Is Trump Really Racist? Danger of crying wolf?

Drewbot

Philosopher
Drewbot
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
7,715
Trump is not affiliated with, or accepting of racist groups.

This article clearly lays out the case that he is not racist, and the media has created a 'cry wolf' problem, in which , if someone ran for president who was actually a racist, the media cries of racist, would fall on deaf, over saturated ears of people who won't believe them.

I strongly recommend reading this article.

http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http:...w3QWIxRnVxRw==&b=t:TA_nNgSP4kCXBxItG5afUg&m=1
 
Drewbot said:
Trump is not affiliated with, or accepting of racist groups.

This article clearly lays out the case that he is not racist, and the media has created a 'cry wolf' problem, in which , if someone ran for president who was actually a racist, the media cries of racist, would fall on deaf, over saturated ears of people who won't believe them.

I strongly recommend reading this article.

http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http:...w3QWIxRnVxRw==&b=t:TA_nNgSP4kCXBxItG5afUg&m=1
Click to expand...

Two words: Jeff Sessions
 
Drewbot said:
Trump is not affiliated with, or accepting of racist groups.

This article clearly lays out the case that he is not racist, and the media has created a 'cry wolf' problem, in which , if someone ran for president who was actually a racist, the media cries of racist, would fall on deaf, over saturated ears of people who won't believe them.

I strongly recommend reading this article.

http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http:...w3QWIxRnVxRw==&b=t:TA_nNgSP4kCXBxItG5afUg&m=1
Click to expand...
At first glance, the article is a steaming load of biased BS. Please point out the bits that make your case and I'll re-examine.
 
Drewbot said:
Trump is not affiliated with, or accepting of racist groups.

This article clearly lays out the case that he is not racist, and the media has created a 'cry wolf' problem, in which , if someone ran for president who was actually a racist, the media cries of racist, would fall on deaf, over saturated ears of people who won't believe them.

I strongly recommend reading this article.

http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http:...w3QWIxRnVxRw==&b=t:TA_nNgSP4kCXBxItG5afUg&m=1
Click to expand...

That's not the sort of link I'll ever click on.

Trump's a Trumpist. But his campaign was racist from day one, and, like Spindrift says, he's just appointed one to be AG.
 
Drewbot said:
Trump is not affiliated with, or accepting of racist groups.

This article clearly lays out the case that he is not racist, and the media has created a 'cry wolf' problem, in which , if someone ran for president who was actually a racist, the media cries of racist, would fall on deaf, over saturated ears of people who won't believe them.
....
Click to expand...

"Racist" hardly has a precise definition. If you ask whether Trump is a Ku Klux Klan-style racist who thinks black people are somehow inferior to whites, the answer is probably no. But he has a history of abusing minorities for his own gain. His real estate company was sued in the '70s for not renting to blacks. His AC casino employees have reported that blacks were discriminated against in multiple ways. He famously said he didn't want black people counting his money. He bought newspaper ads calling for the execution of the "Central Park Five," five black teenagers who were later proven innocent of a terrible attack, and he has never admitted being wrong. Calling Mexicans thieves and racists, and claiming that a federal judge with Mexican parents couldn't judge him fairly, is pretty much the textbook definition of racism, as Paul Ryan said. Demeaning all Muslims is no different. The whole "Make America Great Again!" theme is a dog-whistle that the KKK and the Nazis and the rednecks certainly hear as "Make America White Again!" Whether Trump is a racist in his heart is hard to say. But on the public record, he promotes and benefits from racism, and that's plenty bad enough.
 
Trebuchet said:
That's not the sort of link I'll ever click on.

Trump's a Trumpist. But his campaign was racist from day one, and, like Spindrift says, he's just appointed one to be AG.
Click to expand...

The blogger is Scott Alexander, who is an extremely insightful and brilliant writer. He is also a liberal. He is well worth reading.

As for Jeff Sessions being a racist, that's pretty much garbage. Jeff Sessions was "borked" by Ted Kennedy before "borked" was even a word. And that was 30 years ago. Less than 25 years after Robert Byrd was a Grand Wizard for the KKK, he was voted Senate Majority Whip by the Democrats.
 
Bob001 said:
"Racist" hardly has a precise definition. If you ask whether Trump is a Ku Klux Klan-style racist who thinks black people are somehow inferior to whites, the answer is probably no. But he has a history of abusing minorities for his own gain. His real estate company was sued in the '70s for not renting to blacks. His AC casino employees have reported that blacks were discriminated against in multiple ways. He famously said he didn't want black people counting his money. He bought newspaper ads calling for the execution of the "Central Park Five," five black teenagers who were later proven innocent of a terrible attack, and he has never admitted being wrong. Calling Mexicans thieves and racists, and claiming that a federal judge with Mexican parents couldn't judge him fairly, is pretty much the textbook definition of racism, as Paul Ryan said. Demeaning all Muslims is no different. The whole "Make America Great Again!" theme is a dog-whistle that the KKK and the Nazis and the rednecks certainly hear as "Make America White Again!" Whether Trump is a racist in his heart is hard to say. But on the public record, he promotes and benefits from racism, and that's plenty bad enough.
Click to expand...

Both claims here are demonstrably false.

These claims are more subjective, but I believe they are false.
 
Its like a drug dealer. Who cares if he buys his own product? He's still selling it to people.

He surrounds himself and panders to white supremacists and their apologists. Isn't that bad enough?
 
sunmaster14 said:
These claims are more subjective, but I believe they are false.
Click to expand...

"Some, I assume, are good people"?

sunmaster14 said:
The blogger is Scott Alexander, who is an extremely insightful and brilliant writer. He is also a liberal. He is well worth reading.

As for Jeff Sessions being a racist, that's pretty much garbage. Jeff Sessions was "borked" by Ted Kennedy before "borked" was even a word. And that was 30 years ago. Less than 25 years after Robert Byrd was a Grand Wizard for the KKK, he was voted Senate Majority Whip by the Democrats.
Click to expand...

What does it take for one to be a racist, I wonder.
 
Argumemnon said:
What does it take for one to be a racist, I wonder.
Click to expand...

I don't know about a regular racist, but apparently, saying "white people have it pretty good" makes you a reverse racist.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
"Some, I assume, are good people"?



What does it take for one to be a racist, I wonder.
Click to expand...

Every country has thieves and rapists. Saying that a particular country is "sending" a disproportionate number of them to our country is not racist. It might not be true, it might be based on faulty evidence, but it is not saying anything negative about an identifiable ethnic group. At worst, it is only saying something negative about a subset of such an ethnic group which has been selected for its negative properties. It's similar to saying that most of the Jews in prison are thieves and rapists. Do you think that would be antisemitic?
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
<snip>

What does it take for one to be a racist, I wonder.
Click to expand...

What does it take for one to be exonerated of accusations of racism, I wonder? If somebody makes a completely uncorroborated accusation that you said something racist 30 years ago, does that mean you are now a racist?
 
sunmaster14 said:
Every country has thieves and rapists. Saying that a particular country is "sending" a disproportionate number of them to our country is not racist.
Click to expand...

You have an amazing ability to ignore the connotations of language.

Trump intimated that the Mexicans in the USA were overwhelmingly linked to drugs or rape.

sunmaster14 said:
What does it take for one to be exonerated of accusations of racism, I wonder?
Click to expand...

Don't make racist comments. That'd be a good start
 
sunmaster14 said:
Both claims here are demonstrably false.

These claims are more subjective, but I believe they are false.
Click to expand...
There are not false.

Trump's ad called for the return of the death penalty and said the accused should be afraid. The inference is very clear. Willfully ignoring it doesn't make it false.

The convictions were vacated and the charges were dropped. Since no court finds anyone 'innocent', you are technically correct. But they were exonerated.
 
Spindrift said:
There are not false.

Trump's ad called for the return of the death penalty and said the accused should be afraid. The inference is very clear. Willfully ignoring it doesn't make it false.
Click to expand...

I discussed this in another thread. Why don't you dig up a copy of the ad that Trump paid for. It doesn't explicitly mention the Central Park Five at all. Futhermore, it calls for reinstatement of the death penalty as general policy. Because it would be ex post facto, it couldn't be applied to the Central Park Five in any event, and I'm sure that Trump understood that.

The convictions were vacated and the charges were dropped. Since no court finds anyone 'innocent', you are technically correct. But they were exonerated.
Click to expand...

I think it is likely that at least some, and perhaps all, of the Central Park Five were guilty of being involved in the attack. In any event, it was certainly not proved that they were innocent.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I think it is likely that at least some, and perhaps all, of the Central Park Five were guilty of being involved in the attack. In any event, it was certainly not proved that they were innocent.
Click to expand...

In other words, you are using your own "facts" here and expect us just to go along with it. This even after the sole attacker confessed.

BTW, here's the ad for those that want to see it https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/fbbef0c3b1eddc6279b92e601d2dc63585397b48/0_0_970_1367/master/970.jpg
 
Spindrift said:
Two words: Jeff Sessions
Click to expand...

Nation-wide Stop and Frisk - an explicitly violent, ineffective, and unconstitutional call to use state power to harass black and brown people.

The OP is a silly attempt at gaslighting, and nothing more. Don't need help recognizing a white supremacist, been doing it for 40 years now because my life's depended on it.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I discussed this in another thread. Why don't you dig up a copy of the ad that Trump paid for. It doesn't explicitly mention the Central Park Five at all. Futhermore, it calls for reinstatement of the death penalty as general policy. Because it would be ex post facto, it couldn't be applied to the Central Park Five in any event, and I'm sure that Trump understood that.
Click to expand...
Please. Trump didn't just put the ad in the paper at that time because it was a coincidence. It was directly targeted at them. Any suggestion otherwise is wishful thinking and I highly doubt that Trump cared anything about ex post facto.

sunmaster14 said:
I think it is likely that at least some, and perhaps all, of the Central Park Five were guilty of being involved in the attack. In any event, it was certainly not proved that they were innocent.
Click to expand...
More wishful thinking so the innocent aren't really innocent?
 
Spindrift said:
Please. Trump didn't just put the ad in the paper at that time because it was a coincidence. It was directly targeted at them. Any suggestion otherwise is wishful thinking and I highly doubt that Trump cared anything about ex post facto.
Click to expand...

I think it is misleading to the point of lying to claim that Trump called for executing the Central Park Five. No doubt the Central Park Jogger attack was the event which precipitated his call for a change in law enforcement and punishment policy, but the claim that he called for the accused's execution is simply false.

More wishful thinking so the innocent aren't really innocent?
Click to expand...

Well, there's the Armstrong Report. Is it so wishful to believe it?
 
Spindrift said:
Please. Trump didn't just put the ad in the paper at that time because it was a coincidence. It was directly targeted at them. Any suggestion otherwise is wishful thinking and I highly doubt that Trump cared anything about ex post facto.
Click to expand...


"At what point did we cross the line from the fine and noble pursuit of genuine civil liberties to the reckless and dangerously permissive atmosphere which allows criminals of every age to beat and rape a helpless woman and then laugh at her family's anguish?"

The accused were all under 16.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I think it is misleading to the point of lying to claim that Trump called for executing the Central Park Five. No doubt the Central Park Jogger attack was the event which precipitated his call for a change in law enforcement and punishment policy, but the claim that he called for the accused's execution is simply false.
Click to expand...

Only if you're being needlessly pedantic.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I discussed this in another thread. Why don't you dig up a copy of the ad that Trump paid for. It doesn't explicitly mention the Central Park Five at all. Futhermore, it calls for reinstatement of the death penalty as general policy. Because it would be ex post facto, it couldn't be applied to the Central Park Five in any event, and I'm sure that Trump understood that.
Click to expand...

That's that dog whistle thing again. At the time everybody knew exactly who he meant and what he wanted to do to them. And when has the fact that something was illegal or impossible kept Trump from running his mouth?

sunmaster14 said:
I think it is likely that at least some, and perhaps all, of the Central Park Five were guilty of being involved in the attack. In any event, it was certainly not proved that they were innocent.
Click to expand...

On what basis? Your suspicions about black people? The original allegations -- and resulting convictions -- were that they all were in it together. What you're claiming is something that even the prosecutors never said. Why is it so hard to believe that five young teenagers were abused and coerced by cops who needed to close a high-profile case? The original five were freed -- and later won a $40 million settlement -- after a repeat sex offender confessed that he committed the crime alone.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/n_7836/index3.html#print
http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/centralparkfive/
 
Mumbles said:
Nation-wide Stop and Frisk - an explicitly violent, ineffective, and unconstitutional call to use state power to harass black and brown people.

The OP is a silly attempt at gaslighting, and nothing more. Don't need help recognizing a white supremacist, been doing it for 40 years now because my life's depended on it.
Click to expand...

Add that to him wanting to allowing local police to enforce federal immigration law and things can get scary.
 
Bob001 said:
That's that dog whistle thing again. At the time everybody knew exactly who he meant and what he wanted to do to them. And when has the fact that something was illegal or impossible kept Trump from running his mouth?
Click to expand...

Yeah but as you can see the plausible deniability is being used right now.
 
Bob001 said:
That's that dog whistle thing again. At the time everybody knew exactly who he meant and what he wanted to do to them. And when has the fact that something was illegal or impossible kept Trump from running his mouth?
Click to expand...

What you claimed was false. Either you retract it, or I take your willingness to propagate falsehoods into account in the future.

On what basis? Your suspicions about black people?
Click to expand...

Pffft. The last refuge of somebody losing an argument that has anything to do with race.

The original allegations -- and resulting convictions -- were that they all were in it together. What you're claiming is something that even the prosecutors never said. Why is it so hard to believe that five young teenagers were abused and coerced by cops who needed to close a high-profile case? The original five were freed -- and later won a $40 million settlement -- after a repeat sex offender confessed that he committed the crime alone.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/n_7836/index3.html#print
http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/centralparkfive/
Click to expand...

You said that they were proven innocent. That was a false claim. I, in fact, think it is doubtful that they were innocent of all accusations with respect to the attack. My belief is based on commentaries I've read over the years. And the Armstrong Report, which I have not read, but which I have seen summarized.
 
It depends if you define a person who says racist things as racist. That's the most likely explanation, although they could be a liar, or a populist. Much as I hate Trump I doubt that he is a racist. He's an everything-ist and will issue inflammatory and bigoted statements against any person, group or thing that does not suit his agenda at the time.
 
sunmaster14 said:
What you claimed was false. Either you retract it, or I take your willingness to propagate falsehoods into account in the future.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

If a particular event makes the headlines, and someone responds to the situation by calling for measures against that sort of thing, how can you claim that the two are unrelated?
 
sunmaster14 said:
What you claimed was false. Either you retract it, or I take your willingness to propagate falsehoods into account in the future.
....
Click to expand...


People who lived in New York at the time knew exactly what Trump meant:
“Muggers and murderers,” he wrote, “should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes.” Though he didn’t refer to the teenagers by name, it was clear to anyone in the city that he was referring to them.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/opinion/why-trump-doubled-down-on-the-central-park-five.html?_r=0

Believe what you want. The facts speak for themselves.
 
I have no idea if Trump is actually a racist or not. I certainly think that he tapped into folks' race-influenced fears and did so with sufficient skill that I don't think it was any sort of accident. Avoiding the use of specific, unambiguously racist terms allowed him to appeal to actual racists while allowing non-racists to convince themselves that he wasn't one.
 
baron said:
It depends if you define a person who says racist things as racist. That's the most likely explanation, although they could be a liar, or a populist. Much as I hate Trump I doubt that he is a racist. He's an everything-ist and will issue inflammatory and bigoted statements against any person, group or thing that does not suit his agenda at the time.
Click to expand...

gotcha!

This is it in one, Trump will do anything that he things will advance his case. don't bother looking for morals, look for salesmanship.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I discussed this in another thread. Why don't you dig up a copy of the ad that Trump paid for. It doesn't explicitly mention the Central Park Five at all. Futhermore, it calls for reinstatement of the death penalty as general policy. Because it would be ex post facto, it couldn't be applied to the Central Park Five in any event, and I'm sure that Trump understood that.


I think it is likely that at least some, and perhaps all, of the Central Park Five were guilty of being involved in the attack. In any event, it was certainly not proved that they were innocent.
Click to expand...

That gave me one of the best laughs I've had all day, thanks.
 
sunmaster14 said:
“should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes.”

The Central Park Five hadn't even killed anyone. Or at least they weren't accused of killing anyone.
Click to expand...

At the time the ad was run, it was almost certain that the victim would not survive. It was being investigated as a homicide.
 
baron said:
It depends if you define a person who says racist things as racist. That's the most likely explanation, although they could be a liar, or a populist. Much as I hate Trump I doubt that he is a racist. He's an everything-ist and will issue inflammatory and bigoted statements against any person, group or thing that does not suit his agenda at the time.
Click to expand...

Or he is a cynical opportunist who used racism as a weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom