The New American Politics thread

[Drak]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

depends why they are supporting him. If their only or main reason for supporting Duke was based on race, then they are likely racists.

For what it's worth, David Duke is not someone i'd support because I encourage diversity.

I don't buy that. Racism is a huge issue/problem. If someone supports a racist candidate I don't buy the idea they themselves might not have an issue with race. Being insensitive or apathetic to discrimination because it's not a key interest to you is a red flag.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

depends why they are supporting him. If their only or main reason for supporting Duke was based on race, then they are likely racists.

For what it's worth, David Duke is not someone i'd support because I encourage diversity.

Your definition of racist is clearly different than most

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Besides, the issue really isn't whether all or some subset of Trump supporters are racists. I think we would all agree it's a subset.

The problem is that it is quite plain that TRUMP is a racist, or at least willing to pander to racists by peddling a terrifying nativism replete with racist dog whistles, peppered by the occasionally overt racist remark.

There's a reason his best demographic is uneducated white males. Even if race isn't "your issue" there is a point where you can't morally support someone who is peddling the kind of rhetoric that he is.

[Mister Yamoto]

There was a time when calling someone a racist/bigot meant something. But now it gets thrown around so much that it doesn't really mean much.

You might as well call someone a big jerkface or a meanie instead because nowadays those carry about the same weight.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

No. Absolutely not.

People identify issues which matter the most to them. they discount issues which do not matter to them. They then support the party that is identifying with their issues.

If race isn't an issue in your day to day life (say as a Caucasian male) then you are unlikely to put racial related issues as your priorities. You're more likely to prioritize other items.

It is an error to state or make the assumption that every supporter agrees with every platform position of their candidate.

I suspect there are an awful lot of democrat supporters who think Clinton should be releasing to the parents of the Benghazi victims why security was pulled.

You confuse the words 'accept' and 'support'.

Racism is pretty much Trumps main platform. I really don't see how you can vote for him without at least accepting open racism and bigotry.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Itse

You confuse the words 'accept' and 'support'.

Racism is pretty much Trumps main platform. I really don't see how you can vote for him without at least accepting open racism and bigotry.

Can you clarify exactly which policies you consider racist?

I personally don't consider the Muslim ban / crackdown on Illegal immigration to be racist. Misdirected, bigoted or ethnocentric perhaps.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Can you clarify exactly which policies you consider racist?

I personally don't consider the Muslim ban / crackdown on Illegal immigration to be racist. Misdirected, bigoted or ethnocentric perhaps.

Calling "most" Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals and building a wall to keep them out seems pretty racist

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Calling "most" Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals and building a wall to keep them out seems pretty racist

It isn't pretty racist. It's very racist imo.


The thing is that when I listen to Trump supporters - and actually listen to what they are saying - there are a lot who support Trump because he's anti-establishment. They are overlooking the bumps and warts with the rest of his campaign because they hate the status quo. These people never bring up the wall or immigration issues. For them it's about something else entirely.

I don't think that these people are racists. I think they're pissed off.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Your definition of racist is clearly different than most

Really? What is my definition of racist then?

If you wish to discriminate against someone because of personal characteristics associated with ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and that your ethnic or cultural background is superior, in my mind you're a racist.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

I don't see any of you pumping Hillarys' tires. Maybe a rational person cannot support either. And you could make a case that Trump would be somehow not as bad as Hillary.

You watch the Republican crowd shout "Lock her up" and then they will go to a commercial and show Hillarys' ad that shows Trump making questionable quotes. The point being that both candidates are so weak both sides best play is to simply point their finger at the other.

This campaign needs more Gary Johnson. I hope he gets into the debates and owns those two clowns. Hell, give this election some Vermin Supreme (boothead). It would be fitting for this election.

Could you make the rational case that trump is less bad then Hillary. I don't believe that is possible.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Drak

I don't buy that. Racism is a huge issue/problem. If someone supports a racist candidate I don't buy the idea they themselves might not have an issue with race. Being insensitive or apathetic to discrimination because it's not a key interest to you is a red flag.

Fair point. Red flag. Alarming. Concerning. But that does not elevate to racist.

[Flash Walken]

The ugly part in all this for Republicans is that Trump is not an aberration in the party, his campaign has torn back the protective covering on what the GOP has stood for for the last century basically. Trump's campaign is the embodiment of republicanism as we know it

If Trump didn't represent the GOP they would've excised him from the party instead of endorsing him limp wristedly at their convention.

There are racists in the Democratic party but the Democratic party is not the party of racists.

[DownInFlames]

I was checking the schedule for today and noticed this speaker:

Michelle Van Etten, Small Business Owner
Michelle Van Etten is a small business owner who was recently featured in The Greatest Networkers in the World second edition. Michelle employs over 100,000 people and is a strong supporter of Donald Trump, knowing his policies will support businesses all across America.

A "small business" owner who employs 100,000 people? That didn't make sense, so I googled her. Oh, she has a MLM company that sells snake oil pills. Makes total sense.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e_iOSApp_Other

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

There was a time when calling someone a racist/bigot meant something. But now it gets thrown around so much that it doesn't really mean much.

Nah, that's just something that dumb people who don't really understand what racism is think.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Nah, that's just something that dumb people who don't really understand what racism is think.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-creep/477939/

Do you think that what this article is suggesting is imaginary?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-creep/477939/

Do you think that what this article is suggesting is imaginary?

Okay, so in the context of Donald Trump, you think we're overreacting by labeling him as a racist?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay, so in the context of Donald Drumpf, you think we're overreacting by labeling him as a racist?

Probably not. At the very least, this is true, and was from the day he announced and gave the rapist mexican spiel:

Originally Posted by Iowa Flames Fan

The problem is that it is quite plain that DRUMPF is a racist, or at least willing to pander to racists by peddling a terrifying nativism replete with racist dog whistles, peppered by the occasionally overt racist remark.

However, I do think that some of the things that are knee-jerk labelled as racist don't actually fit the definition. For example, the judge of Mexican heritage - the allegations of bias by Trump against him aren't actually sourced in prejudice against Mexicans. He wasn't saying judges of Mexican heritage are inherently worse, or unable to be impartial. He was saying that because of this judge's political views and allegiances, and the incendiary statements Trump has made, he was likely to be biased against Trump specifically. There's a big difference there.

It also emphasizes the problem with immediately defaulting to "that's racist!" whenever any matter even tangentially related to race is brought up. There is a much, much bigger problem with Trump's view that that judge isn't competent to try him, which is a failure to understand the judiciary. He wants a judge to recuse himself for his political views. Can you imagine the consequences if that were a reasonable thing to ask for? They're completely destabilizing to the justice system.

All of this is of course just a tangent, because the comment you replied to, and my reply to you, were specific to concept creep as it pertains to racism, and the scope of what is "racist" or "hate speech" being expanded to the point that it's considerably more watered down, thereby robbing it of at least some of its power. This in turn is starting to have political consequences.

So to that extent at least, Yamato has a point that can't be easily dismissed by just calling him "dumb".

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

This thread has turned into leftist love-in.

It's not so much a leftist love in.

I dislike Hillary to a large extent, and if a sane Republican party was present, I would be fine with them holding the office for 4 years.

Trump and his odious rhetoric makes the choice of who to support obvious. If there was sanity in the republican party, then it would be a viable option. They have gone right into crazy town and I personally would prefer someone sane in that job.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

All of this is of course just a tangent, because the comment you replied to, and my reply to you, were specific to concept creep as it pertains to racism, and the scope of what is "racist" or "hate speech" being expanded to the point that it's considerably more watered down, thereby robbing it of at least some of its power. This in turn is starting to have political consequences.

So to that extent at least, Yamato has a point that can't be easily dismissed by just calling him "dumb".

My opinion on this is that there a generally two schools of thought when it comes to racism and bigotry, and it comes to the whole intent vs. impact issue I constantly bring up. I also don't think it's as much about expanding the term as it is that we have more people who are willing to speak out about they find racist without as much fear of persecution, and also being granted a bigger audience. Much of what is starting to permeate the mainstream discourse are concepts that have been kicking around for years in various circles. Do some of them go too far? Probably, but I also think the more extremist and "oversensitive" elements tend to get amplified by certain sources on both sides of the argument to further certain narratives.

It's also been my experience that those who are quick to dismiss claims on the grounds of over-sensitivity and political correctness often fail to understand or attempt to understand the arguments of the aggrieved.

I also think both you and Yamato are overstating the historical power that calling someone a racist or a bigot has ever had.

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by PostandIn

How the hell are Clinton and Trump going to do the Alfred E Smith dinner this year? With the kind of vitriol we've seen already they will have to take everyone's cutlery away.

They could always just rename it the Alfred E. Neuman dinner.