Are all Trump supporters racists?

[ponderingturtle]

The AirBnB one is, as far as I care, obscure. I don't use the service, and only know of it because it came up on a couple of podcasts I listen to. SO I definitely don't blame you there.

You're on your own for the Trump one, though!

And there are so many different trump examples of racism to choose from.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Here's the fun part: consider "racist:" as itself a gradient, rather than an OR.

In other words, a woman whop clutches her purse, or not, depending on the race of the guy getting on the elevator with with her is, technically, a racist. But she's ultimately not hurting anyone.

And quite likely does not realize that she is reacting to race but is instead reacting to how unsettled the person makes her feel and is not cognizant of the way race plays into that.

 

[logger]

Seriously, I would defend him in certain cases. But Hispanic is for all intents and purposes a race. We're on a thread talking about racism. If being anti-Latino in your book is not racism, then we're working with different definitions.

No, you're just using words he didn't to support your dishonest narrative.

I'm not aware that he's spoken of China and/or the Chinese in the same derogatory way that he has Latinos. He might be bigoted against Chinese. I'm not sure. I would define "bigoted against Chinese" as racist.

Where has he ever said hispanics, his argument involves people from countries. Then you'll said yeah but he really means latinos. I would say why, when his focus has always been illegal immigration. This is how your dishonest side does it. We can't even talk about these issues because evil people on the left need the narrative.

Is your position that malevolence aimed at a particular country cannot be racist?

That's a great way to put it if you're trying to keep your narrative going? How about having some concern for the American, which he does, which is why your side lost so badly.

 

[logger]

Exactly no one can possibly be thought of as racist for thinking mexicans have no ethics. Next up it will be racist to point out the intellectual inferiority of blacks.

Mexicans?

Wasn't he talking about a particular judge? Why yes he was. Back to your narrative.

 

[logger]

And there are so many different trump examples of racism to choose from.

put them up!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Mexicans?

Wasn't he talking about a particular judge? Why yes he was. Back to your narrative.

His reason for questioning the judge was that the judge was hispanic. When you question someone's competence solely because of their race how is that not a good example of racism?

 

[bruto]

His reason for questioning the judge was that the judge was hispanic. When you question someone's competence solely because of their race how is that not a good example of racism?

Ah, but to the mincer of words, he did not call the judge Hispanic, but Mexican, and for the mincer of words the falsehood trumps the transparent racism and turns it into goodness and truth. And if that doesn't work, you can always dismiss it as a joke. You can say any **** as long as you can disavow it later as a joke.

 

[turingtest]

Ah, but to the mincer of words, he did not call the judge Hispanic, but Mexican, and for the mincer of words the falsehood trumps the transparent racism and turns it into goodness and truth. And if that doesn't work, you can always dismiss it as a joke. You can say any **** as long as you can disavow it later as a joke.

Or as just "hardball politics," which was the excuse logger used to justify the outright lies and innate idiocy of birtherism. I think Trump and his supporters folks need to put on their big-boy pants- they've spent the last eight years back-seat driving by doing nothing more constructive than calling the driver an idiot (and his wife a mooch) and grumping that they hope he fails; now they're in the driver's seat for at least four years (barring detours), they shouldn't whine so if they get the same treatment.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Or as just "hardball politics," which was the excuse logger used to justify the outright lies and innate idiocy of birtherism. I think Trump and his supporters folks need to put on their big-boy pants- they've spent the last eight years back-seat driving by doing nothing more constructive than calling the driver an idiot (and his wife a mooch) and grumping that they hope he fails; now they're in the driver's seat for at least four years (barring detours), they shouldn't whine so if they get the same treatment.

Have you seen how whinny and thin skinned these people are? They should never be subject to the behaviors they subject others too.

 

[Belz...]

Have you seen how whinny and thin skinned these people are?

What do horses have to do with this?

 

[bruto]

What do horses have to do with this?

Maybe it depends on whether you grab them below the crupper.

 

[varwoche]

I don't think I myself actually accused him of racism in this case, but if I did or was perceived to, please accept my retraction. Trump is guilty only of error, stupidity, bias, and dishonesty.

I consider Trump a racist based on things he said during the campaign. Given the fuzziness of the semantics, I accept that semi reasonable people might disagree in certain instances.

However there is at least one instance from Trump's past that's crystal clear. He was a hands-on president of a tiny company that wouldn't rent to black people. They even had a coding system where "C" for colored was written on the applications. The federal government sued the company for discrimination, Trump was named on the suit, and the company paid a fine.

Some might argue this happened so long ago that it doesn't carry much weight. Fine, then let me see his apology. If not a flat out apology, at least let's see that he acknowledged the error of his ways. Instead, Trump denies the facts, and sycophants offer up BS excuses that rely on mind-reading.

So yeah -- he's a racist.

 

[bruto]

I consider Trump a racist based on things he said during the campaign. Given the fuzziness of the semantics, I accept that semi reasonable people might disagree in certain instances.

However there is at least one instance from Trump's past that's crystal clear. He was a hands-on president of a tiny company that wouldn't rent to black people. They even had a coding system where "C" for colored was written on the applications. The federal government sued the company for discrimination, Trump was named on the suit, and the company paid a fine.

Some might argue this happened so long ago that it doesn't carry much weight. Fine, then let me see his apology. If not a flat out apology, at least let's see that he acknowledged the error of his ways. Instead, Trump denies the facts, and sycophants offer up BS excuses that rely on mind-reading.

So yeah -- he's a racist.

I agree, but in the specific case of the non-Mexican judge, a terminological technicality can be claimed.

 

[logger]

His reason for questioning the judge was that the judge was hispanic. When you question someone's competence solely because of their race how is that not a good example of racism?

No he was questioning a judge with Mexican heretige, because he felt the judge wasn't being fair because he was committed to stopping illegal immigration. Had nothing to do with race.

Nice try though!

 

[Sideroxylon]

No.

 

[logger]

Or as just "hardball politics," which was the excuse logger used to justify the outright lies and innate idiocy of birtherism. I think Trump and his supporters folks need to put on their big-boy pants- they've spent the last eight years back-seat driving by doing nothing more constructive than calling the driver an idiot (and his wife a mooch) and grumping that they hope he fails; now they're in the driver's seat for at least four years (barring detours), they shouldn't whine so if they get the same treatment.

Its easy to deal with liberal politics, it's not easy to deal with the lies your side comes up with.

 

[logger]

Ah, but to the mincer of words, he did not call the judge Hispanic, but Mexican, and for the mincer of words the falsehood trumps the transparent racism and turns it into goodness and truth. And if that doesn't work, you can always dismiss it as a joke. You can say any **** as long as you can disavow it later as a joke.

So can he be at odds with Mexicans over illegal immigration?

Can he be at odds with the Chinese on their "hardball trade policies" or is it just racism to the snowflakes on the left. I'm sure they'll call it racism, it fits the dishonest narrative all leftists push.

 

[Mumbles]

I agree, but in the specific case of the non-Mexican judge, a terminological technicality can be claimed.

And it can also be rejected - based, again, on his history, and his current actions.

 

[turingtest]

Its easy to deal with liberal politics, it's not easy to deal with the lies your side comes up with.

Cry me a river, logger.

 

[Mumbles]

Fair enough. Then apparently it was the implementation of stop and frisk in NYC that was the problem, not the overall intent to control violence intelligently. I might at this point state that if the crux of the problem with gun violence were Black and Hispanic men then I question if that's profiling. It's stupid not to try and fix the problem where and by whom it's being perpetuated. Quite frankly, I don't see profiling as all bad. If people who wear pink are causing the problem then people wearing pink should be the primary (but not necessarily the only ones) who are stopped and frisked. I don't live in a high crime area (thank goodness), but I did live in a Chicago suburb for about 5 years. The problems then pale in comparison to today.

And that's the point, is it not? Trump's proposal is clearly foolish, unconstitutional, and racist. Actual work to solve problems would require time, work, and would end up looking nothing like his proposals.

Whatever is causing it I don't know. But, it seems to me that Trump's threat to Emmanuel of bringing in Federal Law

At most, via Jeff Sessions, who would be the last person I would consider. If anything, he'd only make the situation worse.

Well, it seems to me that folks in local neighborhoods should be willing to accept some inconvenience to solve significant problems in their neighborhoods. From what I've read that seems to be the case.

It seems to you. But are you there? You've already told us that you aren't, so...

You know exactly where the false narrative started. It started primarily in Ferguson, MO with the "Hands up, don't shoot" lie and spread from there. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that Police shoot minorities more than anyone else. The criminal part is obvious considering the historic number of police killed in 2016, many of them ambushed. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to determine why.

...and you walked directly into the trap.

Nope, Black Lives Matter was started after George Zimmerman was acquitted for the murder of Trayvon Martin. And since then, they have worked to avoid violence, including in Ferguson and in Baltimore. So for you to make them out to be a "criminal organization" is nonsense. This is easy to look into, for anyone who cares.

Is there evidence that police shoot more at unarmed black people? Yes.

*Could* a local Black Lives Matter group turn out to be a criminal group? Sure, but there's no evidence of this happening yet.

Your turn. Can you give evidence of any police shooting that BLM caused? And before you start, I'll note that the Dallas shooter openly stated that he did not like BLM, and the Baton Rouge shooter was actually a sovereign citizen.

...and yes, this is another trap.