Are all Trump supporters racists?

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Personally, I expected Obama to reject the New Black Panthers. And he did.

But those guys are not a threat in any real way.

A president should reject people like Steve Bannon, but that's not what's happening. And so, we're going to gear up.

Obama rejected the NBPP? Link please. I've seen that Obama removed their ad from his website only when it became an issue, but not a peep from Obama about them as the majority of the press has always been in his back pocket.

Trump has publicly disavowed and rejected the KKK and David Duke at least a dozen times if not more. And yet the KKK never had an ad on his website in the first place. Yet I cannot find anything about an Obama disavow of the NBPP?

Steve Bannon is not a White supremie, no matter how much the Left tries to sell him as one. In the same respect though, even if he was, the Left is yet to explain Van Jones, as an Obama appointee...and folks like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers as Obama's buddies? Those names are quickly swept under the nearest rug when they come up in the same sentence with "Obama". Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

This ol' chestnut again? Haven't you attempted it before and failed miserably, or was that someone else?

Oh please, don't break into a defense posture about Obama never being supported by the far Left.....Everyone here realizes that would be futile.

Of course Obama was supported by a small group of racists just as Trump was supported by a small group of racists on the other side. It happens and how the candidates respond to this support is reflective of themselves. I saw Trump disavow but did not see Obama do likewise. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

To be fair, the "Muslims should be exterminated" guy was at a Rand Paul rally, not a Trump rally.

Though, I think it's a pretty good bet he voted Trump in the end.

It's kinda funny, the Left's political correctness. The twists and turns put on a simple statement with spin...amazing. I wonder if he meant that all enemies of the US should be exterminated? I think that more likely than him meaning all Muslims should be exterminated simply because they're Muslim. Perhaps he was referring only to the Muslims that attack our Country?.........ya think?

But it does sound so much better for the cause when you take it as he wants to exterminate ALL Muslims whether good or bad huh........though ridiculous to some, this view is gospel to others....
Chris B.

 

[bruto]

It's kinda funny, the Left's political correctness. The twists and turns put on a simple statement with spin...amazing. I wonder if he meant that all enemies of the US should be exterminated? I think that more likely than him meaning all Muslims should be exterminated simply because they're Muslim. Perhaps he was referring only to the Muslims that attack our Country?.........ya think?

But it does sound so much better for the cause when you take it as he wants to exterminate ALL Muslims whether good or bad huh........though ridiculous to some, this view is gospel to others....
Chris B.

Who knows what whoever thinks, but we can know careless language when we hear it. If you have to wonder what he meant, he's doing something very wrong. A person who says "Muslims should be exterminated" and means something other than what that statement actually says should do the entire world a favor and shut up. He's an idiot. It is not some kind of liberal political correctness to consider a statement to state what it states, and to consider the person uttering a foolish statement as a fool.

 

[uke2se]

It's kinda funny, the Left's political correctness. The twists and turns put on a simple statement with spin...amazing. I wonder if he meant that all enemies of the US should be exterminated? I think that more likely than him meaning all Muslims should be exterminated simply because they're Muslim. Perhaps he was referring only to the Muslims that attack our Country?.........ya think?

But it does sound so much better for the cause when you take it as he wants to exterminate ALL Muslims whether good or bad huh........though ridiculous to some, this view is gospel to others....
Chris B.

It's kinda funny, how the Right always seem to defend bigots where they pop up, but always insist that they're not bigots themselves.

Kinda funny, but mostly sad.

And your reading of his statement is pure dishonesty.

 

[turingtest]

It's kinda funny, how the Right always seem to defend bigots where they pop up, but always insist that they're not bigots themselves.

Kinda funny, but mostly sad.

And your reading of his statement is pure dishonesty.

Amazing, isn't it? Guy says "Muslims should be exterminated"; "the Left" takes him as meaning just what he says; others leap to defend him with "well, maybe he just meant something else that he didn't actually say"; and it's "the Left" who are twisting and turning to spin a simple statement.

 

[cmikes]

Oh please, don't break into a defense posture about Obama never being supported by the far Left.....Everyone here realizes that would be futile.

Of course Obama was supported by a small group of racists just as Trump was supported by a small group of racists on the other side. It happens and how the candidates respond to this support is reflective of themselves. I saw Trump disavow but did not see Obama do likewise. Chris B.

The double standard is quite clear and instructive. A tiny group of black nationalists get together and make jackasses of themselves by ranting about how they're going to have to start killing off a lot of white babies, and are (correctly) mocked and ignored and seen to have no influence on the Democratic Party.

But a tiny group of white nationalists get together and start making jackasses of themselves by doing National Socialist salutes and saying "heil Trump" and all of a sudden, they're the new face of the Republican Party and the standard against which Republicans should be judged.

I actually agree that Steve Bannon is a dangerous guy, but not because of any the ridiculous memes about him spread by the media and the Democratic Party (but I repeat myself).

From what I've read about the guy, he doesn't see himself as an old school Democrat. He doesn't want to be the next George Wallace/Robert C. Byrd/Bull Connor/William Fullbright/Al Gore Sr. He wants to be the white Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Basically, he seems to want to have whites seen as just another aggrieved and downtrodden victim group who can line up for government goodies, no questions asked. He wants to beat Democrats at their own game, which I see as incredibility dangerous. The answer to the racial problems in this country is not to exacerbate them, but to get to King's color blind society, where race doesn't matter.

 

[cmikes]

Amazing, isn't it? Guy says "Muslims should be exterminated"; "the Left" takes him as meaning just what he says; others leap to defend him with "well, maybe he just meant something else that he didn't actually say"; and it's "the Left" who are twisting and turning to spin a simple statement.

Spin is universal, no matter which party does it. Remember Obama talking about how white people are just bitter about people different than themselves, clinging to their guns and religion? Or how about Obama's comments about how his grandmother was a "typical white person" who would cross the street to avoid black people? Both of those were explained away by the media as Obama not meaning what he said.

Saying Muslims should be exterminated is profoundly stupid and should be denounced by any thinking person. If the guy meant terrorists, OK, great, he should say so and I agree with him. But if anyone actually wants to kill people due to their religion, or lack thereof, they're idiots.

 

[uke2se]

The double standard is quite clear and instructive. A tiny group of black nationalists get together and make jackasses of themselves by ranting about how they're going to have to start killing off a lot of white babies, and are (correctly) mocked and ignored and seen to have no influence on the Democratic Party.

But a tiny group of white nationalists get together and start making jackasses of themselves by doing National Socialist salutes and saying "heil Trump" and all of a sudden, they're the new face of the Republican Party and the standard against which Republicans should be judged.

I actually agree that Steve Bannon is a dangerous guy, but not because of any the ridiculous memes about him spread by the media and the Democratic Party (but I repeat myself).

From what I've read about the guy, he doesn't see himself as an old school Democrat. He doesn't want to be the next George Wallace/Robert C. Byrd/Bull Connor/William Fullbright/Al Gore Sr. He wants to be the white Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Basically, he seems to want to have whites seen as just another aggrieved and downtrodden victim group who can line up for government goodies, no questions asked. He wants to beat Democrats at their own game, which I see as incredibility dangerous. The answer to the racial problems in this country is not to exacerbate them, but to get to King's color blind society, where race doesn't matter.

The difference, of course, is that on the right, the jackass Nazis actually have the ear of the President elect. The jackasses on the left never had Obama's ear.

 

[uke2se]

Spin is universal, no matter which party does it. Remember Obama talking about how white people are just bitter about people different than themselves, clinging to their guns and religion? Or how about Obama's comments about how his grandmother was a "typical white person" who would cross the street to avoid black people? Both of those were explained away by the media as Obama not meaning what he said.

Actually, I remember neither of those. Could you link to a transcript of the speech or interview he made?

Saying Muslims should be exterminated is profoundly stupid and should be denounced by any thinking person. If the guy meant terrorists, OK, great, he should say so and I agree with him. But if anyone actually wants to kill people due to their religion, or lack thereof, they're idiots.

He didn't say terrorists. He said Muslims.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

It's kinda funny, how the Right always seem to defend bigots where they pop up, but always insist that they're not bigots themselves.

Kinda funny, but mostly sad.

And your reading of his statement is pure dishonesty.

OK then, I'm a bit unsure how that works for the Left, literally taking a statement word for word rather than applying any logic or understanding to context or meaning of the statement, but only when it can be used for their benefit?

I suppose that's why most on the Left understood exactly what Hillary meant when she floated the "basket of deplorables" thing. I'm sure they never sought a drop of context and so there must not be any articles that exist explaining the meaning of her statement any further..........

Dishonesty? Oh you bet, there's a lot of dishonesty about.

Chris B.

 

[bruto]

OK then, I'm a bit unsure how that works for the Left, literally taking a statement word for word rather than applying any logic or understanding to context or meaning of the statement, but only when it can be used for their benefit?

I suppose that's why most on the Left understood exactly what Hillary meant when she floated the "basket of deplorables" thing. I'm sure they never sought a drop of context and so there must not be any articles that exist explaining the meaning of her statement any further..........

Dishonesty? Oh you bet, there's a lot of dishonesty about.

Chris B.

I believe there is a very big distinction between rhretorical expressions of opinion and actual statements of fact. I believe, in fact, that you would have to be either politically desperate or an abject fool to consider calling Trump's supporters deplorable and calling for the killing of Muslims to be even close. That is not to say that I think Clinton's rhetoric was wise or well thought out, though I'm inclined to sympathize. It was also not at all wise, but I rather suspect that she meant it too, immoderate though it was. An opinion is not the same thing as a call for murder. And anyway, what is the content of your argument here, since the right was quite happy to take that statement as intentional and to deplore, in turn, Clinton's inflammatory rhetoric? When we speak, we pay face value for what we say.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I believe there is a very big distinction between rhretorical expressions of opinion and actual statements of fact. I believe, in fact, that you would have to be either politically desperate or an abject fool to consider calling Trump's supporters deplorable and calling for the killing of Muslims to be even close. That is not to say that I think Clinton's rhetoric was wise or well thought out, though I'm inclined to sympathize. It was also not at all wise, but I rather suspect that she meant it too, immoderate though it was. An opinion is not the same thing as a call for murder. And anyway, what is the content of your argument here, since the right was quite happy to take that statement as intentional and to deplore, in turn, Clinton's inflammatory rhetoric? When we speak, we pay face value for what we say.

What's important is that both statements were made at campaign rallies. Both statements were taken literally by the other side. I'm not comparing murder to name calling, I'm comparing statements being taken literally. One statement made by a candidate and one made by a likely Rep supporter. One has more weight than the other, I agree both were stupid. Clinton's statement damaged her standing, the oddball guy at a Rand Paul rally is certainly infamous now but only by the Left's elevation of him, and he didn't damage Trump's campaign or Rand Paul's at all.

There was a frantic attempt on the Left by the Left's media streams to explain Clinton's statement, yet we think it quite normal to take the random guy literally.........simply because his statement benefits the cause......
Stuff like this is exactly why the Left lost in record numbers. I'm not defending the random guy, I'm just saying perhaps there was more to his statement than seeing it only as an attack against all Muslims. Even if, his statement and views are not the standard to judge ALL supporters on the Right. The mistake of the Left AND their champion was in doing so.
Chris B.

 

[uke2se]

OK then, I'm a bit unsure how that works for the Left, literally taking a statement word for word rather than applying any logic or understanding to context or meaning of the statement, but only when it can be used for their benefit?

I suppose that's why most on the Left understood exactly what Hillary meant when she floated the "basket of deplorables" thing. I'm sure they never sought a drop of context and so there must not be any articles that exist explaining the meaning of her statement any further..........

The context was that the guy was asked what he though should be done about Muslims who wouldn't get out of America. He said they should be killed.

Now, spin that.

Dishonesty? Oh you bet, there's a lot of dishonesty about.

Chris B.

Yes, and you are providing more than your fair share of it.

 

[uke2se]

What's important is that both statements were made at campaign rallies. Both statements were taken literally by the other side. I'm not comparing murder to name calling, I'm comparing statements being taken literally. One statement made by a candidate and one made by a likely Rep supporter. One has more weight than the other, I agree both were stupid. Clinton's statement damaged her standing, the oddball guy at a Rand Paul rally is certainly infamous now but only by the Left's elevation of him, and he didn't damage Trump's campaign or Rand Paul's at all.

There was a frantic attempt on the Left by the Left's media streams to explain Clinton's statement, yet we think it quite normal to take the random guy literally.........simply because his statement benefits the cause......
Stuff like this is exactly why the Left lost in record numbers. I'm not defending the random guy, I'm just saying perhaps there was more to his statement than seeing it only as an attack against all Muslims. Even if, his statement and views are not the standard to judge ALL supporters on the Right. The mistake of the Left AND their champion was in doing so.
Chris B.

I fully agree with Clinton that Trump supporters are deplorable. Do you agree with this guy that Muslims should be killed?

And Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump did. "Lost in record numbers" my ass.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I fully agree with Clinton that Trump supporters are deplorable. Do you agree with this guy that Muslims should be killed?

And Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump did. "Lost in record numbers" my ass.

No, I don't agree with anyone being killed.

I agree that California is a well populated state.
Chris B.

 

[wareyin]

I fully agree with Clinton that Trump supporters are deplorable. Do you agree with this guy that Muslims should be killed?

And Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump did. "Lost in record numbers" my ass.

Don't forget, Clinton only said half of Trump voters, but the FoxNews and Brietbart dishonesty brigade quickly spun that to all. And according to polls of Trump supporters, 61% did hold the views that Clinton said were deplorable (Islamophobic, racist, sexist, etc), so the attempts to claim that her words were not true as stated are laughably false.

 

[uke2se]

Don't forget, Clinton only said half of Trump voters, but the FoxNews and Brietbart dishonesty brigade quickly spun that to all. And according to polls of Trump supporters, 61% did hold the views that Clinton said were deplorable (Islamophobic, racist, sexist, etc), so the attempts to claim that her words were not true as stated are laughably false.

Yep, Clinton underestimated the amount of deplorables among Trump's supporters.

 

[cmikes]

The difference, of course, is that on the right, the jackass Nazis actually have the ear of the President elect. The jackasses on the left never had Obama's ear.

I've seen this claim made before, can you provide evidence that Spencer has Trump's ear? Or that Trump has ever met or even heard of Spencer?


Apparently he has at least heard of him, because there's a statement from a Trump spokesman denouncing racism.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/307142-trump-spokesman-denounces-alt-right-meeting-in-washington

“President-elect Trump has continued to denounce racism of any kind and he [was] elected because he will be a leader for every American,” Bryan Lanza, a spokesman for the Trump-Pence Transition said in a statement, according to CNN.
“To think otherwise is a complete misrepresentation of the movement that united Americans from all backgrounds.”

 

[WilliamSeger]

There was a frantic attempt on the Left by the Left's media streams to explain Clinton's statement...
Chris B.

There was? All I heard was some dispute about the "half" -- both ways -- and whether it was best left unsaid. She specified who she was calling out and they are deplorable in my opinion. Furthermore, Trump would not have even been nominated without winning their support with his demagoguery.