SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Scott Alexander gives a great breakdown of Trump and how the portrayal of him as being "openly white supremacist" is probably (likely) wrong.
I stick to my thesis from October 2015. There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter). All this stuff about how he's "the candidate of the KKK" and "the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement" is made up. It's a catastrophic distraction from the dozens of other undeniable problems with Trump that could have convinced voters to abandon him. That it came to dominate the election cycle should be considered a horrifying indictment of our political discourse, in the same way that it would be a horrifying indictment of our political discourse if the entire Republican campaign had been based around the theory that Hillary Clinton was a secret Satanist. Yes, calling Romney a racist was crying wolf. But you are still crying wolf.
I avoided pushing this point any more since last October because I didn't want to look like I was supporting Trump, or accidentally convince anyone else to support Trump. But since we're past the point where that matters any more, I want to present my case.
He further states: "I realize that all of this is going to make me sound like a crazy person and put me completely at odds with every respectable thinker in the media, but luckily, being a crazy person at odds with every respectable thinker in the media has been a pretty good ticket to predictive accuracy lately, so whatever."
So do his claims hold up under scrutiny, is he manipulating the figures, or is he just a 'crazy person' ?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ledow on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:38PM
Trump had/has racist views.
Whether he's 70 years old, white or male is not an excuse (it may be a "reason", but it doesn't excuse such behaviour, and any normally intelligent and well-adjusted person should be capable of stopping their instinctive, embedded, brainwashed reaction and insert common sense in its place).
Whether it's a part of the program? Almost certainly. Nigel Farage in the UK is inherently racist as well (though he's been trying to deny that a lot recently), that's why they get on so well. But over here that generated disgust and only ONE constituency (a constituency full of white, working class people - I know because my parents are in that place, and voted for him) actually gave him any kind of influence. Which, because in the UK it's basically useless, he's tried to take to America where your equivalent has just been voted president.
Did Trump being racist - which is a FACT if you only look at what he says - affect his chances? Apparently not. That's the scary part you should concern yourself with. Enough people didn't care about his casual racism that he still got in anyway, whereas in other countries, that group of people were in the minority.
What level of racism is behind him (does he just not like others, is it an instinctual reaction because of upbringing or generation, does he have a personal vendetta, would he go so far as to evict, or murder, or whatever) is unknown, but it's undeniable that he is racist. Like my parents. Like a lot of people I know. Like a lot of people I've distanced myself from. Like a lot of voters in both countries. Like a lot of people I went to school with, and like EVEN MORE of their parents and their parents.
But racism is being accepted, not called out, not generating shock. That's the disgusting part. Especially for a country built of immigrants and invaders.
Just the talk about walls, and "Mexicans" (as a grouping), and so on is dangerous and racist.
To be honest, quite a lot of the world is now disgusted with you, America. You have failed to convince your friends, your family, your colleagues, that a racist is what he is (undeniable) and that you shouldn't have a racist in charge of the country.
Just imagine for a second someone brought up in the immediate post-war era, 1946, after victory over an evil warlord who was inherently racist and pretty much invented concepts, groups and techniques that didn't exist before in order to apply such racism to the world. Someone who has acquired those racist views post-war, propagated those racist views through adulthood, and still holds them in his geriatric life. And DOESN'T SEE THE PROBLEM WITH THAT. What the hell kind of an influence do you think such a person is going to exert on the world, whether he was "just joking" or "just building controversy" (an excuse I've heard from lots of people), in an era where we've now got the ability to discover, detain and deport people en-masse?
He's scary. Scary not because he's directly threatening, but because he's an indicator of the populous and their prejudices and desires.
And, like a Milgram experiment, I wouldn't want to be within a thousand miles of him, or anyone who supports him.
You guys have elected a fucking idiot into an election (the first scary part) and then into power because you "didn't want to vote for the other one" or whatever your reasoning was. And now you even attack people who voted third-party (i.e. didn't want to vote for either of the candidates that they DON'T WANT in power), didn't vote or whatever.
You guys cooked your goose. Rather than try to justify it, try to fix it. Or it's going to be a very lonely world.
I'm actually disgusted by my own country's leader's response to such an action occurring as they went into immediate "we welcome him" bullshit mode rather than just stand up and say "We don't deal with racist, sexist, fraudulent bankrupts, sorry. Come back when you show people some respect."
Maybe it will pass without incident, but all that will go to show is that you will still think it's acceptable to vote morally repugnant people into power still.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:52PM
Take some solace in the fact that Trump is more than 1.3 million votes behind [cnn.com] and by the time the last ballot is counted will probably be more than 2 million votes behind. He still "won" the election, but no president has ever "won" by so many negative votes. In fact the first time a president won with any negative votes in over a century was Bush. On second thought, maybe you shouldn't take any solace in that...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:37PM
I take solace in the fact that the REACTION to Trump will drive progressive values forward.
Had HRC been elected, we'd be toying with nuclear confrontation with Russia over who gets to build a pipeline through Syria because had HRC set up a no-fly zone, we'd eventually be looking at shooting down a Russian plane or backing off. And through the entire process, establishment Democrats would have sat on their thumbs whistling quietly to themselves and never saying one word of protest.
It is odd that the only time progressive values get an airing, is when the GOP has power, but that's the fact we live with now, at least until the DNC finally implodes.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:56PM
You know, that hadn't occurred to me. It does fit with virtually every advancement in civil rights coming through Republicans though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:06PM
> It is odd that the only time progressive values get an airing, is when the GOP has power, ]
Oh please. Obamacare happened when dems had all the power, they spent nearly all of it on obamacare, but the GOP was not in power.
Gay marriage happened under Obama.
Trans rights became a big deal under Obama.
Tons of green energy stuff happened under Obama.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday November 19 2016, @11:06PM
Oh please, the Democrat's greatest modern achievement is getting a less liberal version of Nixon's Healthcare Plan passed (no individual mandate in Nixon's version): http://khn.org/news/nixon-proposal/ [khn.org]
If anything, that proves the secondary point, which is that the job of the GOP is to propose rightwing shit, and the job of the DNC is to make it the new normal. Rinse and repeat till we're at the point where "liberal democrats" are bombing weddings all over the Middle East, spying on everyone in violation of the 4th amendment, building the largest prison state on the planet, and militarizing the police force while at the same time, working their darndest to make sure nobody else but their cops and personal bodyguards have weapons.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @01:59AM
the job of the GOP is to propose rightwing shit, and the job of the DNC is to make it the new normal
Yup. Since George McGovern (the Blues' candidate in 1972) got skunked, the Blues have been running away from their base (assuming those folks have nowhere else to turn) and courting the Red base.
Now would be a good point to mention that it was Jimmy Carter who started the deregulation mania.
In this (meta)thread, I already linked to Clintonism. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [truth-out.org]
That's exactly what The Working Class rejected this time around.
Now, whether the choice of a replacement was wise, we'll have to wait and see.
(My bet is on NO.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday November 19 2016, @11:10PM
Responding to your other points:
Gay rights was a Supreme Court thing, not an Obama thing. In fact he spent a lot of presidency denying certain rights to gay couples where one person worked for the Feds that other married couples have.
Obama has nothing to do with Trans rights, and for that matter, Trump doesn't think its an issue.
Green energy - right, look at DAPL -- Obama's response to a company building a pipeline across Indian Territory because NIMBYs in Bismark didn't want it? "I'll ask the company to hold off". It ignores him. Apparently, Obama is totally powerless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @01:14AM
As far as I care, the only thing Obama achieved in 8 years in office was open the door to buying Cuban cigars soon. Everything else was nothing but a clusterfuck.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:29AM
> Gay rights was a Supreme Court thing, not an Obama thing.
With two of his appointees in the majority. It is almost like you don't understand what power the president has.
> In fact he spent a lot of presidency denying certain rights to gay couples where one person worked for the Feds that other married couples have.
He repealed DATA. He extended rights to federal employees before the scotus ruling.
> Obama has nothing to do with Trans rights, and for that matter,
It was the DoJ that said trans kids can use the bathroom in school.
The DoJ run by his appointees.
> Trump doesn't think its an issue.
If you think the DoJ is going to actively pursue title IX protections for trans people under Trump you are delusional.
Frankly your response is pretty damn intellectually dishonest. Not only do you downplay, even lie, about the progress made in the last 8 years you warmly embrace making the perfect the enemy of the good. When you do that you enable the worst rather than encourage the best. It makes you an accomplice of the forces you claim to oppose. I'm sure it makes you feel warm with righteousness. But screw you for collaborating.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:41AM
Don't Ask, Don't Tell was pushed to the forefront by the Log Cabin Republicans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States [wikipedia.org]
and in fact Obama completely screwed the gay community by repealing DADT prior to the pending legal precedent.
Gay marriage nationally was midwifed from Hollingsworth v. Perry, which was argued in part by Theodore Olson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson#cite_note-11 [wikipedia.org]
founding member of the Federalist Society.
Best bit from the wki article-
In September 2007, Olson was considered by the Bush administration for the post of Attorney General to succeed Alberto Gonzales. The Democrats, however, were so vehemently opposed that Bush nominated Michael Mukasey instead.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:56PM
The author provided a hell of a lot of evidence to back up his position. You have not. I am thus disinclined to give your statements credence.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:18PM
And we're disinclined to accept your defense that you're not prejudiced. Your arguments in this thread so far are just vague sidesteps.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:31PM
You seem to be arguing as if I am defending Trump. I am not. I am poking holes in faulty arguments. Thus you are either attempting to construct a strawman or you are simply mistaken. I'll be generous and assume the latter.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:57PM
Nope it wasn't about defending trump, you are defending against accusations of "racist" in a more general sense not just specifically trump. I made it pretty clear, you have obviously prejudiced views to the point where I do wonder if you're racist. Personally I think its more likely you're just a white guy who is not comfortable around other cultures and has internalized some fear mongering propaganda about Muslims. But that is ME being generous. Nice try with your own strawman.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:58PM
Perhaps, but what then of Clinton? Trump's views even if you take the media at its word, which you probably shouldn't, are probably not any worse than other people of his generation. But, the Clinton's mass incarceration of people of color under their get tough on crime policies were far and away worse.
What's more, they haven't apologized or even explained why she would have been different from her husband when he was President.
Also, Trump is a lot of things, but he's not a homophobe and it seems really strange to me that somebody who is a supporter of LGBTQ rights is being portrayed as a hopeless bigot. At bare minimum, that shows that he can grow as a human being as opposed to Clinton who only seems to grow when and in ways that the polling data demands.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:11PM
> What's more, they haven't apologized or even explained why she would have been different from her husband when he was President.
That's just false. They've both done it on television multiple times. She even said during the debate it was a mistake.
Furthermore her platform included a comprehensive plan for criminal justice reform. [hillaryclinton.com] Mass incarceration is the first issue mentioned on that page, literally the third sentence. But who cares about facts, amirite?
> that somebody who is a supporter of LGBTQ rights is being portrayed as a hopeless bigot.
Because if you aren't a bigot about everything then you can't be a bigot.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:39PM
Would that be her public personae that changed or her private one?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:14PM
Uh, yeah.
Rand Paul was similarly beaten with the racist stick
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/chris-hayes-rand-paul-racist_n_3570440.html [huffingtonpost.com]
and yet also supports criminal justice reform
https://www.randpaul2016.com/news/keep-pushing-criminal-justice-reform [randpaul2016.com]
so which is it then?
Well if the candidate is left, it is obvious proof that they are not racist, but if right, proof that you can be racist and support criminal justice reform (and obviously just for white people), amiright?
It's exactly this type of double-dealing that leads to the left being openly mocked- you too have racist in your midst, and wrapping yourselves in the cloth as free from any type of bigotry actual promotes racism, as there can be no honest discussion about racism.
And quite frankly, I care less that Trump might burn crosses in people's lawn as recreation as much as I'm concerned with actual polices. Stop and frisk is an abomination regardless of what race you are, but instead of holding his feet to the fire on that on constitutional grounds, the left resorts to petty name calling that does nothing, accomplishes nothing, and in fact makes the situation worse by directing the attention to identity politics (yes Esmeralda, that's racist too) instead of actual actions that affects people's lives.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Francis on Saturday November 19 2016, @11:36PM
No, because people who aren't homophobic are usually not racist. Racism is generally less socially acceptable than homophobia is. I'm sure there are examples out there of people that are racist, but not homophobic, but it's not something that's common.
As far as Clinton's campaign goes, that's a load of crap. I take it you haven't seen the video of her ejecting a black lives matter protester and then at the tail end of the video saying that she has to get back to the issues. Whether or not you consider the #BLM to be right, it's asinine to suggest that it isn't an important issue of the day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXv6G6_d-lQ [youtube.com] this is just one of the videos, there are others with comentary by other groups, but she has shown no shame nor did she give anybody reason to believe that she's had a change of heart. I don't know why the black voters didn't show up for her as much as they might have, but, having made a lot of them felons over pointless BS definitely didn't help. It turns out that if you take away people's right to vote that they have a tendency to not show up to vote. Funny how that works.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:07PM
Everybody has/had racist views.
Is it only a bad thing when White people do it? One of the bigger problems here is that people in places to influence public perception are picking and choosing which kind of racism is okay and which isn't.
Racism is racism is bad, whether or not it is against Whites or Blacks or every shade in between -- even those filthy Latinos.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:20PM
Why'd you mod this troll?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:39PM
last four words.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:54PM
Heh, ya well I have a memory and on multiple occasions EF has stated he is at least part Latino so those last words are a joke as far as I can tell.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:38PM
Trump a good boy. He dindu nuffin.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:12PM
Or perhaps they simply noticed that HRCs racism is professional, not casual, and voted for the lesser evil.
"Just the talk about walls, and "Mexicans" (as a grouping), and so on is dangerous and racist."
No, it's not, actually. The wall is a stupid idea, but no one has proposed that it discriminate based on race. Generalizing about "Mexicans" is probably also a stupid idea in most contexts, but again there is no element of race involved. Mexican is a nationality, not a race. Is it racist to generalize about Canadians? If I notice that Brits often have bad teeth does that make me a racist? C'mon. Words have meanings, and not everything is about race.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:26PM
HRC is elitist, not racist. Do not conflate the two. Its "fun" seeing the mental gymnastics done to defend Trump.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by stretch611 on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:42PM
yes, we voted this idiot into office. Yes, I agree that he is racist, sexist, and a general asshat.
BUT... under no circumstance should you think that the US is full of people (or even a majority) that condone racism, or sexism, or a general hatred of islam/muslims. To think that we all said that we prefer a racist to someone that isn't (and I'm not sure if HRC is or isn't) is just stupid.
In many cases, the presidential vote has become a referendum on the current president. Many people that are doing better now then they were 4 years ago vote for the same party as the current president. Consequently, if they are doing worse they tend to vote for the other party. If the economy is squeezing the life blood out of you like a vice grip around your balls, you are going to vote with who you think will change that, regardless if you think they are a racist or not in many cases. While Wall St has been doing well, the average american has not been nearly as lucky. Guess what, HRC has been making the rounds to the Wall St elite, telling them how things won't change with her as president, Trump was telling people he would bring about the needed change and he is not a career politician. While I do not believe Trump to be honest, I think he did convince many people that he would be better than Clinton.
As for 3rd party candidates, the 2 parties in power as well as the media claim that voting 3rd party is throwing your vote away because they never win. Sadly they have convinced many of the people that this is true and that leads to a self-fufilling prophecy... the more people that believe this lie, the more accurate it is. On the plus side we had more people vote 3rd party this year, than any other year since 1996 with Ross Perot. With a 2 party system, you only have to produce a candidate slightly better than the other one to win. This had lead to a steep decline in quality and will continue until people wake up to the fact a 3rd party is viable if people truly want change.
TL/DR:
Just because we voted for the lesser of 2 evils, does not mean we condone the policies of the winner.
Non-Hispanic whites make up 63 percent of the U.S. Half of those are women. So Trump has made bigoted remarks to about 68.5% of our population. While I am part of the 31.5% of white male population even I find Trump offensive. Myself, like the majority of the US should not be considered racist just because that idiot was voted in.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:14PM
For many people in many parts of the world, you crossed a line.
A red line, that unlike Obama's is Syra is real.
Politics is politics and people will work with Trump (and even give him the benefit of doubt for a while, plus Hillary wasn't exactly loved either in many places).
But for quite a while to come, I wouldn't expect there to be much respect for US citizens as a group.
There is no question there is a huge amount of very decent people living in the US. And people have gotten used to things like your broken judicial system, broken 2-party system etc., but to many at this point it doesn't matter whether you voted for someone who says horrible things all the time because you agree with them, or because you failed to ensure you have a better alternative (and whether he meant them matters even less).
If you want to be taken seriously and respected (I mean not in the "like Saudi Arabia" way due to pure political/military/whatever power) then show you at least care enough to fix your shit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @06:29AM
Actually, I was all set to vote Libertarian until Gary Johnson flaked out and made himself look like a total pothead! Considering that the Republican ticket was such an inappropriate travesty, the Libertarians could have easily picked up two to four states in the electoral college this election cycle and really caused seismic changes to the American political landscape. In fact, they had a real chance of winning this time, seeing as they were the real Republicans in this election running against an obvious charlatan. But, no, Gary Johnson made himself look totally pig ignorant on foreign affairs. (And not just once but at least two or three times!) So, Libertarians, listen up! While I understand that you guys take a much more isolationist stance than most other political parties, that is no excuse for being so completely ignorant of the world outside our borders. Considering that one of the (more important?) powers enumerated to the President by the Constitution is Commander in Chief, it behooves you to know the issues that he (or she) might likely encounter during their term in office. And let me tell you, if I know more about foreign affairs than the candidate, then you are not at all ready to assume the role of Commander in Chief. Stop your navel gazing. You have four years to prepare and educate yourselves for the next election. I suggest you use your time wisely.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday November 19 2016, @10:02PM
He's scary. Scary not because he's directly threatening, but because he's an indicator of the populous and their prejudices and desires.
Trump played the electorate exactly as if he were negotiating one of his business deals. Promise whatever gets him in, worry about the particulars afterwards. He has to translate that to political power now, in business he got his foot in the door and then turned to his lawyers to get him concessions until he had what he really wanted. It is a different game now and he has to learn as he goes.