Are all Trump supporters racists?

It doesn't matter what "race" means to an anthropologist. If DJT thinks of Mexicans as a race, then discriminating against them or denigrating a stereotype of them would be "racist." He has done both.
Indeed. There's a good argument that race itself is a fiction, but that does not erase racism either. The conservative apologists for egregious behavior are fond of demanding the utmost linguistic precision from critics of the sloppiness and error of their champions. But whether you can technically call it racism, wrongful discrimination is what it is whether or not your science is good and whether or not you identify your victims correctly.
 
Thinking Trump is a white supremacist is how far out of touch your thinking is.

He made wide-brush comments about latinos in the US, suggested banning Muslims from entering the country, has been sued for preventing black people from renting his properties, and has surrounded himself with racists in his cabinet, one of which is a prominent alt-right figure.

What conclusion would you reach?
 
A. "Trump isn't racist because Mexican isn't a race."

B. "So you admit that Trump is Mexicanist. What shall we call that then?"

A. "Look, he's building a wall, okay? He's building a wall. And the judge is of Mexican heritage. He's building a wall."
 
A. "Trump isn't racist because Mexican isn't a race."
B. "So you admit that Trump is Mexicanist. What shall we call that then?"

A. "Look, he's building a wall, okay? He's building a wall. And the judge is of Mexican heritage. He's building a wall."

Also because racism is purely, simply, and only thinking your race is superior to any others; and the only way to prove someone thinks that is if they say "hey, I think my race is superior to any others." Trump has never said this, therefore nothing else counts- QED, bite me, leftists!

(It must be comforting to live in a world that's so simply seen)

I personally don't have any problem with saying Trump's a bigot instead of a racist, if that's any better for his supporters.
 
Also because racism is purely, simply, and only thinking your race is superior to any others; and the only way to prove someone thinks that is if they say "hey, I think my race is superior to any others." Trump has never said this, therefore nothing else counts- QED, bite me, leftists!

(It must be comforting to live in a world that's so simply seen)

I personally don't have any problem with saying Trump's a bigot instead of a racist, if that's any better for his supporters.

Change the title of the thread to "Are all Trump supporters bigots?"?

Heh heh heh...
 
I know nothing about the case. Is the allegation false?

The accused dropped off absentee ballots (after being told maybe they should use absentee ballots to increase turnout) which were immediately broken into by FBI agents who had been lying in wait for them to mail them. Many of the voters were then bussed over 100 miles away to be fingerprinted and processed (like criminals?) and testify to a grand jury while surrounded by armed local and federal law enforcement agents. Many of them declared as part of their testimony they would not ever vote again. With the exception of several members of one family group, none of the witnesses testified against the activists, acknowledging that they had authorized them to assist in filling out their ballots or pointed out a mistake and they had made the corrections themselves. Given the level of intimidation the witnesses were subjected to, only one family group buckling is a pretty inspiring show of solidarity. I'm amazed that it actually went to trial since the vast majority of the witnesses all refuted the claims of ballot tampering. As usual, it boils down to the prosecutor passing the buck to the grand jury (as if they have no control over the outcome). This is where a clever quote about a ham sandwich is usually invoked :9.

I think the general purpose of this 'voting fraud' investigation/trial (this isn't a new goal, only the tactics have changed) is quite clear.
 
The accused dropped off absentee ballots (after being told maybe they should use absentee ballots to increase turnout) which were immediately broken into by FBI agents who had been lying in wait for them to mail them. Many of the voters were then bussed over 100 miles away to be fingerprinted and processed (like criminals?) and testify to a grand jury while surrounded by armed local and federal law enforcement agents. Many of them declared as part of their testimony they would not ever vote again. With the exception of several members of one family group, none of the witnesses testified against the activists, acknowledging that they had authorized them to assist in filling out their ballots or pointed out a mistake and they had made the corrections themselves. Given the level of intimidation the witnesses were subjected to, only one family group buckling is a pretty inspiring show of solidarity. I'm amazed that it actually went to trial since the vast majority of the witnesses all refuted the claims of ballot tampering. As usual, it boils down to the prosecutor passing the buck to the grand jury (as if they have no control over the outcome). This is where a clever quote about a ham sandwich is usually invoked :9.

I think the general purpose of this 'voting fraud' investigation/trial (this isn't a new goal, only the tactics have changed) is quite clear.
The article says "25 voters said they had not given their ballots to the Turners or Hogue for mailing." There also seem to be a lot of accusations of altered ballots with names other than Shelton. Where are you getting your version of events from? It's not obvious to me what the truth here is.

What is your source for your version of events? You seem pretty confident of it.
 
Last edited:
The article says "25 voters said they had not given their ballots to the Turners or Hogue for mailing." There also seem to be a lot of accusations of altered ballots with names other than Shelton. Where are you getting your version of events from? It's not obvious to me what the truth here is.

What is your source for your version of events? You seem pretty confident of it.

The NYT article linked above, but mostly my numerous readings on this case over the years.

When the Turners and Hogue went to trial, in June 1985, their supporters came in such numbers that entry to the courtroom in Selma required a ticket. Witness after witness among the 17 voters who testified said that while they’d received assistance from the Turners and Hogue to fill out their ballots, they’d done so willingly. The exceptions were members of a single family of six, who said their ballots were altered without their permission.

I searched the article and could not find the quote you refer to...or even "25", all instances of the word "ballot" don't connect to the claim you've just made.

So what is your source?
 
The NYT article linked above, but mostly my numerous readings on this case over the years.



I searched the article and could not find the quote you refer to...or even "25", all instances of the word "ballot" don't connect to the claim you've just made.

So what is your source?

This was the source for the quote. I assumed it was the article being discussed in the tweet.
how-black-democrats-stole-votes-in-alabama-and-jeff-sessions-tried-to-stop-it

If you then go to the Grand Jury indictment, there is then a list of the charges in which a bunch of names get listed for people who supposedly had their ballot altered.
 
Only the left can be completely wiped out, totally lose ALL their political power and it be considered no big deal.
I dont see where you read that I do not consider it "big deal", but we all know that you live in your own reality anyway.

Assertion about "policies of the dems being absolutely unpopular" is hollow and baseless lie, since it relies on electoral votes and seats, not actual votes of people that you for some strange reason simply ignore.
You are apparently not American, so I'll forgive your obvious ignorance of the voting system in the US. You really need to inform yourself about that system prior to making such erroneous conclusions that are so wrong.

That was your claim: "policies of the dems are absolutely unpopular". Not "democrats lost elections". No one disputes latter claim.

It is not my problem if you have issues with distinguishing "how you win presidential/senate election in USA" from "how popular are policies of party X in USA".

Protip: one involves electoral votes and seats, other involves actual votes casted by people... or maybe polls, but we have better data - actual votes.

In fact, I addressed this very issue in quote that you answered, so we can add reading comprehesion (or rather lack of it) to your list of problems.

He's conflating the Presidential election with the voting for Representatives and Senators along with State Governors and State Legislators.
Nope. You are one pretending that popularity of policies of party X and election results must be exactly same thing. In other words, you conflate these two things. Projecting much?
 
This was the source for the quote. I assumed it was the article being discussed in the tweet.
how-black-democrats-stole-votes-in-alabama-and-jeff-sessions-tried-to-stop-it

If you then go to the Grand Jury indictment, there is then a list of the charges in which a bunch of names get listed for people who supposedly had their ballot altered.

Well then you're repeating the claims of the legal argument against them which was rejected in court. Probably in part because of testimony offered by the alleged victims saying the opposite of what the prosecutors claimed.

That's not jury nullification (an excuse which contains an embedded assertion of racial solidarity overriding justice), that's what happens to weak cases that should never have gone forward.
 
Well then you're repeating the claims of the legal argument against them which was rejected in court. Probably in part because of testimony offered by the alleged victims saying the opposite of what the prosecutors claimed.

That's not jury nullification (an excuse which contains an embedded assertion of racial solidarity overriding justice), that's what happens to weak cases that should never have gone forward.
Perhaps. It seems like something rather similar happened a few years later in a neighbouring county leading to convictions. Given that both sides seem to be agreed that at least one side are liars, I don't see how we can trust the summary of the case given by either the pro or anti-Trump camps.

This seems to be a fairly detailed summary including arguments and testimony relating to the case:
http://www.freelawreporter.org/flr3d/f2d/812/812.F2d.1568.85-7518.html

Under the "evidence at trial" section, we have:

The only testimony, presented at the trial in case number 85-00014, which is included in the record on this present appeal, is the testimony of Lillian Fuller, the testimony of Will Fuller, and the transcribed testimony of Hogue in the course of his appearance before a grand jury prior to the return of the indictment in case number 85-00014. Hogue's grand jury testimony was offered by the government at trial as a part of its case. However, the record on the present appeal does contain a transcript of the closing arguments of the prosecutors in case number 85-00014, as well as a portion of the closing argument by one of Hogue's counsel. From those arguments, it can be discerned that there was testimony concerning 11 separate episodes involving absentee voters: one episode involved the 7 Sheltons; another, Morgan Harris and Fannie M. Williams; and other, distinct episodes each involved one of the following voters: Willie Lee, Pearl Brown, Mary Louise Pryor, Ethel G. Ford, Maggie Fuller, Mattie Perry, Angela Miree, Zayda Gibbs, and Will Fuller. The 11 episodes occurred at separate places and times. As to each episode, there was a separate witness or combination of witnesses for the prosecution. In the case of Willie Lee, his testimony was that he had never executed an absentee ballot, although a ballot purporting to be his had been mailed to the election officials. In the case of each of the other 17, the prosecution testimony was directed to whether the voter had executed a ballot showing the voter's choices among the candidates, whether the ballot had been changed later but before it was received in the mail by the election officials, and whether the voter had or had not authorized the changes to be made.

21
Specifically, as to count 24, and paragraph 5(m) of count 1, the government presented the testimony of Will Fuller and his wife, Lillian Fuller, and testimony given earlier to a grand jury by Hogue.

22
Lillian Fuller testified that she was 73 years of age as of July 1985, and that Will Fuller was 91 years of age as of September 1, 1984, was blind and ill, and had been voting for some time by absentee ballot. Concerning the September 4, 1984 Democratic primary, she testified that: Hogue came to the Fullers' house in connection with the absentee voting; Lillian prepared the absentee ballot for Will Fuller, marked a vote for Reese Billingslea, made no erasures on the ballot, and handed the marked ballot to Hogue, unsealed, to be notarized and mailed. Shown the ballot at trial in the form it had been received by election officials, Lillian Fuller testified that on it the vote for Billingslea had been marked out. She testified that at some time more than a week later and after September 4, 1984, Hogue had come again to the Fullers' house; Lillian Fuller, Will Fuller, and Hogue were those present at the time. She testified that Hogue said: he had rubbed the name off through a mistake; "they" were after Lillian Fuller, Will Fuller and Hogue; and if Lillian Fuller "would get with Hogue" and say she helped rub it off, "it will be all over with." Lillian Fuller testified that she had not given Hogue permission to rub it off and she had not rubbed it off, and that she told Hogue she would not say she had helped him rub it off.

23
Will Fuller testified that he intended to vote for Billingslea. He testified that: some time after the first of the year 1985, Hogue brought a calendar to the Fullers' house; Will Fuller had no conversation with Hogue at that time; and Will Fuller heard Hogue and Lillian Fuller talking at that time, but Will Fuller could not understand what Hogue was saying to her.

24
In his testimony before the grand jury, Hogue stated that: The League was formed in 1962. Prior to the September 4, 1984, Democratic primary, the League activists had frequently arranged for voters to obtain absentee ballots, had tried to persuade the absentee voters to vote for the League's slate, had assisted absentee voters in marking their ballots, and had arranged for the ballots to be mailed to the elections officials. Hogue was one of several League community leaders, each of whom assisted a certain group of people in this way. Many of these people were elderly. The League helped these people in other ways, unrelated to absentee voting, such as transporting them for medical care and assisting them to use the food stamp program. The League endorsed a slate of candidates in the September 4, 1984, Democratic primary. Hogue would go to the homes of the persons to whom the blank absentee ballots had been mailed by the elections officials. He would try to persuade them to vote for the League slate. He would help them to mark their ballots themselves or he would do the marking. In either case, the choices were made by the voters, not by Hogue. When marks were erased or scratched out and new marks made, this was done by the voters or, if the voter consented, by Hogue. Hogue would then take the executed ballots, whether or not the voters had voted for the League's slate, and mail the ballots to the elections officials. Hogue, Will Fuller, and Lillian Fuller were present at the Fullers' house one day prior to the September 4, 1984, primary; Hogue was calling outthe names of the candidates the League had endorsed and Lillian Fuller was marking the ballot; when she gave Hogue the marked ballot, he looked at it and told her she had got the wrong name, referring to Billingslea; Hogue talked to her about that and convinced her; she said to Hogue that she had marked the ballot for Billingslea in ink; Hogue told her he could get the ink off, and Hogue made the change.10

Are the claims of these other people that their votes were tampered with not mentioned in the NYT article? I couldn't find the link.

I've tried to find details from the actual trial, rather than this contempt one relating to it, but so far I'm stumped.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps. It seems like something rather similar happened a few years later in a neighbouring county leading to convictions. Given that both sides seem to be agreed that at least one side are liars, I don't see how we can trust the summary of the case given by either the pro or anti-Trump camps.

A successful prosecution for a similar charge in a different place doesn't have any bearing on the unsuccessful prosecution, though. Nor do either of them necessarily prove or disprove the motives behind the cases. How many whites were brought up on similar charges in the same time frame? Are we to believe that no white people were committing any political crimes in Alabama?

Look at the title of the article, for example. It kinda feeds right into the idea that this is all predicated on the notion that 'black people steal stuff.' It's not "Political Activists Alter Ballots" no, it's "Black Democrats Stole Votes."

As my interest in the case predates Trump's recent political career, it does no good to try and frame in terms of being pro- or anti-Trump.

This seems to be a fairly detailed summary including arguments and testimony relating to the case:
http://www.freelawreporter.org/flr3d/f2d/812/812.F2d.1568.85-7518.html

Under the "evidence at trial" section, we have:



Are the claims of these other people that their votes were tampered with not mentioned in the NYT article? I couldn't find the link.

I've tried to find details from the actual trial, rather than this contempt one relating to it, but so far I'm stumped.

The NYT article is highlighting the problem of the manner in which the investigation was conducted (bussing people to different jurisdictions where more white people were on the grand jury and surrounding them with armed guards) and the numerous conflicting testimonies that resulted.

Yes, prosecutors can railroad a grand jury, this is a known thing. There's no defense lawyer to object or judge to sustain it, no cross-examination, and the prosecutor can make veiled threats about punishment for failure to respond in a certain way. They can badger a witness (prompting fearful or insecure mannerisms and speech that erodes credibility in the eyes of the grand jury) or praise them as they see fit, etc.

Why a prosecutor would railroad a weak case to the courtroom is anyone's guess. Usually, though, it boils down to their being locked onto a political or personal goal rather than a rational, legal one.
 
A successful prosecution for a similar charge in a different place doesn't have any bearing on the unsuccessful prosecution, though. Nor do either of them necessarily prove or disprove the motives behind the cases.
True, but presumably it implies some level of plausibility to the original claim if one puts any weight at all behind the results of the trials.

How many whites were brought up on similar charges in the same time frame? Are we to believe that no white people were committing any political crimes in Alabama?
I don't know. According to the story it was black democrats who made the original complaint. Were their complaints about voter fraud in majority white counties that were being ignored?

Look at the title of the article, for example. It kinda feeds right into the idea that this is all predicated on the notion that 'black people steal stuff.' It's not "Political Activists Alter Ballots" no, it's "Black Democrats Stole Votes."
That doesn't alter the truth of the article. If it was black activists who were specifically targeting black voters, then I don't see why they should avoid mentioning it. Clearly under Trump we are going to see a lot of things put rather more directly than we are used to.

As my interest in the case predates Trump's recent political career, it does no good to try and frame in terms of being pro- or anti-Trump.
OK. Could you then explain the difference between this:

When the Turners and Hogue went to trial, in June 1985, their supporters came in such numbers that entry to the courtroom in Selma required a ticket. Witness after witness among the 17 voters who testified said that while they’d received assistance from the Turners and Hogue to fill out their ballots, they’d done so willingly. The exceptions were members of a single family of six, who said their ballots were altered without their permission.
And the testimony mentioned in the notes from the contempt trial referring back to the original trial where it says for example "Willie Lee, his testimony was that he had never executed an absentee ballot, although a ballot purporting to be his had been mailed to the election officials" and "Lillian prepared the absentee ballot for Will Fuller, marked a vote for Reese Billingslea, made no erasures on the ballot, and handed the marked ballot to Hogue, unsealed, to be notarized and mailed. Shown the ballot at trial in the form it had been received by election officials, Lillian Fuller testified that on it the vote for Billingslea had been marked out."

Your quote implies it was a single family who testified to wrongdoing. The very limited details I have been able to find on the trial testimony appear to show that that isn't true.
 
Last edited:
True, but presumably it implies some level of plausibility to the original claim if one puts any weight at all behind the results of the trials.

No, the outcome of one case has zero implications of the validity of another case. That's free association based on nothing but the fact they faced the same charge. A prosecutor successfully getting a conviction on a murder case is not evidence that defendants in other murder cases are more likely to be guilty.

I don't know. According to the story it was black democrats who made the original complaint. Were their complaints about voter fraud in majority white counties that were being ignored?

I'm not interested in the racial makeup of counties, I'm interested if similar complaints against whites were made and whether they were indicted and went to trial. I'd be interested to know if witnesses in such a case were bused to other jurisdictions and intimidated in similar ways.

That doesn't alter the truth of the statement. If it was black activists who were specifically targeting black voters, then I don't see why they should avoid mentioning it. Clearly under Trump we are going to see a lot of things put rather more directly than we are used to.

How is including the race and political party of the suspects and an incorrect description of the crime 'more direct' to you than simply stating the correct criminal offense? Incorrect and extraneous information seems like the opposite.

Maybe 'more direct' means 'less dog whistles'?

OK. Could you then explain the difference between this:


And the testimony mentioned in the notes from the contempt trial referring back to the original trial where it says for example "Willie Lee, his testimony was that he had never executed an absentee ballot, although a ballot purporting to be his had been mailed to the election officials" and "Lillian prepared the absentee ballot for Will Fuller, marked a vote for Reese Billingslea, made no erasures on the ballot, and handed the marked ballot to Hogue, unsealed, to be notarized and mailed. Shown the ballot at trial in the form it had been received by election officials, Lillian Fuller testified that on it the vote for Billingslea had been marked out."

I don't know what you're trying to get at here.

The problem is the numerous conflicting evidences and even contradictory testimony of the same witness at different stages of the process. That was apparently a problem for the jury, too, since they didn't convict any of them. Either the case was bungled and pushed to trial against all sensible reason or people's testimony flipped between grand jury investigation and trial (suggestive of the witnesses feeling intimidated to 'cooperate' with investigators).

Beyond all of this, though, Sessions has opened his mouth and made racially inflammatory remarks on enough occasions that his impartiality as a legal advocate for all Americans is suspect and that alone should disqualify him.

What does it say about a guy if he herds black people living in Alabama onto buses and drives them 150+ miles away to another jurisdiction and surrounds them with armed guards to secure their testimony?

Kinda takes a certain lack of awareness of racial context to miss the problems with that kind of 'investigation' procedure.
 
Last edited:
No, the outcome of one case has zero implications of the validity of another case. That's free association based on nothing but the fact they faced the same charge. A prosecutor successfully getting a conviction on a murder case is not evidence that defendants in other murder cases are more likely to be guilty.
You don't think voter fraud happening in one county lends any plausibility to claims by Democrats in another county that there is near identical voter fraud? OK. I won't argue the point.

I'm not interested in the racial makeup of counties, I'm interested if similar complaints against whites were made and whether they were indicted and went to trial. I'd be interested to know if witnesses in such a case were bused to other jurisdictions and intimidated in similar ways.
You tell me. It seems pretty central to your argument, or the argument of people accusing him, that other candidates were telling him about fraud in other elections, or something similarly egregious, and he ignored it. Is this part of the argument just assumed?
 

Back
Top Bottom