion accordingly, but so far, there's nothing suggesting any change in him.

I wouldn't worry about the police. As a White man, I have more chance of being shot and killed by police than you. As police shoot Whites more often than Blacks. This war against cops is largely just propaganda of some hard Left groups. Don't fall for it.

I realize you have been exposed to Leftist beliefs for quite some time now, but to equate Reagan with being racist is beyond the realm of reality. The man did not have a racist bone in his body.

I understand the frustration you feel. But don't judge Trump by what other's have said, judge him by his actions. We'll see exactly what he does for the Country, if he does nothing I'll join you in being frustrated and bitter. But let's wait and see. You never know.
Chris B.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Holy cow. There's some sort of portal causing posts to bleed over from an alternate universe. A universe where Donald Trump didn't call Mexicans rapists. A universe where Trump didn't suggest a Muslim registry. A universe where Trump didn't propagate blatant lies about black on white crime emanating from neo-nazis. A universe where Trump didn't decline to denounce David Duke.

How was he supposed to know @whitegenocideTM was not a reputable news source?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

No to your question. And what The Don said.

Please stop moving the goalposts. Do you acknowledge that Trump propagated false information emanating from a neo-nazi source concerning black on white crime? And that he has never retracted, even once the source was debunked?

When a person reveals something that's damning, and a **** storm ensues, and then the person says something self-serving to mitigate, are you able to ignore the original damning statement? I'm not, because I'm not a sucker.

If you want to believe all the garbage said about Trump, it's your right. I think you're being a little naive though. I suppose you think everyone that voted Trump is a racist, well that's fine. If it makes you feel good to believe this then by all means. You'll never really understand why Clinton lost though.
Chris B.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I wouldn't worry about the police. As a White man, I have more chance of being shot and killed by police than you. As police shoot Whites more often than Blacks.

Just ... no.

In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race).

But as data scientists and policing experts often note, comparing how many or how often white people are killed by police to how many or how often black people are killed by the police is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population.

According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.


Don't fall for it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If Obama's policies worked so well for rural America, why exactly did they reject everything Democrat this past election?

Chris B.

Because they are not getting enough of what they feel they are entitled to. They deserve jobs no matter if they are ecconomically viable or not. They deserve jobs as they were 60 years ago, and progress and change be damned.


And they view none of this as the government based entitlement programs that they would have to be.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If you want to believe all the garbage said about Trump, it's your right. I think you're being a little naive though. I suppose you think everyone that voted Trump is a racist, well that's fine. If it makes you feel good to believe this then by all means. You'll never really understand why Clinton lost though.
Chris B.

Some I assume are nice people. They just don't mind associating with racists.

 

[varwoche]

If you want to believe all the garbage said about Trump, it's your right. I think you're being a little naive though. I suppose you think everyone that voted Trump is a racist, well that's fine. If it makes you feel good to believe this then by all means. You'll never really understand why Clinton lost though.
Chris B.

Wrong yet again. It's unwise to presume things like this. I'm always glad to clarify my views -- just ask.

Another thing: By no means am I basing my views on things "said about Trump". I refer to Trump's own words.

 

[The Don]

The facts have Obama doing well for the Country. Perhaps certain areas of the Country are in fact doing well. That's great. Of course we do have 50 states of which the majority of those haven't seen these great works of Obama's come to fruition.

How do you know that the majority haven't seen an improvement under Obama ?

There are some states which would always vote a particular way no matter how well or badly the current President was doing for them personally. Obama's approval ratings are pretty high for a lame duck President coming to the end of an 8 year period in charge.

I suppose you could blame Hillary's loss on the right wing conspiracy. Fact is she just wasn't much of a candidate.

There were many factors involved. Looking at the successful Democratic Party Presidental candidates since 1980, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, they were and are both very charismatic. The unsuccessful ones, much less so.

Hillary for all that I think she would have been a very effective President, had been so carefully schooled that all spontaneity seemed to have been coached out of her and there always seemed to be a filter between her and the audience.

Then again, 30 years of constant media scrutiny in which all kinds of things are suddenly "-gates" will do that to you.

She (and all the GOP primary candidates) also had to deal with an opponent who was unlike any other in recent memory. Scandals and gaffes which would have seen off any other candidate were ineffective. Perhaps the US was jonesing for a shot of Trump and nothing else would do. She certainly came a lot closer to beating Trump than any of the GOP primary candidates

Bernie would have been a more likely candidate.

I disagree, his socialist past, his record of voting against the democratic Party, his age and doddering appearance and his Jewish heritage would all have meant that he would have savaged.

But the facts are Hillary and the DNC conspired to take the nomination away from Bernie from the beginning.
Chris B.

I guess you're employing the post-factual definition of fact - something you want to be true as opposed to something which is actually true.

For sure Hillary was the preferred candidate (as no doubt the GOP had preferred candidate) - I think you have to go long way to demonstrate any kind of conspiracy. Hillary handily won the vast majority of primaries where the people, and not just those who could afford the time to turn up to a caucus, made a choice.

Of course all of this probably belongs in another thread what with it having nothing to do with Donald Trump, his supporters and their alleged racism.

 

[WilliamSeger]

So he didn't call all Mexicans rapists after all. Point taken. Chris B.

Actually, adding that patronizing, condescending "and some, I assume, are good people" on the end is what makes it unmistakenly racist. If he had stopped with "they're sending rapists" it might have been possible to imagine that he only meant that some are rapists and criminals, but he made it clear: He assumes that some might be good people; he assumes that some might not fit his stereotype, and he says it as if he's being gracious and reasonable to allow a few exceptions.

I'm pretty sure that you and I have different understandings about what racism is. Perhaps it would help if you gave your own definition.

 

[blutoski]

I think the idea from Trumps supporters is that he is not a valid witness against himself because of his compulsive lying.

That's a distinct possibility, and I have some Trumpie associates that I've probed about this discrepancy ("Trump's accusers are all lying bitches; Clinton's accusers are truthful victims and just the tip of the iceberg.")

One thing that surprised me was the belief that the video itself was a fake. A colleague (who is 80 and has never touched a computer) told me the read somewhere that it was "photoshopped" and obviously an amateur quality fake.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

How do you know that the majority haven't seen an improvement under Obama ?

There are some states which would always vote a particular way no matter how well or badly the current President was doing for them personally. Obama's approval ratings are pretty high for a lame duck President coming to the end of an 8 year period in charge.



There were many factors involved. Looking at the successful Democratic Party Presidental candidates since 1980, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, they were and are both very charismatic. The unsuccessful ones, much less so.

Hillary for all that I think she would have been a very effective President, had been so carefully schooled that all spontaneity seemed to have been coached out of her and there always seemed to be a filter between her and the audience.

Then again, 30 years of constant media scrutiny in which all kinds of things are suddenly "-gates" will do that to you.

She (and all the GOP primary candidates) also had to deal with an opponent who was unlike any other in recent memory. Scandals and gaffes which would have seen off any other candidate were ineffective. Perhaps the US was jonesing for a shot of Trump and nothing else would do. She certainly came a lot closer to beating Trump than any of the GOP primary candidates



I disagree, his socialist past, his record of voting against the democratic Party, his age and doddering appearance and his Jewish heritage would all have meant that he would have savaged.



I guess you're employing the post-factual definition of fact - something you want to be true as opposed to something which is actually true.

For sure Hillary was the preferred candidate (as no doubt the GOP had preferred candidate) - I think you have to go long way to demonstrate any kind of conspiracy. Hillary handily won the vast majority of primaries where the people, and not just those who could afford the time to turn up to a caucus, made a choice.

Of course all of this probably belongs in another thread what with it having nothing to do with Donald Trump, his supporters and their alleged racism.

I think it's still tied into this topic Don , since we're basically talking about the election and how the differing views are seen by each side.

I think Hillary did well considering. Obviously her campaign staff kept her away from the press. She needed to be seen and heard more than she was. Trump on the other hand was everywhere all the time. Every channel, constantly under attack by the media. This is largely what got him elected. The "outsider" was being attacked by the "insiders" of the press and DC. The last thing everyone wanted was another "insider" in charge.

Hillary's campaign failed, Hillary herself failed when she attacked Trump's followers. It's fine to attack the candidate, but never attack voters as it only cements their support. She could have had more votes had she not done this. Trump also reached out to minorities of the Left. He had more support among the Black vote than Mitt Romney had in 2012.

But, Hillary abandoned White working class America......shifting demographics remember? I think everyone should agree that the US needs a President who will represent ALL citizens. And the Democrat party has just realized their "shifting demographics" was a fantasy.

Trump is not a racist. The majority of his supporters are not racists. Of course both parties have a small minority of racists within them. For every white supremie you point to on the Republican side, you can also point to a Black Panther within the Democrats. Still, neither small group represents the whole of each party. And that's a good thing.

I still think Bernie would have been the better candidate. Age is an issue of course, and I'm quite certain his far Left views would have been shifted a bit more center in the end, but I think he honestly wanted to do a good job for everyone in the US. Steering away from Wall Street was a big plus for any Democrat candidate IMO. Clinton however embraced Wall street and their donations, while Bernie condemned big banks, a very discerning difference between the two with Bernie having the high ground. Chris B.

 

[blutoski]

In a normal world, I'd agree with you. But the world is getting VERY polarised and partisan. I don't think you'll find a lot of compromise on either side anymore.

I think the world is just as polarized as in previous generations, but the fault lines are more local.

In 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell, I was thinking about what those people who are all fired up about Communists! are going to turn to, and considered it a strong possibility they will turn their attention and resources to organized labour and social programs. I think my prediction has come to pass, unfortunately.

I was reading about values clusters over the past year, and the research has shown a shift from national values clusters to urban/rural values clusters. What I mean is: Argentinians used to be very different from Americans, regardless of their income/education/town. Argentinian city dwellers used to be very similar to Argentinian farmers.

But as of 2014, Argentinian city dwellers have more shared values with New Yorkers than they do with Argentinian farmers. Globalization has made urbanites an transnational culture. They really are cosmopolitan, so to speak.

Whereas, in the past, Americans were polarized against the entire 300 million citizens in the ComIntern. Now, we have a president elect and his partisan followers sucking up to the Russian establishment, while essentially polarized against their critics in Russia. The polarization is predominantly within nations now, rather than between them.

And I should point out that this is depressing, because it's more clearly a straight out class war than before, and the interests of the super-super-rich now control the governments in two of the three superpowers.

 

[blutoski]

But, Hillary abandoned White working class America......shifting demographics remember? I think everyone should agree that the US needs a President who will represent ALL citizens. And the Democrat party has just realized their "shifting demographics" was a fantasy.

I'm not sure 'abandoned' is appropriate. Her platform contained detailed plans for reviving Rust Belt employment. It was just part of a general employment boosting strategy for everybody. My concern is that 'abandoned' is a synonym for 'treated as equal to those other demographics,' which actually reinforces the accusation of racism, unfortunately. Also, when this is pointed out, some critics say "Well she shouldn't have just put it on the website version of the platform, she should have spoon fed it to the white blue collar males in targetted advertising or something instead of giving them the intellectual challenge of doing online research to make their voting decisions." This sounds like the opposite of "She was treating them like they were dumb yokels," so this is one of the things that I try to understand: was she treating them like they were dumb, or was she overestimating their abilities? Fish or cut bait, y'know?

Trump is not a racist. The majority of his supporters are not racists. Of course both parties have a small minority of racists within them. For every white supremie you point to on the Republican side, you can also point to a Black Panther within the Democrats. Still, neither small group represents the whole of each party. And that's a good thing.

I still feel he's a racist, based on his actions and statements. In fact, it's pretty clear to me, not sure how anybody can think otherwise. Muslim database? C'mon, that's blatant. BUT, this doesn't necessarily mean his administration will pursue racist policies. BUT he appointed Sessions, so actually I think we can predict he will have a racist administration.

Regarding Black Panthers - that organization dissolved in 1982. And they weren't profoundly racist from what I can tell. For example, they allowed members from all races (many of their organizers in the 1970s were Japanese who were interred, for example). In contrast, the Klan not only is White Only, but they also exclude Catholics and Jews who are white. In contrast the Black Panthers had all races and religions as members. (many of their top organizers were atheists, for example).

The New Black Panthers is a black-only organization, and considered a hate group. They're stunningly anti-Semitic. It's ultraconservative and religious fundies. They reject both major parties, but their platform has some overlap with Republicans and Libertarians, from what I can tell. For example, they want the elimination of gun regulations and no minimum age for child brides, and their political preferences follow. Interesting enough, a lot of them are also FMOTLers. I mentally picture them as essentially black Mormons.

I still think Bernie would have been the better candidate. Age is an issue of course, and I'm quite certain his far Left views would have been shifted a bit more center in the end, but I think he honestly wanted to do a good job for everyone in the US. Steering away from Wall Street was a big plus for any Democrat candidate IMO. Clinton however embraced Wall street and their donations, while Bernie condemned big banks, a very discerning difference between the two with Bernie having the high ground. Chris B.

I agree that Bernie had some attractive policies, but I don't think he was electable, and I think DNC made the right choice if the goal was to select the most electable presidential candidate. I assumed she would give Bernie a cabinet position, I was hoping Department of Health and Human Services.