Are all Trump supporters racists?

[Stacko]

Dog vuvuzela sounded.

For those unaware.

 

[Ziggurat]

No idea who "The One" is.

Obama.

 

[uke2se]

Dog vuvuzela sounded.

For those unaware.

Not that I don't believe Coulter has it in her, don't you think '14' refers to the days left of Obama's presidency?

 

[Stacko]

Not that I don't believe Coulter has it in her, don't you think '14' refers to the days left of Obama's presidency?

Providing more context than just tweeting a number would have removed the signal.

 

[uke2se]

Providing more context than just tweeting a number would have removed the signal.

Could be.

 

[fuelair]

So, not "white people" then. You should probably amend your post.





So nothing about "crossing over to the other side of the street" then?

You really should start reading these articles before posting.





We should judge Trump for his own many stupid, racist, bigoted comments. We should judge this guy, and the many many other guys in Trump's cadres for their words as well, and we should start recognizing that this isn't a bunch of good ol' boys just 'aving a bit of fun. These are people with vile ideas, and they are crawling out of the wood work to support Trump.

Yep, that are them and they are the enemy (or one of the enemies), not just people who politely disagree.

 

[fuelair]

It is absolutely correct that he was at a Rand Paul rally. And if you'd like to remain skeptical about whether he voted for Trump, feel free. But I think there's decent reasons to think there's a correlation between Rand Paul supporters and eventual Trump voters and especially a correlation between anti-Muslim sentiments and Trump voters. I think you're grasping at straws to pretend he was equally likely to vote Stein or Clinton.

It's conceivable that a Paul supporter -- if he was such, and showing at a rally doesn't necessarily mean so[1] -- would go Libertarian, but Johnson never did much to appeal to strong anti-Muslim sentiments.

[1] My boy went to a Libertarian rally to see what it was like, but he did not support Johnson.

And believers in either are tools and fools.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.......

Jolly good comedy!

You see, there was no "frantic attempt by the Left," unless you mean merely pointing out Ms. Clinton's entire statement.

No, the "frantic [and ongoing] attempt" were efforts by our friends on the dishonest right to cherry pick the quote.

tl;dr version: Stop with the revisionism. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[applecorped]

Are all Trump opponents racists?

 

[Cainkane1]

Many folks say ALL Trump supporters are racists and bigots.

I disagree.

I think many of them are. But the majority are not.

However, EVERY Trump supporter I know or have encountered in person or on the internet, is a racist and a bigot.

You've encountered me and I support Trump and I'm not a racist. Trump says he wants to create jobs and keep jobs in America for American workers and never did he ever say this was for white workers only. I believe most of the alleged racism comes from Trump saying he's going to do something about illegal immigration but that's dealing with crime, not racism.

Most of the negative comments about Trump come from screaming liberals and poor liberal losers.

 

[uke2se]

You've encountered me and I support Trump and I'm not a racist. Trump says he wants to create jobs and keep jobs in America for American workers and never did he ever say this was for white workers only. I believe most of the alleged racism comes from Trump saying he's going to do something about illegal immigration but that's dealing with crime, not racism.

Most of the negative comments about Trump come from screaming liberals and poor liberal losers.

Must be nice to be able to completely shut your brain off from rational criticism.

 

[varwoche]

You've encountered me and I support Trump and I'm not a racist.

I'm not commenting on you here; I say this in the abstract.

People tend to be highly biased self-observers. When someone -- anyone -- declares that are not a racist, the weight I assign to such declarations is precisely nil.

Trump says he wants to create jobs and keep jobs in America for American workers and never did he ever say this was for white workers only. I believe most of the alleged racism comes from Trump saying he's going to do something about illegal immigration but that's dealing with crime, not racism.

Most of the negative comments about Trump come from screaming liberals and poor liberal losers.

******** of a high order. It's been addressed ad nauseum up-thread, but I suppose someone should summarize his litany of racist/bigoted statements (and actions) now and then. Time allowing, I'll take a crack at it later on.

 

[Ziggurat]

However, EVERY Trump supporter I know or have encountered in person or on the internet, is a racist and a bigot.

You've encountered me and I support Trump and I'm not a racist.

Must be nice to be able to completely shut your brain off from rational criticism.

But you didn't provide any rational criticism. Moreover, you missed the point completely. Whether or not Cainkane1's reasons for supporting Trump can withstand rational criticism, the question he was addressing is whether or not he's racist. He says he's not a racist. Are you claiming he is? If so, on what basis? If not, then you're basically agreeing with him on his most important point.

If you want to lay claim to rationality, can you really claim that it's rational to just call people you disagree with racist? The insult has lost its sting. It doesn't persuade. All it does now is divide. Is that really a rational approach?



"Being offended doesn't work anymore. Throwing insults doesn't work anymore."

 

[Delphic Oracle]

But you didn't provide any rational criticism. Moreover, you missed the point completely. Whether or not Cainkane1's reasons for supporting Trump can withstand rational criticism, the question he was addressing is whether or not he's racist. He says he's not a racist. Are you claiming he is? If so, on what basis? If not, then you're basically agreeing with him on his most important point.

If you want to lay claim to rationality, can you really claim that it's rational to just call people you disagree with racist? The insult has lost its sting. It doesn't persuade. All it does now is divide. Is that really a rational approach?



"Being offended doesn't work anymore. Throwing insults doesn't work anymore."

Jonathon Pie and Mark Blyth rather quickly snapped me out of the funk.

Coming up with denigrating labels for your opponents might feel emotionally satisfying, but they aren't a path to victory.

Here's Mark responding on the topic of engaging the other side:


Question begins at roughly 1:19:00, the time code seems to be a bit off for some reason.

"What are you going to do, put like 20 million people on the naughty step and say 'you're racist, I can't deal with you!' Well, they still get to vote."

 

[uke2se]

Jonathon Pie and Mark Blyth rather quickly snapped me out of the funk.

Coming up with denigrating labels for your opponents might feel emotionally satisfying, but they aren't a path to victory.

Here's Mark responding on the topic of engaging the other side:


Question begins at roughly 1:19:00, the time code seems to be a bit off for some reason.

"What are you going to do, put like 20 million people on the naughty step and say 'you're racist, I can't deal with you!' Well, they still get to vote."

This is probably one of the most insidious thing about this whole "anti-PC" thing Trump's minions have been indoctrinated with. Part of it is the whole schtick about how they casually dismiss accusations of racism, claiming that "libs" call everything racist. This allows them to duck the obvious and blatant racism spewing from the incoming administration.

Racists get to vote, that much is clear from the recent election. That doesn't mean that anyone should stop calling out racism, or stop calling racists what they are. It's more than an insult. It's an indication that they are being watched, and are not going to get away with their ****.

ETA: For that matter, doubling down apparently works for the GOP. No reason it won't for rational people.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is probably one of the most insidious thing about this whole "anti-PC" thing Trump's minions have been indoctrinated with. Part of it is the whole schtick about how they casually dismiss accusations of racism, claiming that "libs" call everything racist. This allows them to duck the obvious and blatant racism spewing from the incoming administration.

Hercules56 calls everyone within a broad category racist. Cainkane1 says he's in that category and he's not racist. You jump on Cainkane1 for... reasons. I point out that calling Cainkane1 racist isn't a good strategy, and this is your response? You haven't proven me wrong, you've demonstrated by example that I'm right.

When you're calling Cainkane1 racist just for voting for Trump, then YOU are the one casually dismissing things, not me.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

This is probably one of the most insidious thing about this whole "anti-PC" thing Trump's minions have been indoctrinated with. Part of it is the whole schtick about how they casually dismiss accusations of racism, claiming that "libs" call everything racist. This allows them to duck the obvious and blatant racism spewing from the incoming administration.

Racists get to vote, that much is clear from the recent election. That doesn't mean that anyone should stop calling out racism, or stop calling racists what they are. It's more than an insult. It's an indication that they are being watched, and are not going to get away with their ****.

ETA: For that matter, doubling down apparently works for the GOP. No reason it won't for rational people.

Let's cut the number of potentially not racist people who voted for Trump in half (10m) or even a quarter (5m) of Blyth's very generic assumptions. If we'd reached even 10% of them in key places, we'd have had a win.

If the conclusion truly is 'we'll never change their minds so why bother trying' then what's the strategy for winning?

I want rational, absolutely.

Observation tells me that denigrating comments and labels (accurate or not) doesn't get us a win. Nationalist parties are rising all over and not one has been slowed down by pointing out their ethnocentric or xenophobic tendencies, so the obvious conclusion is to pick a different strategy, regardless of how 'righteous' the current one feels.

ETA: Hell, I can give a list of 20 reasons why I couldn't support Clinton (not the least of which was that she was behind by double digits in my state), yet I still have real life friends who say that makes me kinda sexist. Yes, there are liberals about who put these labels to everything that deviates from their orthodoxy to the point that even a rabid progressive like myself gets shut down by them. I've posted similar thoughts as I have here ('we need to change strategy, despite being basically correct, or we'll keep losing') and been met with accusations of basically being a traitor to minorities, advocating/promoting racial division, and showing my white/male privilege.

I'm even self-aware enough to recognize that such a response basically starts to fuel an attitude within me of 'fine, **** off, good luck with your struggles.'

 

[uke2se]

Let's cut the number of potentially not racist people who voted for Trump in half (10m) or even a quarter (5m) of Blyth's very generic assumptions. If we'd reached even 10% of them in key places, we'd have had a win.

Or if a couple hundred thousand in three states bothered to go to vote, rationality would have won.

The people who voted for Trump either made a deeply irrational choice, were gullible enough to get suckered by a con-man, or were racists. I guess the Democrats could aim for the gullible votes next election.

If the conclusion truly is 'we'll never change their minds so why bother trying' then what's the strategy for winning?

Oh, I think it's just a matter of waiting for the immolation of the Trump administration. In the meantime, the Democrats should organize locally, build up grassroot movements with the aim to take counties and state houses, and go all out to wrest the Senate back in 2018.

I want rational, absolutely.

Observation tells me that denigrating comments and labels (accurate or not) doesn't get us a win.

That wasn't what lost Clinton the election. Righties wants us to think that's why she lost, because they don't like it when we're mean to them, but Clinton lost partly because everyone thought she had a lock and many people stayed home, partly because a lot of Democrats thought it was unfair that their boy didn't get nominated and partly because the FBI chief came out as pro-Trump a week before the election. Had either of those not happened, she'd have won. Let's recall, she won the popular vote by 3 million votes, and just three very close states would have been enough for an EC win.

Nationalist parties are rising all over and not one has been slowed down by pointing out their ethnocentric or xenophobic tendencies, so the obvious conclusion is to pick a different strategy, regardless of how 'righteous' the current one feels.

I think it's good to have any strategy. Calling racists 'racists' isn't a strategy. It's describing reality. We definitely need more reality right about now.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Or if a couple hundred thousand in three states bothered to go to vote, rationality would have won.

By what mechanism would this occur, though? The problem with repeatedly pointing out how close the results were is that it inherently validates basically any change in strategy.

The people who voted for Trump either made a deeply irrational choice, were gullible enough to get suckered by a con-man, or were racists. I guess the Democrats could aim for the gullible votes next election.

Democrats have happily courted gullible votes for decades. Failure to address their concerns once in power (courting the financial industry, championing 'free trade' agreements with wholehearted conviction) eventually leads to a festering atmosphere of resentment.

Turning around and saying 'well those voters are either irrational, gullible, or racist' is hardly a roadmap to victory under those circumstances.

Oh, I think it's just a matter of waiting for the immolation of the Trump administration. In the meantime, the Democrats should organize locally, build up grassroot movements with the aim to take counties and state houses, and go all out to wrest the Senate back in 2018.

Too generic. What messaging will be used, what narrative is going to be put forward? Organizing locally and building up grassroot movements requires a lot of recruitment. The success or failure of that recruitment hinges on how you try to attract those recruits.

That wasn't what lost Clinton the election. Righties wants us to think that's why she lost, because they don't like it when we're mean to them, but Clinton lost partly because everyone thought she had a lock and many people stayed home, partly because a lot of Democrats thought it was unfair that their boy didn't get nominated and partly because the FBI chief came out as pro-Trump a week before the election. Had either of those not happened, she'd have won. Let's recall, she won the popular vote by 3 million votes, and just three very close states would have been enough for an EC win.

Again, you can't refer to the closeness of the election as a reason why a couple of things might have changed it while simultaneously denying that numerous other factors also could have.

I think it's good to have any strategy. Calling racists 'racists' isn't a strategy. It's describing reality. We definitely need more reality right about now.

This assumes that all people being called racist are in fact racist. There is a significant contingent out there who knee-jerk apply that label (or other forms of bigotry) to anyone disagreeing with them.

 

[Ziggurat]

That wasn't what lost Clinton the election. Righties wants us to think that's why she lost

Jonathon Pie isn't a righty.

And you have left unexamined the possible reasons why lefties might refuse to believe this was why she lost.

Calling racists 'racists' isn't a strategy. It's describing reality.

Is Cainkane1 a racist? Hercules56 basically said so. But no evidence, from either him or you, has been forthcoming. So on what basis can that be said to describe reality? If the only evidence is that he supported Trump, then you're begging the question (in the correct sense of the term).