Someone downvoted my response. Perhaps because they think that they are not the same thing...I suggest looking at the definition of Demagog a little bit more.
"synonyms:rabble-rouser, agitator, political agitator, soapbox orator, firebrand, fomenter, provocateur"
A Demagog is someone who uses hate to bring attention to themselves. Would you call Mahatma Gandhi a demagog? Nope.
demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument
hatemonger: a person who kindles hatred, enmity, or prejudice in others
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
"In the Middle East, we have people chopping the heads off Christians, we have people chopping the heads off many other people. We have things that we have never seen before -- as a group, we have never seen before, what's happening right now. The medieval times -- I mean, we studied medieval times -- not since medieval times have people seen what's going on. I would bring back waterboarding and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding."
"I think Islam hates us. There's a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There is an unbelievable hatred of us."
I would say demagogic hatemonger is a perfectly accurate description of Donald Trump.
Hardly. Demagoguery appeals to people's emotions and prejudices, rather than rational argument. There can be no doubt that Trump takes exactly such an approach. And he has vocally encouraged violence and identified specific groups to serve as targets, based on race and religion. That description is entirely apt.
If you are going to use that description, it will apply to every politician with modest success, however it is not what is commonly thought of as a demagogue, probably because something that applies to almost everybody is a meaningless adjective.
I still wonder if any large tech companies (Google, Apple, etc) will endorse against Trump before November. They did on Prop 8, and Trump will similarly have an immediate negative impact on many of their employees.
Several large companies have sharply withdrawn support from the RNC without abandoning it completely. Microsoft used to make monetary donations to them every election cycle, this year they are donating technical support to the convention but no money. YMMV on whether that's good/bad/enough.
Actually not. AFAIK, most Chinese H1B holders working in FLAG (Facebook, Linkedin, Amazon and Google) are either actively support Trump or strongly against Clinton. From their perspective, Trump is against illegal immigration while protect legal immigration visa holders.
But from the company perspective, it's another story.
I have to wonder if these are Chinese immigrants who are loyal to the government in China and as such find Trump's strong authoritarian streak reminiscent of home.
The only things Trump is right about are the exact same things that every politician says:
> He's right that many Americans are getting screwed by the system. He’s right that the economy is not growing nearly fast enough. He's right that we're drowning in political correctness, and that broken campaign finance laws have bred a class of ineffective career politicians.
I would question the assumption that every politician says PC is something negative that we have too much of. Certainly I'd have hard time finding many left-wing politicians saying that.
Perhaps, or maybe people were* tribal animals, just as they were once cavemen.
Globalization progresses mankind forward, it will ultimately make us better versions of ourselves. The root of Trump's evil is trying to reverse this progress by locking down borders and rejecting religions that are not the norm in America.
Thank you for writing this. So many want to tiptoe around and ignore this election, like they've always done before, and that may be the worst mistake of all in this situation.
With Trump already an also-ran in November, who may even have to run as an independent, it doesn't take much courage to write this now. It just became politically correct to slam Trump in public. If you wait too long, he'll have dropped out already! "Daddy, what did you do in the Great War?"
It's been very interesting to follow this election cycle along with Sam Harris' podcasts. Would strongly recommend it, he's spoken in depth and very eloquently about the Trump situation: https://www.samharris.org/podcast .
"Casual" being the operative term here. Nixon et al had plenty to say behind closed doors that at least for the last generation or two, would not be tolerated by the decent voting public from a mainstream candidate with any hope of being elected. Trump is not only saying these things in public, on the record, but he's campaigning on them. He's a leader in misogyny and bigotry.
I thought "pure politics" posts weren't allowed/were discouraged on HN?
>dang 47 days ago
>It isn't that it's pro-Trump, it's that it's pure politics. Such posts always get heavily flagged, and it's hard to disagree with that, since they're typically not posted to gratify intellectual curiosity.
>Basic Income stories are political, but they aren't purely political. There's an intellectual interest in thinking about and debating such a major social change. Political horse race stories are the opposite.
It's not "pure politics" in the sense that it's from the president of Y Combinator.
And when he's talking about the need for people to no longer be silent he's referring to the circles he runs with (VCs, Bilderbergers, etc). So in that sense his statement his very relevant.
Disappointed to see Sam repeat things that are plainly false. Everyone says that Trump says such horrible things, but why is it that so often those same people have to misquote him to make it seem horrible?
> He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage and that we should ban Muslims from entering the country.
He said that a judge of Mexican descent isn't treating him fairly, and that it is probably because of his heritage. That's very different from saying that the judge can't treat him fairly because of his heritage. How could someone with Sam's command of language and attention to detail not see the difference? And where was the condemnation of the Obama admin when they tried to prohibit an Iranian-American judge from presiding over Iranian immigration cases?
> He has accused Obama of somehow being responsible for the recent shooting in Orlando.
The WP originally ran this headline and changed it because it was such a wild inference from what he actually said.
> Probably nobody who is against [a presidential candidate] is bending any facts to try to stop [him/her]
Given the reality of 21st century electoral politics in the United States, I find it unsurprising, yet deeply disappointing all the same, that anyone actually believes this.
If Trump were any less of a lunatic I would say that people are definitely bending the truth around him. But he supplies so much fuel for his opponents there's really no need.
Given that people like this (that is, willing to bend facts, lie, etc) exist, I think it's dangerous to assume they exist only in groups other than those that you ascribe yourself a member of. I believe people do horrible things for what they believe the greater good all the time, and that's just the people acting (or believe they are acting) altruistically, not the ones acting in that manner for selfish reasons.
In fact, it's hard for me to get too mad at those that think they are working for the cause of good, because even if I believe they are misguided (and would not use such tactics myself), as at least they are doing what they think is the best thing to help. Intent matters (but is, of course, not the only thing, nor even the most important thing).
Damn, I've been guilty of confirmation bias and looking for the answer I want without realizing it, but to be doing it willfully is mildly shocking to see.
I think it's the cognitive dissonance. People have so convinced themselves that Trump is Hitler incarnate, that they are unable to read anything positive about him. Sam would be crucified for this "Trump is right post" if he hadn't followed that up with 10 paragraphs of negative (some false) things.
I've tried to engage people regarding Trump on facebook (not confrontationally; with facts and debate). The last time I replied to a post regarding the Mexican-American judge, the OP deleted the entire post within an hour. The time before that when someone said Trump has no policies I pointed out his major policies/themes that he's had and got radio silence on the thread.
If you watch the interview that someone linked above, it is what he says. He says:
- he is being unfair, so now I say "why"
Now people invert this argument and say Trump is saying "He can't do his job because of his heritage". That's completely different from saying "he is not doing his job, and the most probable reason is his heritage".
Now you can certainly say that even the latter argument is racist or xenophobic or morally wrong, but why fabricate something that he never said or implied?
You're nitpicking man. It's not about the exact wording Trump used. Candidates are constantly paraphrased, that's part of the way it goes. Trump agreed with the reporter's assertion, and the basis of what he says is the same; that the guy's heritage implies his ability to do his job. Which is absurd, AND one of the main reasons that it has gotten so much attention is it highlights that Trump is aware that he has angered latinos with his overt racism.
Anyway, whatever, man. Keep nitpicking if you want. It's really sad that you feel a need to do that to make even a weak attempt to defend that horrible piece of human garbage.
>Now you can certainly say that even the latter argument is racist or xenophobic or morally wrong, but why fabricate something that he never said or implied?
Why are you splitting hairs over semantics when the bottom line is that Trump is racist? Seriously... if the misquote leads to the same conclusion as the actual quote then why does it matter?
The implication that he's not doing his job because of his heritage is still pretty bad. It minimizes the judge's experience and boils him down to a skin tone. He has a conflict of interest because of his heritage? Appeal, sue him, whatever. Prove it.
Doesn't look down-voted to me but I think should be based on inaccuracies. Trump said "it's an inherent conflict of interest" which very much does imply that he does not think the judge can do his job (before considering his rulings) specifically because of his heritage.
You just quoted the reporter, not Trump! This was the same tactic used to claim that Trump said we should have all Muslims wear a mark in the U.S. A reported said that, then people said that Trump said it.
Trump: Jake, if he was giving me fair rulings, I wouldn't be talking to you this way. He's given me horrible rulings.
Tapper: But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is, if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job ...
Race can be a motivator, you know that right? Human beings are not machines with 0 bias just because they are in a position where they are supposed to have 0 bias.
If you would look at everything he said then you would know how he meant it. He mentioned LaRaza, he mentioned previous rulings from this judge and much more.
Instead you pick one quote out and call it a day.
Does that mean that it is "literally racist" for a non-white person to claim a white police officer, judge, etc. treated them unfairly because of their race?
There is evidence to support the claim. The judge released information that he wasn't supposed to (judge reversed the release later), and he set the first court day on the day of the GOP convention. There's a few other things too.
How is that no evidence? That is evidence to support the claim. Is it proof? Is it enough to condemn the judge? I don't know, but it is false to say that Trump came out of nowhere with this and has no evidence.
But see, the way this is supposed to work is, you tell the court about it. If that doesn't work, you tell the appeals court about it. You don't throw claims like this around in the national media (at least, normal litigants don't).
Those quotes prove my point. Trump did not say he can't do his job because of his heritage. He said he isn't doing his job, and that he thinks it's because of his heritage.
And there's nothing racist about that conclusion. People do act based on their identity and heritage, and there's nothing wrong with that. If it affects their rulings as a judge, then that's problem, and all Trump has said is that he's not getting fair rulings (subjective, but that is his POV), and that there's an obvious potential conflict of interest.
Look, I get that Trump is saying "Unfair rulings, caused by being Mexican." But this is no different from "He is Mexican, which causes unfair rulings." It's logically equivalent.
If you said "She is dumb because she's a girl," you would be (rightfully) pilloried for being sexist. No reasonable person is going to interpret that statement like you are interpreting Trump's comments.
Black people keep complaining all the time how whites are biased against the blacks. Are they (blacks) racist for pointing out something that might actually be true?!
He says "BIG OUTRAGEOUS THING, with long list of qualifiers that follow" the media reports the first part and completely misses the second. Mostly it's a great way to game the system to get free media attention.
It's a manifestation of dog whistle politics. He says this stuff and we understand the implication that Mexicans are coming here and screwing things up. But his supporters can deflect criticism because the literal words are sufficiently vague that you can accuse people of inferring too much.
I believe that he gets to have it both ways: those of his supporters who are themselves isolationist or maybe even racist are excited to hear him say they same things they say. Those who are more moderate take this "he's just misunderstood and misquoted" tactic.
Nice try, but you're defending the indefensible. You're arguing semantics when it's very clear what Trump means by his words, that he repeats in different sentences and occasions. What's the difference between what he actually said regarding the judge in his case and your 'clarification'? it's the same thing.
You also conveniently ignored the fact that Trump wants to ban about 1.2 billion people from entering the US because of their religion, and treat the Muslims already in the US as a fifth column similar to what the Nazis did with the Jews. How long before the frothing-in-the-mouth, 'patriotic', armed Trump goons commit a Kristallnacht against Muslims in the US? this is exactly where we're heading with a Trump presidency.
Frankly, it's disappointing that anyone with a sliver of intelligence can be fooled by this dangerous, reckless, and divisive figure. A figure that has made racism and misogyny acceptable to the masses, and, in the ominous words of the future dictator: "racial profiling is not the worst thing to do".
> You also conveniently ignored the fact that Trump wants to ...
I didn't ignore it, nobody even mentioned. Every argument should stand on its own, and be built on facts and logic.
Tossing in words like Nazis, frothing-in-the-mouth, dangerous, fool, racism, misogyny, and dictator are all unrelated buzzwords.
If you think this judge situation is so vile and leads to racist dictatorship, why have you not called for the resignation of Obama after his admin tried to force a judge with Iranian heritage from hearing Iranian-American immigration cases?
Flip this around. Would you be okay with a presidential candidate saying that a white judge was unable to do his job b/c of his color? What if a ban of additional white immigrants was being proposed? Would you be okay with a female candidate stating that women are clearly superior to the inferior male?
I hope you would stand up and speak out against such actions, because I know I would.
The man isn't defending trumps views. He's making a point that Trump is being misquoted to support an argument. It doesn't matter how right or wrong you make trump out to be because it's not about that.
Ok, I'll play your game. First, the judge situation is not the worst thing about Trump, it's actually a very very minor thing in the scheme of things, but I agree with you on the Iranian judge blocking, that is a very wrong and racist decision by whoever decided on it in the Obama admin, but it doesn't mean that, just because Obama did it, it's ok for Trump to do it. Furthermore, the only reason Trump is calling bias here is because he knows that he antagonized people of Mexican origin, which is in itself a massive show of incompetence and short-sightedness.
Re: Muslim ban/profiling. You said that no one mentioned it. Apparently, you and I read different articles by sama then.
I'm sorry, but being a Trump supporter means you accept his positions on race, immigrants, and the economy. Otherwise, why on earth are you supporting him? because he told you he'll "make America great again"? no one can argue with that, but like sama mentioned, this is but a trap to lure you in, but the honey ain't there, it's just hate, misery, and xenophobia all the way inside.
I'm not arguing that you should vote for Trump. I'm just pointing out the lies and distortion. People should make their decision based on facts.
> Trump is calling bias here is because he knows that he antagonized people of Mexican origin
Doesn't matter. Even if Trump deliberately antagonized people of Mexican origin, he still deserves fair treatment in court.
> Re: Muslim ban/profiling
Muslim profiling is the de facto security policy in the United States and has been since way before Trump announced his candidacy. If Muslim profiling is equivalent to Nazi treatment of the Jews, I look forward to your spirited campaign calling for the resignation and charging of Obama. I agree on the Muslim ban: not a good idea, would have no effect on terrorism, and is contrary to the ideals of the country.
> You said that no one mentioned it. Apparently, you and I read different articles by sama then.
It's my fault, I meant no one mentioned it in the thread, and I didn't realize that you were referencing the articles reference. But again, I do think it's irrelevant to the point about the judge. Every argument should stand on logic and truth, otherwise we're just like the conspiracy theorists who put together 1 true argument, and 9 false ones, then point to the true one whenever someone points out the issues with the false ones.
> I'm sorry, but being a Trump supporter means you accept his positions on race, immigrants, and the economy.
I do agree with his position on removing illegal immigrants. They're a modern slave labor class in America that is being capitalized by the rich. They're mistreated, underpaid, and when I look at it the only two solutions I can think of to the problem are open borders or enforcement of the borders. Unfortunately Trump is the only candidate calling for the latter.
If Trump truly believed the judge was biased, why hasn't he instructed his lawyers to request him to be removed? From my understanding he has made no such formal request. The reason is because he is losing the case and those documents that came out a few weeks ago further solidify that.
> He said that a judge of Mexican descent isn't treating him fairly, and that it is probably because of his heritage.
The judge is an _American_ of Mexican ethnicity. Trump said that the judge gave unfair rulings because of the judge's ethnicity. Trump is advocating that ethnicity "trumps" citizenship, judicial duty, or any other personal and professional virtues. As Paul Ryan correctly noted this kind of essentialism is textbook racism.
Or put another way. Were the rulings so egregious that a white judge, or a black judge, or an asian judge would rule differently? Aside from the judge's ethnicity what has he said or done in the past to imply any bias against Trump? If Trump truly believes the judge has a strong bias why hasn't he instructed his lawyers to for a motion of recusal, or a change of venue, or any other legal remedy?
> And where was the condemnation of the Obama admin when they tried to prohibit an Iranian-American judge from presiding over Iranian immigration cases?
It was wrong for the Justice Dept to do this. But the Obama admin being wrong doesn't make Trump more right. Both can be wrong. BTW, the Obama DOJ recognized its error, reversed course, and settled with the Iranian-American judge: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/03/454394225/...
When a judge joins a group called LaRaza "the race", a violent mexican affiliated group that burns american flags and wants to return California to Mexico then maybe, just maybe race does have something to do with the ideas that this judge espouses and hence why that judge's race SEEMINGLY influences his decisions.
Surely not even you think that Trump is an actual racist, as in: he thinks mexicans are worth less as human beings purely for being mexican.
No, you just want to point out how he said things the "wrong" way. Well that incidentally is political correctness which is the very thing people are fed up with.
FYI "the race" is not the only meaning of "la raza" (surprise, word can have several meaning) and not the one meant in "La Raza". And the group is not called "La Raza" either. It is called San Diego La Raza Bar Association.
Believe it or not, unaffiliated groups can have similar names. The Judge is a member of California La Raza Lawyers Association which is entirely different and shares no common cause with the National Council of La Raza.
And note this 2002 NYT article mentioning Judge Curiel when he was a federal prosecutor and how much he valued his ethnic and linguistic ties to Mexico.
Concerning the 2014 San Diego La Raza Scholarship Fund and Judge Curiel's participation on the selection committee that awarded a scholarship to Ricardo Elorza, self-described as "a boy from Oaxaca, who did not know English and is "undocumented"
There's no indication that judge's race has influenced his decisions. Again, if the judge was white, black, asian, or cuban, would the rulings be any different? I think not, the judge's rulings (sending the case to a jury, unsealing documents of a significant public figure, delaying the trial until after the election, continuing a class action after one plaintiff leaves) are all reasonable legal decisions.
> Surely not even you think that Trump is an actual racist, as in: he thinks mexicans are worth less as human beings purely for being mexican.
He's never said anything like that so I don't think he's a frothing at the mouth racist. Based on his public statements I'd say he's a mild racist who holds some old-school prejudicial attitudes on race and gender. His attitudes were fairly normal fifty years ago.
By the same token judge Curiel has not said anything racist or prejudicial against white people in general, or against Trump in particular. He's a judge, and judges put aside their political views and apply the law fairly. They do this all the time. So it would be a stretch to say he has an anger boner against Trump.
> No, you just want to point out how he said things the "wrong" way. Well that incidentally is political correctness which is the very thing people are fed up with.
I agree that PC reactions to perceived racism/sexism/islamophobia can go overboard and obscure the truth. Such as the Sam Harris vs Ben Affleck incident.
The problem in this case Trump is basically saying "this guy hates me because he's mexican". There's no "right" way to say this. There's no deeper truth being unearthed. The judge made rulings against Trump, and Trump unloaded against the guy. This is Trump trying to save face and settle a personal score.
Also worth noting that for latinos, particularly mexicans, La Raza, is a term associated to an intellectual movement started with an essay named "La Raza cosmica" or the cosmic race. The purpose of the essay was to promote opposing views to then growing Nazi superiority ideas. It's basically the antithesis of racism, portraying a future where humanity tracends current notions of nationallity and race for a common destiny. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Raza_Cósmica
I find it kind of sad that we can fall all over ourselves declaring how some white judges are totally biased against minorities (or biased in favor of other rich white people... like the judge in the recent Stanford rape case) and that is just fine. But flip the script and suggest that a hispanic judge could possibly be biased against a person that has been quoted (and/or misquoted) as saying unkind things against certain other hispanics and that is racist. I guess that only makes sense if you buy into the "only white people can be racist" philosophy. I believe anyone can be racist. I believe anyone can be prejudiced. I believe it is entirely possible that the judge in the Trump University case could be biased (he is a human after all). I don't believe suggesting it as a theory is racist.
If the judge is acting in a manner unfit of a US judge, why dont trumps lawyers file for a recusal of the judge, or any other various legal methods of assigning a different judge to the case?
Can you show any evidence that the judge has acted in a manner unfit of his judicial duty? Or that the case lead to outcomes that were harsher than the norm for such a decision?
Maybe they did or will do that. I'm not privy to any of the inner workings of this case. If you are then maybe you could share those details. I simple said it is possible he is biased and suggesting so is not racist.
So.... is it racist for people to say white judges are being harsher on non-white defendants? Because in that scenario, it is usually the white judges that are viewed as being a problem. I don't see any difference here. Full stop.
> So.... is it racist for people to say white judges are being harsher on non-white defendants?
That depends on the basis of the claim. If its based on presumptions about group identity and how that will produce actions, then yes. If it is based on systematic gathering of data on judicial decisions, factual circumstances which cover the expected non-race inputs to those decisions, and information of about defendants' and judges' races, then, no.
Suggesting that he is biased based on nothing other than his race is racist. Presenting actual evidence of bias and identity-based motivation might not be racist, even though it might attribute bias to race, but that is a different story.
Trump has directly said that the judge must be biased, because of his ethnic heritage and the supposed "fact" (which isn't actually a fact, but anyway) that Trump is "building a wall" -- that is, the claim actually being made by Trump is that it is impossible for any person of Mexican heritage to not be biased against Trump because of Trump's specific policy stances.
I've yet to see anyone demonstrate actual bias in the Trump University trial. Trump exploited his position as the presumptive Republican nominee to pick a fight with the judge presiding over a civil dispute to which Trump-the-businessman (and not Trump-the-politician) was a party.
He then decided of his own volition to bring up the judge's ethnicity at a political rally and on national TV. This, mind you, was before he made what Paul Ryan called "the textbook definition of a racist comment": "I'm building a wall; it's an inherent conflict of interest."
Even if you manage to convince yourself that Trump did not say anything overtly racist (which can be done with a tremendous amount of motivated reasoning), he still shat the bed twice by prioritizing his business interests over his political campaign and making the conversation about the judge's race.
I've yet to see anyone (Trump supporter or otherwise) defend Trump University as a legitimate institution. Even Trump himself doesn't comment on it. He merely tries to discredit the judge presiding over the case and the plaintiffs.
Yes, pretty much the worst of both worlds there. The people who loved Bush will hate him for speaking out afterwards, and the people who hated Bush will hate him for being spineless and not speaking out when it actually might have mattered.
Thank goodness none of the remaining candidates voted for that war and vehemently defended their decision till the late 2000s or they'd stand no chance in this race.
While I think Trump is a bad choice, I think comparing him to Hitler is overzealous and irresponsible. There are no doubt similarities between the two but Hitler wrote an entire book about the "Jewish Peril" and how it was destroying society and needed to be dealt with. It was clear that Hitler had an agenda that was anti-semetic, and the charisma/ability to execute on it. Trump is a racist and a bigot, but he is far from someone that would be able to implement a "Final Solution". By drawing the comparisons to Hitler, we oversell Trump and what he is and at the same time bring Hitler and his actions to a lower level which they never be at. We should sell Trump for what he is: someone who uses the racism and ignorance of the American people to cover up the fact that he has no idea what he is doing.
There really aren't. In any case, the same was said about George W. Bush during both his runs for the Oval Office, and while I don't say he was a particularly worthwhile president, in hindsight the Hitler comparison was every bit as erroneous as even an elementary knowledge of 20th century history would suggest.
so wanting ur borders secured is now literally Hitler. Okay. Well you should talk to Clinton because building a wall was her position a few years ago until her party forced her further far left.
What exactly makes him racist? What exactly makes him a misogynist? I never got an answer for that.
The question asked was, "What did he do that proves he is racist or bigoted?" If you want to be pedantic and say that Trump is bigoted against an ethnicity instead of a race, then fine.
Why, pray tell, should I find ethnic bigotry less repugnant than racism?
Crippled America, Time To Get Tough, The Art of the Deal, The Art of the Comeback, The America We Deserve
The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Work and Life by Ivanka Trump, The Way to the Top, How to Get Rich, Think Like a Billionaire, The Best Golf Advice I Ever Received, Why We Want You To Be Rich, The Best Real Estate Advice I Ever Received, Think Big and Kick Ass, Never Give Up, Think Like a Champion, Midas Touch
While I think Trump is a bad choice, I think comparing him to Hitler is overzealous and irresponsible.
I think it's just plain lazy.
In Presidential elections, we generally have terrible choices (even if this doesn't become obvious until much later). This year is particularly noteworthy.
Painting one side as evil incarnate is neither insightful nor productive, and the type of fodder easily available on hundreds of other sites.
I find the left is fairly hysterical when it sees itself potentially out of power. There is literally anti-Trump graffiti near my home, in a solid democratic state. Someone just defaced his Hollywood star. This is all accepted by lefties as justifiable. I think the left is more accepting of hysterics and hyperbole because it gets results with the rank and file. Romney was painted as this wall street shark that would destroy America during the election when he was a pretty much middle of the road guy who probably would have been a better steward of the economy than Obama. Obama just middle-of-the-road'd him out with the 'why change horses midstream' narrative. Trump is, of course, Hitler to them. Its all so tiresome and the kind of narratives adults should grow out of, but seemingly never do.
Here in Chicago we had Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders tell us that if Rahm gets re-elected his billionare friends will take over and destroy the city. Warren and Sanders never once mentioned their friends, the Daley family, and how the Daley dynasty left Chicago with debt it cannot ever pay off. Meanwhile, Rahm is raising taxes for pension perks for public sector unions and other lefty causes. More welfare, more section 8 housing, more tax raises on business, more anti-business legislation, more police in poor areas, etc. He did literally the opposite of what they claimed. Why do we let Warren and Sanders hysterically lie to us like this? Why do we let the left dominate this angry narrative and excuse them for it when its discovered to be a falsehood? The billionaires taking over narrative works, that's why, even when its clearly bullshit.
No idea about what a Trump presidency would be like, he clearly is playing the Tea party playbook here to get motivated GOP primary voters out there, but I imagine he'd be a milquetoast president probably unable to do much unless he maintains GOP majority in congress, and even then in-fighting in the GOP would be pretty rough on him. Honestly, a gridlocked congress that is ineffective would probably be best. There's a lot of federal meddling that is questionable to me that we've accepted as the status quo. Stopping that could only help.
I also think we also over-value what the presidency is. Its not a dictator. Without the support of congress, the president is fairly powerless outside of war powers and even those are limited without congress post-Nixon/Johnson. One of the wonders of the US is how well the founders got the balance of power right from early on. These decisions still pay dividends today.
That said, Clinton with a GOP majority congress is ideal to me. This scenario has enough gridlock to keep big government away a bit, enough gridlock to get good compromises, and Clinton's left-leaning stance on social issues are better, to me at least, than strict right-wing nonsense about alienating certain ethnic or religious groups. I also think SCOTUS has a strong right-wing advantage and it would be nice for Clinton to even that out.
Among the very few specific policy proposals Trump has put forward, these are the most prominent:
* Building a giant wall along the U.S.'s southern border to keep Mexicans out
* Rounding up and deporting Hispanics currently in the U.S. on a mass scale never before seen in history
I mean, yes, he's not proposing herding Hispanics into gas chambers, but he absolutely is talking about making American policy tilt harder against one particular race than it ever has in the past. Maybe that doesn't make him Hitler, but it definitely makes him something.
Although I don't want to turn this into oppression olympics, and at the risk of getting downvoted heavily, I want to point out that mass deportation of Hispanics wouldn't compare against hundreds of years of slavery of African Americans, forced mass migration and slaughter of Native Americans and the placing Japanese Americans in internment camps.
This is in no way saying "its not that bad of a policy" its still a horrible thing to propose, but saying "American policy tilt harder against one particular race than it ever has in the past" is ignoring a lot of history, unless you're talking about very recent events.
No, he proposed deporting illegal immigrants, which happen to be predominantly from Mexico. Many people of other backgrounds who are in the US illegally will be deported as well.
It's interesting that a presidential candidate can differentiate themselves from other candidates (and receive so much hatred) by stating that they will enforce the law when elected.
Making everyone obey the law is not tilting policy against one group just because that group has abused it disproportionately.
Trump isn't planning industrialized murder but he's certainly fine with deportation on a never before scale. Apart from that both are strikingly similar.
In 1954 Eisenhower approved Operation Wetback, rounding up over 1 million Mexicans and forcefully deporting them to Mexico. I am not sure anything Trump has proposed thus far would approach that scale, although he did make reference to it during a debate.
By my reading he wasn't attempting to set up Trump in direct comparison to Hitler. His focus was more on comparing the their manipulative rhetorical styles and negative psychological tactics. And on the need for people in his "camp" to stop pretending that they can be silent in the face of what Trump is doing -- without being effectively complicit in it.
Another liberal who hasnt understand Trump's appeal in the slightest. How you can put "political correctness is bad" and then say literally 2 sentences after that "he is a racist and a misogynist"
I mean the level of brainwashing is amazing.
Hmm, okay. Continuing down this line of discussion, can you share with us some details on Trump's proposed solutions for the various economic and social problems we face?
It's funny how candidates can just state problems to get people excited (e.g. Bring jobs back to America, We're getting screwed by the system, Break up the banks, etc.), and yet most people care so little about the solutions.
Because problems are easy; even Altman and Trump can agree on the problems. It's also easy to look backwards -- we can see what the problems are and how they were caused but to look forward is to look into the unknown and unknowable.
Also, people just like to complain. The most fervent supporters on both sides of the political spectrum are passionately complaining about something.
Even if provided a plan to address an issue, it's very debatable whether the plan would work. There's no winning, the goal post can always be moved because there are no fool-proof plans.
Having someone say "This is broken, I will do my best to fix it" is leaps and bounds better than 99% of politicians who pretend there is no problem. I will take someone who attempts and fails to fix a problem over the person saying there is no problem.
While I agree with the sentiment of the post, I was surprised by some of the examples provided, because they are what the press said and not what Trump said. With that said, it's surprising what choices for President the most powerful country in the world has.
> To anyone familiar with the history of Germany in the 1930s, it's chilling to watch Trump in action. [...]
Demagogic hate-mongers lead down terrible paths. It would be particularly embarrassing for us to fall for this—we are a nation of immigrants, and we know that immigrants built this country (and Trump, of course, is the grandson of immigrants and married to an immigrant).
As Hitler was Austrian, technically speaking, he was an immigrant too.
Only technically. Austria was historically always seen as part of the German nation, just not part of Germany-the-country for purely political reasons – first the Habsburgs didn't want to subjugate themselves to the Prussian upstarts, and when Austria-Hungary fell apart, the Entente forbade Austria to join Germany, but couldn't prevent the two from closely cooperating, nor the German population from accepting Austrians. So nobody saw him as a migrant.
Only after WW2 did the countries and societies start to drift apart (to no small part due to Hitler's semi-forced Anschluss of Austria).
If 'you' includes us non-Americans who are liable to be affected by US government policies: my suggestion would be to vote Libertarian. Sure, the Libertarian candidate won't win this election, but that's not the point. It's about what message you are sending, what incentives you are conveying, to both current and future politicians.
This certainly doesn't match what I've seen. All the people who think Trump is unfit seem perfectly willing to say so. All of the people who support him seem to be completely sincere in their belief that Trump would make a good president. I don't see anyone giving any indication that they think Trump shouldn't be president, but that they're afraid to say so. There is no "charade," as the author puts it.
It's possible that certain Republican leaders fit the description. But plenty of high-ranking Republicans have been willing to speak out against Trump, and those who endorse him mostly seem to be sincere about it. And of course everybody on the opposing side takes pretty much every opportunity to trash him (IMO rightfully so).
What's scary about Trump isn't that people are unwilling to speak out against him. What's scary is that so many people actually want him to win. Trump isn't the problem, Trump is the most visible and frightening symptom of a massive wave of ignorance and insecurity among the American electorate. He's the blood in the stool. Speaking out about how bad the blood is won't really help, you need to go in and kill the cancer that's causing it.
Not sure where you're seeing that. Many prominent Republicans have endorsed Trump, but then denounce comment after comment Trump makes, without ever removing their endorsement of the candidate out of loyalty to the party.
They might disagree with him on many things, but I don't think they think he's outright unfit. It seems to me that they still sincerely think he's the best choice when the other one is Clinton.
In any case, it's the electorate that really matters, not the leadership. I don't see any prospective voters afraid to speak their mind. Trump supporters among the general population all seem to be completely sincere. Trump opposers are unafraid to declare it.
> "He needs someone highly experienced and very knowledgeable because it's pretty obvious he doesn't know a lot about the issues," McConnell said of a running mate for the mogul.
He doesn't say he is "unfit" because he can't -- How can you not think a comment like that from McConnell is pretty damning of Trump's abilities?
You are coming close to claiming that vocal people are the ones that are vocal. How much of the electorate has not said anything to reveal their position (and how important are they when it comes to the election)?
In past elections, you'd always have people saying they were undecided and that they liked this aspect of Candidate A but that aspect of Candidate B, or similar.
I'm not hearing that this time around, except for people who are basically saying "I can't believe I have to choose between these two, I think I'll just stay home and get drunk on election day instead."
Perhaps this is just a reflection of my memory or my media consumption. But that's why I started my comment off with an explicit disclaimer that it's just about what I've seen.
The "problem" for Republicans is that at least 1 and possibly up to 3 supreme court seats are opening up within the 4 years. Presidents come and go, congressional majorities ebb and flow, but if the Democrats get to seat 3 new justices then they might lose the Supreme Court for a generation, and the Republicans care a lot about the supreme court. So the question is not who will be the better president, but who will select the the 'better' supreme court candidates.
> Trump is the most visible and frightening symptom of a massive wave of ignorance and insecurity among the American electorate.
The issue is not the massive wave of ignorance and insecurity, the issue is that those people will procreate more ignorant and insecure people and the issue will never end.
We have a system where the well-thought vote of an educated person has the same value than the sensationalism-based vote of an ignorant and insecure person, the problem is that the educated people is getting outnumbered, so whoever manages to move the feelings of the ignorant and insecure people has the election already won...
the issue is that those people will procreate more ignorant and insecure people and the issue will never end.
Highly procreative undereducated underclasses have long been a staple of American life. Give people enough resources and opportunities, and they will often better themselves. What you are seeing is what happens when you economically squeeze people.
> Give people enough resources and opportunities, and they will often better themselves.
The paradox is that giving people resources and opportunities is the wisdom behind left-wing politics, the opposite of what Trump and the Republican party represent...
the opposite of what Trump and the Republican party represent...
They would disagree. Probably disagree with each other if you look close enough and can pin them down to a position. Everyone wants to provide resources and opportunities. Everyone simply disagrees on the best way to do this. (I certainly think of the market as only an imperfect but useful mechanism.)
The government does not create resources. Giving people resources means taking resources from people, passing it through enormously vast, complex and ever expanding bureaucracy and then giving whatever is left to the those that the bureaucracy deemed worthy. This is the wisdom behind left-wing politics, and I think it is only natural it does not look particularly wise to some. Adding to that huge amount of regulations, red tape, prohibitions and compliance demands, which drain resources and foreclose opportunities for many while benefitting few or nobody at all - and the wisdom becomes even more elusive.
Giving people resources means taking resources from people, passing it through enormously vast, complex and ever expanding bureaucracy and then giving whatever is left to the those that the bureaucracy deemed worthy.
This sounds more like the military industrial complex than the Social Security Administration. The SSA pays out something like $870 billion per year (2015) with fewer than 70 thousand employees. It's spending less than a percent of that amount on wages. That's way better than most private charities.
In terms of draining resources out of our society versus benefiting it, the right wing darling of the military industrial complex is far worse than the darling of FDR's New Deal.
> The SSA pays out something like $870 billion per year (2015) with fewer than 70 thousand employees
You sound like these employees produce those $870 billion. In fact they take them from one set of people and send them to another set of people. Getting handsome pay, union benefits, pensions and what not on the way.
> That's way better than most private charities.
Charities do not have IRS, FBI and the police to jail anybody who does not pay them and take their property. So they have to do it the old-fashioned way - by convincing people to give them money voluntarily. So if you want to compare, add the costs of enforcement to it.
> the right wing darling of the military industrial complex is far worse
I just heard couple of days ago Hillary Clinton boasting about almost everything in iPhone being fruits of government-sponsored research. I don't think it's true, but to the measure it is, most of this research is done by the military industrial complex. In fact, the left often mentions the internet is rooted in government research - to the measure that it is, it's the same military again. You can't have it both ways - either it's bad, and the research they do and money government funnels to them is evil, or they actually do cool things and money funneled to them are great investment. You can't have both.
And btw the whole military budget is 16% of all federal budget. And that doesn't take into account what state and local governments spend.
There is clearly value generated by the right kind of distribution. Anyone who doesn't admit that hasn't thought about the role of middlemen, and isn't being intellectually honest in their economic thinking.
There's big difference between distribution from willing sellers to willing buyers and forcible taking and redistribution at the whim of the distributing bureaucracy. If a middleman took the good from wholesale sellers by force and then shipped it to where they liked, we'd call it a gangster organization.
The problem is also a lot of people think they and everybody they agree with belong to one of these camps while all people that disagree with them belong to the other, and in truth it's nothing like it :)
From Sam Altman's post: Demagogic hate-mongers lead down terrible paths.
Demagogic hate-mongering has become the default mode of the political theater that now passes as "public discourse" in our media on both ends of the political spectrum. The new internet media gives strong incentives to that which gains attention, and nothing gains attention like outrage.
What's scary about Trump isn't that people are unwilling to speak out against him. What's scary is that so many people actually want him to win. Trump isn't the problem, Trump is the most visible and frightening symptom of a massive wave of ignorance and insecurity among the American electorate. He's the blood in the stool. Speaking out about how bad the blood is won't really help, you need to go in and kill the cancer that's causing it.
Blood in the stool is quite apt. The cancer is the incentive structure of our media. Let's face it, the current incentive structure of our media today is one in which things like Gawker thrive and anything which is actually substantive suffers a prolonged trickling death. Again, it's the incentives. Outrage politics and the current social media are just the high fructose corn syrup of the mind.
> actually substantive suffers a prolonged trickling death
For "substantive" content, this is by far "the best of times" -- such content is very much on the Internet if look for it.
E.g., nearly every interview, debate, or speech of Trump is on YouTube. Good coverage of Trump's positions are on his Web site. So, we have solid primary sources and easy to find good references. I just counted -- I have 187 unique YouTube URLs on Trump.
If you want to know what Trump has said and/or written, primary sources are readily available. In particular, you don't have to take the word of others about what Trump said.
Maybe you will or will not like what Trump has said, but at least now you can know what the heck he actually did say. Sure, this is the first time for such in all of history. So, "best of times".
For more substantive comment, for anyone with such a comment, many blogs and fora are readily available. Finding such things may not always be easy (my startup is intended to help with people finding content on the Internet), but at one time Technorati said that they were tracking 100 million blogs. E.g., as we know here, Sam Altman had some comments, and all of us found them.
Substantive != primary. Investigation and synthesis are what I mean.
For more substantive comment, for anyone with such a comment, many blogs and fora are readily available. Finding such things may not always be easy (my startup is intended to help with people finding content on the Internet)
If there is value in finding such things, there is clearly a degradation of value in their obscuration. Until the general populace can navigate and find their way to the new sources of substantive content, the internet is effectively degraded in this regard.
I agree with your last paragraph and, if I understand you correctly, your post.
For your last paragraph, my view is that for ballpark 2/3rds of the content of value on the Internet, searches people would like to do, and results they would like to find there is no good search engine or search means. Part, much of, the challenge is your substantive, that is, how to find (suitably) substantive content. I haven't said my work is for substantive content; the word I have used is content with the meaning the user has in mind, but your substantive is a special case of my meaning. So are entertaining, artistic taste, level of detail, etc.
Sounds like you stand to be an eager user of my startup! Maybe another 3 billion people will also!
Just how to build such a tool is a challenge. I worked out how, but the crucial core internals are some original applied math I derived based on some advanced prerequisites. Some of the prerequisites are astounding -- wouldn't believe that any such things could be true, but they are, and they are astoundingly powerful.
But the user interface is dirt simple -- even a boy of 10 in Thailand who knows no English should be able to learn to use the English language version of the site in five minutes from someone who knows and in 15 minutes on their own. The user experience stands to be fun, something of an addictive adventure.
The code, intended for production, is running and in alpha test.
What's scary is that so many people actually want him to win.
I am not sure, exactly, how that is scary. Let's take a look at the reality of our current political situation, fear mongering and demagogic arguments aside. We in the US live in a country with two parties that have, for all intents and purposes, chosen their two favorites for leaders. When we go to the polls in November we will either vote for Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump. You have essentially three choices at this very moment:
1) Pick Mrs. Clinton because you believe in her principles and values more than Mr. Trumps.
2) Pick Mr. Trump because you believe in his principles and values more than Mrs. Clintons.
3) Don't vote for either Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump and get whatever the rest of the population picks.
So when people say it is "scary that so many people actually want him to win", remember it is not all that scary. They just believe in his principles and values more than they believe in Mrs. Clintons. They have reason. You might think their reasons are ridiculous, stupid, or absurd. But there are only two candidates and you can only side with one. Let's not make this any bigger than it actually is.
It's not the potential win in November that's scary, it's the fact that Trump won (is guaranteed to win?) the nomination.
If God descended from heaven and snapped his fingers and declared, "This November, you shall decide between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton," then I wouldn't find it particularly surprising or worrying that ~50% of the electorate would support Trump.
But the fact that people chose him out of a wide field during the primaries is a totally different story. Yes, none of the other choices were particularly compelling, but neither were they the inconceivable choice represented by Clinton.
It's not that they believe in him more than Clinton, it's that they believe in him more than Rubio and Cruz and Christie and Jeb Bush.
A big chunk of voters basically just said "fuck it" to the whole process and gave up on even the pretense of sane politicians. Who are they going to choose for Congress? Who are they going to nominate for president the next time around? Maybe they'll realize this was a mistake and get back to some form of sanity, but I'm not optimistic.
So I guess the real question is, were the other candidates actually compelling? And more compelling? If so, how were they compelling? I think it's a poor argument to say a big chunk of voters basically said "fuck it" to the whole process. What they did say was, well the other candidates are offering us anything compelling to vote for them with; Mr. Trump is. Now, again, maybe the compelling arguments Mr. Trump is giving are totally baseless, racist, ridiculous, and absurd. But, they worked for a majority of voters so far. He's playing politics, and he's winning. He reminds me of about every other politician on either side of the aisle, ever.
The others weren't compelling, but at least most of them weren't completely nuts.
Sure, the Republican primary electorate found Trump compelling, and that's why they won. And that's what scares me. I don't think they necessarily should have found any of the others compelling (what an awful field of candidates, I mean, seriously, what happened there?) but that's beside the point.
If by "loses" you mean "loses the general election", that could be a bit problematic.
In 2000, Bush mainly kept his mouth shut. But Gore's campaign manager made a series of public statements along the lines of "Gore has clearly won, and if this goes to Bush it's a travesty of the election." That didn't help heal or unite the country after the election; arguably, the division has remained ever since.
Trump could do the same thing, but do it much more loudly, bombastically, and in a more attention-grabbing way. The only prevention would be for him to lose so strongly that nobody listens, and everyone writes it off as the whining of a bitter self-deluded loser.
Who exactly were the establishment Republican candidates supposed to appeal to?
Trump didn't attract enthusiastic supporters across party lines because they were apathetic jokesters. He may sound insane to you, but to a very large "silent majority" he is the first voice of sanity in a long time.
So rather than pointing out how Im wrong (as I even requested), you construct a strawman argument? I didn't claim that... its fine if you disagree with me, but be honest in your discussion.
Edit: and since you are not the person that posted the sanders quote.. im not sure how you know what they think their premise is.
The Sanders' quote wasn't oppressively racist, given that his whole platform was centered around equality. Im not claiming that its impossible to say something racist and oppressive about white people. Saying something like "All white people are NASCAR loving, mountain dew sucking, Trump supporting, racist, wal-mart grade white trash" would be considered racist for example.
Racism is bad to begin with because it reduces the vast complexity of human experience, character, circumstance and rights to single, largely meaningless in the context, genetic/ethnic characteristic. Now tell me, how Sanders is not doing the same, at least partially, but substantially, saying white people can't really experience poverty?
Imo, racism isn't bad because it oversimplifies the complexity of human experience. It is bad because it degrades in a very direct way the human experience of the group that it is targeting. I don't see how that statement does this. Poor white people have advantages that poor black people don't have because of racism... I don't see why you consider it racist to point that out. Its the opposite because it is highlighting inequality not causing it... or at least that is how it looks to me.
Oversimplifies and degrades are two ways to say the same in this case. If you mean that this statement does not directly harm anyone, many racist statements don't. In fact, there are a lot of racists that never harmed anyone - not because they didn't want to, but because they were inconsequential and never had the opportunity. I think it's pretty strange definition of racism to measure it by whether it causes any immediate direct harm to anybody. Very small number of statements are immediately harmful as such.
> Poor white people have advantages that poor black people don't have because of racism... I don't see why you consider it racist to point that out.
I don't but that's not what Sanders said. If he said that, that indeed would be true, but he didn't.
>Oversimplifies and degrades are two ways to say the same in this case.
I disagree. I don't believe his intent was to degrade. I think he was trying to acknowledge a truth about our culture, ironically an inequality born out of racism.
Here is the full quote so anyone reading this doesn't just see the "taken out of context reddit meme" version.
"So to answer your question, I would say, and I think it’s similar to what the secretary said, when you’re white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto. You don’t know what it’s like to be poor. You don’t know what it’s like to be hassled when you walk down the street or you get dragged out of a car.
And I believe that as a nation in the year 2016, we must be firm in making it clear. We will end institutional racism and reform a broken criminal justice system."
Taken in context that quote is not very shocking and certainly wasn't racist. Moreover he clarified his remarks the very next day. Trump's remarks about the judge are racist in any context and he repeated them for several days. It's rather disingenuous to compare this to Trump and suggest that it's even in the same league as what Trump said.
I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear an assertion that a white judge had mistreated someone who wasn't white on the basis of the latter's race. There might (or might not) be public debate over whether the assertion was true, but no one would be appalled merely at the claim's having been made. (Indeed, such claims are made daily and have been for many years, yet rarely seem to be regarded as less newsworthy for that.)
Why, then, should it be shocking or appalling to hear the claim made with the parties' races reversed? Are we to assume that people who aren't white are incapable of bias? Are we to assume that a judge has no power over the people whose cases are heard in his courtroom? Is the total equality of all races a principle worth upholding, or one merely worth claiming when it's convenient, and trivial to ignore when it's not? Are we, in short, to assume that only white people can be bigots?
(And, I mean, you can argue that the question is ill-founded and wrongheaded all you like, and I realize that's the temptingly easy option. You might, though, if you're really as worried about a Trump win in November as blog posts like Mr. Altman's make out, think instead about how you might actually convince somebody who asks a question like that, instead of just trying to shout him down.)
> I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear an assertion that a white judge had mistreated someone who wasn't white on the basis of the latter's race.
If it was presented as "I'm black, and I'm for more equal rights in America, and he's white, so I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage", which I think is more akin to how it was originally presented, they yes, people would be upset if it was proclaimed loudly and publicly in a national forum.
If it was "He's German, and I'm Jewish, therefore I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage" then yes, people would be upset.
I don't know why you think it wouldn't be a big deal. There would be plenty of people denouncing statements like that. There would also be overly apologetic liberals and overly radicalized minorities defending the statements (wrongly, IMO). Those have their equivalents in the current situation as well.
Don't cast aspersions on people's character (is he violating his oath of office?) based purely on their race. We have a word for that. It's called racism, and it applies both ways.
Trump decided to use his position as the presumptive presidential nominee of a major political party to interfere in in a civil suit related to his personal business interests. That alone makes me wonder if he would abuse the power of his office should we win the election. That he did so by invoking the judge's race made him look desperate and unable to control his own temper.
I'm sure you're right that defendants in trials say stupid shit about judges, and I'm sure some of those comments are overtly racist. If the races in this situation were reversed, I still wouldn't vote for the hot-headed loudmouth.
That is still peanuts compare to the other and only female presidential candidate. Just google how bad she abused her power all the way back in decades. Using that as benchmark, Trump looks damn honest and worthy of POTUS and MAGA. He has my vote (together with almost few hundreds of my family and friends votes in Nov). It is always the choice of lesser of 2 evils and economy. Trump proved with his billions that he can do it when it comes to money. Though I don't know how evil he is, I do know the other candidate is on par with Dick if not greater. Don't get misdirected by the media and headlines. Do your own research and see the facts unedited for yourself to form your own opinion.
That is still peanuts compare to the other and only female presidential candidate. Just google how bad she abused her power all the way back in decades. Using that as benchmark, Trump looks damn honest and worthy of POTUS and MAGA. He has my vote (together with almost few hundreds of my family and friends votes in Nov). It is always the choice of lesser of 2 evils and economy. Trump proved with his billions that he can do it when it comes to money. Though I don't know how evil he is, I do know the other candidate is on par with Dick if not greater. Don't get misdirected by the media and headlines. Do your own research and see the facts unedited for yourself to form your own opinion.
He never said Mexicans are not smart, should go to different schools, or that they can't drink from the same water.
All he said that this judge in particular has a background as an activist lawyer that belongs to an organization that promotes separation of the latino race, and has participated in granting scholarships to undocumented mexicans. And he suggests that background creates a bias in the case.
American society would not accept a judge with ties to the segregationist movement presiding over the case of a black man accused a crime against a white man.
Or how about a judge that was part of BLM presiding the case of a white cop accused of killing a black youth?
Would that be racist too?
Are defense attorneys racist when they dismiss jurors?
> And he suggests that background creates a bias in the case.
Not really. We have to be more careful with the words than that.
Here's the difference: Trump said that the judge's rulings show that the judge is biased. So, if we accept that the judge is biased, then we want a reason, that is, we want some motivation. Well, it turns out, this judge has Mexican ancestry, is active in some pro-Mexican political causes that conflict with Trump's campaign positions on illegal Mexican immigration. So, Trump said that it appears that this pro-Mexican background of the judge is the judge's motivation for the judge being unfair to Trump.
The huge point is, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican background could not be fair. Instead Trump claimed that it was solid that this judge WAS already unfair to Trump and, then, later, saw as motivation the judge's pro-Mexican background.
It has been easy for the media to distort this situation into Trump claiming that the judge must be unfair because he has a Mexican background. Nope, that's a huge distortion, playing with words. Simply put, Trump claims that the judge is unfair because of the judge's rulings.
He also believes a Muslim judge could be unfair to him because of his policies. I think the media is not really distorting his thinking but rather clarifying it. Similar to when he said Obama has something else going on with regards to radical Islam. He didn't say it, but said people should fill in the blank. Also, his lawyers have never filed such a claim.
It's a tricky issue of language and the use of because.
I tried to be clear. And it really is clear: Trump claims that the judge IS unfair, and his reasons for saying that are that, as Trump claims, the judge has ruled in unfair ways. So, we get this far, the judge unfair, without mentioning Mexico. Or, the REASON Trump is saying that the judge is unfair is "because" of the judge's rulings against Trump. Then, as in
>
All I'm trying to do is figure out why
I'm being treated so unfairly by a judge.
And a lot of people agree with it. All I
want to do, all I want to do is find out
why I'm being treated so unfairly by a
judge.
Trump is looking for the judge's motivation -- common enough in legal cases, right? So, Trump concludes that the judge's motivation in being unfair is the judge's Mexican background and support of pro-Mexican causes that conflict with some of Trump's campaign positions.
So, we have two uses of "because". Really the second use would be better written,
Trump says that the judge's motivation to be unfair was "because" of the judge's Mexican background, etc.
That is, Trump is addressing not just one point about the judge but two -- (1) unfair rulings and (2) motivation for the unfairness. The Mexican part has only to do with point (2).
But, sure, the media that wants headlines claiming that Trump is racist leaps to combine points (1) and (2) and say that Trump says that the judge is unfair "because" of his Mexican background, etc. No: Trump says that the judge is unfair "because" of the judge's rulings and then says that the judge is motivated to be unfair "because" the judge's Mexican background conflicts with Trump's campaign positions.
The media has leaped, nearly in unison, to have a lot of fun, get a lot of clicks, confusing the rulings and the motivations for the rulings to claim that Trump is racist. Trump has claimed that the media is dishonest and disgusting, and IMHO this is an example.
Was the judge unfair? Heck if I know -- I'm not a lawyer. But, unfair or not, maybe as a defendant, as part of a good defense, Trump gets to push back against the judge.
But no way does the record support that Trump is being racist, that is, support that Trump says that any judge with a Mexican background will automatically be unfair.
In one interview, Trump was asked why he didn't say that the judge's rulings were unfair and stop there and not mention Mexico. Sure, Trump might have done that. But Trump says he is a "counter puncher" and, e.g., ready to attack back, in this case, say that the motivation (right, my attempt at being more clear) of the judge was the Mexican stuff. In such counter punching, Trump builds his reputation as no pushover and gets more media attention. In response in this case, much of the media took the opportunity to attack back by playing with the word "because" by conflating the two issues, the rulings and the motivations.
IMHO, Trump is this and that but he's not racist at all. The media -- too often deliberately disgustingly deceptive.
As you mention, for a Muslim judge, would he have to be unfair? Nope. But if a Muslim judge WERE unfair, could his motivation for being unfair be that he was a Muslim and Trump's campaign statements about Muslims? Sure.
Again, there is not just one point to be explained but two -- (1) unfairness and (2) motivation for unfairness. Being Mexican or Muslim would have only to do with (2).
The judge's ancestry is Mexican. And, more important, the judge is active in some pro-Mexican political causes that conflict with some of Trump's campaign positions.
So, again, just for you, Trump claims that some of the judge's rulings were unfair. Then Trump looked for the judge's motivation for the unfair rulings and noticed the ancestry and political causes and concluded that those were were the motivation for the judge being unfair.
My point is, what Trump was doing was not racist. Maybe Trump was blowing smoke in a legal case, looking for attention, pushing back against a legal case being brought during a campaign and for maybe political reasons, etc., but I don't think Trump was being racist.
Too much of the media wanted to attack Trump and claim that what Trump said was that no judge with Mexican ancestry could be fair to him, but that is nothing like what Trump said. It's more than split hairs.
Which pro-Mexican political causes are you talking about? Which category do you think Trump thinks the judge belongs to... thieves, rapists, or is he one of the "good ones"? If I went to "Trump University" would I learn how to properly see Mexicans, Mexican American and Americans of Mexican descent in the proper and not racist manner (in your opinion) that Trump views them in?
I've read many times that what Trump said about the judge was racist.
IMHO, the solid, primary sources do not support that claim.
I do intend to post to this thread a response to Altman's post where I give details, but to me the Trump-judge thing went through three steps:
Step 1. Trump asserted that the judge made some unfair decisions against Trump. Maybe Trump was just blowing smoke as part of a good defense, but maybe he was on solid ground. I'm not a lawyer. Then Trump asked -- I have a quote -- why the judge was being unfair.
Step 2. Soon it was clear enough that the judge had Mexican ancestry and was active in some pro-Mexican political activities that conflicted with Trump's campaign positions on illegal immigration from Mexico. Then, and only then, did Trump assert that this background of the judge was likely the reason the judge was unfair.
Or, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican ancestry would have to be unfair. Instead, Trump claimed that this judge's actions in the case showed that the judge was unfair to Trump and, then, could, easily enough, see explanatory reasons in the judge's background. Or, if want to say that someone is being unfair, then it helps to give an explanatory reason. In law, that's called motivation or some such, right, and is regarded as important, right?
Step 3. Since then, a lot more has come out on the judge. He's close to some groups that are wildly racist, e.g., want everyone in the US of Western European descent to return to Europe. Trump has concluded that the judge should recuse himself from the case. If the judge does not recuse, then the case starts to look just political.
Maybe a judge really is strongly for pro-Mexican political causes and is eager to be unfair to others. So, in that case we can't say that the judge is unfair because of his pro-Mexican causes? That would be a license for anyone with pro-Mexican causes to be unfair without being criticized.
"Or, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican ancestry would have to be unfair."
Sure he did. Then he doubled down on it by saying a Muslim Judge might be unfair, too. I'm not sure how anybody could fail to see racism here.
DICKERSON: If it were a Muslim judge, would you also feel like they wouldn't be able to treat you fairly because of that policy of yours?
TRUMP: It's possible, yes. Yeah. That would be possible, absolutely.
That Trump is a racist is a common claim in the news media.
But I can't find the primary sources that support this claim. To me, at this point, the claim looks like just attacks on Trump by people who want to attack him for other reasons.
Indeed, from all I can find, Trump is the opposite of racist.
I'm ready, willing, able, and eager to consider some primary sources that show I'm significantly wrong.
For such a claim, as for any serious claim in this election, I just want some solid evidence.
Trump is racist. I came up with the same conclusion after listening to him talk about immigration... I didn't need the "news media" to claim anything. Building a border wall to keep out the "rapists"... deporting and banning all Muslims... How is racism not baked right into those concepts? His proposed policies have even gained him an endorsement from the KKK. If you don't already see it then no amount of evidence will help. Im always floored by how blind some are towards racism.
> How is racism not baked right into those concepts?
For immigration, Trump is for enforcing the laws. That's not evidence of being racist. Part of one way of enforcing the laws is to build a wall. That's not racist either; it's enforcing our immigration laws.
For "rapists", some of the illegal immigrants across the Mexican border have been rapists. Trump didn't say that all the illegal immigrants were rapists.
More generally, our legal immigration system was well designed and very careful about who gets admitted. The flow of illegal immigrants across the border with Mexico has everyone who is able physically to cross the border at all. That includes people from Mexico, from elsewhere in Central and South America, people from Cuba, and, now, some people from the war areas of the Mideast, likely including ISIS soldiers. Stopping that illegal immigration is important for US public health, US public safety, US drug enforcement, the US economy, and US national security and is not racist.
The Mexican border is also a source of illegal drugs -- a good wall would greatly slow that. Again, a wall to slow the flow of illegal drugs is not racist.
For Mexicans, Trump has said over and over that he has hired thousands of Mexicans and regards them as excellent workers. So, clearly Trump is not a "racist" on Mexicans.
There is good evidence, e.g., in Arizona, that a lot of people from Mexico and now US citizens will be voting for Trump because they agree with Trump that we should not have illegal immigrants from Mexico. Apparently those US citizens do not regard Trump as racist against people from Mexico.
> His proposed policies have even gained him an endorsement from the KKK.
A political candidate can't keep some dirt bags from saying they like the candidate. But when some dirt bags do so say, then the candidate can reject the support, and Trump did that right away. There was a delay of some seconds, but there are some explanations of that that do not cast a bad light on Trump.
Actually, there is a lot of quite positive evidence that Trump has been a leader against racism. IIRC, Trump was a leader in letting everyone in to his high end golf club in Florida.
I'm still looking for evidence that Trump is racist. So far I like Trump -- if there is something wrong with him, then I want to know it.
Noted how you skipped the muslim ban completely in your response. We disagree. I guess I can't know if he really is racist or not, however it seems clear to me that racists identify with him and IMO he seems to pander to them.
IMHO, we are better off than that. For comparison, let's look at the record:
Hoover? Was totally oblivious to the The Great Depression. Didn't see the crash coming; didn't know what to do to fix it.
FDR? Was too slow getting us out of The Great Depression. We came out in 90 days flat once people started shooting at us. The damage to the US from The Great Depression was horrible with much of it still with us. He did get us mobilized to win WWII and won it.
Ike? Won WWII in Europe (before he was President). As President, won the war in Korea, pushed back against the Soviets in Berlin, kept the Cold War cold, kept up our military, e.g., nukes, B-52s, ICBMs, SSBNs, and jet airplanes, kept us out of Viet Nam. Did the right things in the Little Rock racism crisis. Ike was slow to keep the economy going. Did respond to Sputnik.
JKF? Did get the economy going again. Started the Apollo program moon shot. Didn't keep us out of Viet Nam. In the end, did the right things in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but looked to the Soviets like a wimp who could be taken advantage of and, thus, partly stimulated that crisis.
LBJ? Went wacko over Viet Nam, killed a lot of people, wasted a lot of money, inflated the US economy.
Nixon? Also wacko over Viet Nam and continued to inflate the US economy. Was a crook. Was driven out of office in disgrace.
Ford? Got out of Viet Nam only after Congress flatly cut off the money.
Carter? Poor leader. Didn't take US energy seriously. Got pushed around by the Iranians. His helicopter effort at Iran flopped.
Reagan? Was a good leader, but had a lot of just silly ideas about what the US should do. Spent a lot of money -- fiscal stimulus -- that did help get the economy going again. Did scare the Soviets over Star Wars and, thus, may have helped the Soviets to give up. Left office mentally handicapped.
Bush 41? Put General Schwarzkopf in charge in Gulf War I who -- in an 8 week air campaign and a 100 hour ground campaign -- totally blew away Saddam's 7 million man army while having fewer US casualties from enemy action than from recreational sports activities. Brilliant. Otherwise neglected the economy.
...
My view is that (1) the US now has some very serious problems, (2) Trump has a lot of determination and a lot of okay to good general approaches for solutions, (3) Trump is good enough as a leader to be able to build consensus for getting things done, (4) he is fully sincere, (5) we are very lucky he is doing what he is, and (6) he has a good shot at being the best president we've had back at least to Hoover where my knowledge of US history is too weak to comment.
Let's DO get out all the important information, but let's NOT be so tough minded that we miss a great opportunity.
3) Really? He's yet to build consensus within the R party.
4) Not really a quality for a politician. 5) No, we're really not. 6) for a much better historic perspective, look at what Ken Burns has to say.
Being happy about something and supporting something is not the same thing. It is entirely possible that McCain is not happy about Trump but prefers him to the alternative - e.g. splitting the party, losing the election, etc. The world is imperfect, and you don't always get what you're happy about - sometimes you just choose how much of the unhappy you're going to have.
This one lasted less than half an hour on the front page, despite being written by the president of YC. Granted, that's about 29 minutes longer than other political posts last, but it's a pretty rough ride for something with > 200 upvotes.
If there were a worthwhile contender, then perhaps I'd consider voting. As it is, I don't see how casting a vote for Johnson does anything more than legitimize the election and thereby our totalitarian democracy. And that's exactly what Trump and his rhetoric are - inevitable products of late-game democracy.
If he does beat Shillary in the finals, it will at least be nice having most of my peers back to an anti-government slant like during the Bush years.
Voting for Johnson (or any third-party candidate) is a way of telling both major parties that they messed up in choosing their candidates. It's a message worth sending.
Right. A missing vote could be anywhere on a spectrum from "these both suck so bad that I can't bear to vote for either" through "things are great, I think either candidate is fine, and I trust my fellow Americans to make the right call", plus a chance of laziness.
A vote for a third party is clearly a vote not for either major party candidate.
Except the stats trumpeted are "Percent for Demlican", "Percent for Repubocrat", and "Voter turnout". Increasing that third number just shows support for the state religion of totalitarian democracy.
The parties didn't "mess up" choosing their candidates - the problem is the basis of their entire platform. To the extent that the Repubocrats feel entitled to the Libertarian votes and Demlican the Green, it only affects how much lip service they'll pay to get those votes. Either branch of The Party is not going to run a candidate who will eg dismantle the NSA or the federal reserve. Why would their owners suddenly want to buy pro-freedom positions and diminish their own power?
I also think it's more self honest to be in the group of non-voters, and helps rebuke this extremely condescending attitude that non-voters are "apathetic". In actuality, they're all individuals who've made a rational decision that playing a rigged game is a waste of their time, regardless of how strongly they'll justify it. Silent fucking majority.
393 comments
[ 6.5 ms ] story [ 270 ms ] thread"synonyms:rabble-rouser, agitator, political agitator, soapbox orator, firebrand, fomenter, provocateur"
A Demagog is someone who uses hate to bring attention to themselves. Would you call Mahatma Gandhi a demagog? Nope.
hatemonger: a person who kindles hatred, enmity, or prejudice in others
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
"In the Middle East, we have people chopping the heads off Christians, we have people chopping the heads off many other people. We have things that we have never seen before -- as a group, we have never seen before, what's happening right now. The medieval times -- I mean, we studied medieval times -- not since medieval times have people seen what's going on. I would bring back waterboarding and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding."
"I think Islam hates us. There's a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There is an unbelievable hatred of us."
I would say demagogic hatemonger is a perfectly accurate description of Donald Trump.
With regard to the intent, I think it's too weak, if anything. "Sociopathic demagogic hate-monger", maybe.
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2016/06/04/it-ought-to-be-com...
It is time to get serious.
[1] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/18/trump-remark...
But from the company perspective, it's another story.
> He's right that many Americans are getting screwed by the system. He’s right that the economy is not growing nearly fast enough. He's right that we're drowning in political correctness, and that broken campaign finance laws have bred a class of ineffective career politicians.
It's demagoguery 101.
Why is this a bad thing? Isn't the goal of globalization to start thinking of our planet as a whole?
Globalization progresses mankind forward, it will ultimately make us better versions of ourselves. The root of Trump's evil is trying to reverse this progress by locking down borders and rejecting religions that are not the norm in America.
Also the Rubin Report has been right in the thick of it, also another great source of non-mainstream coverage: https://www.youtube.com/user/RubinReport
It seems that sama needs to listen to the Nixon tapes.
>dang 47 days ago
>It isn't that it's pro-Trump, it's that it's pure politics. Such posts always get heavily flagged, and it's hard to disagree with that, since they're typically not posted to gratify intellectual curiosity.
>Basic Income stories are political, but they aren't purely political. There's an intellectual interest in thinking about and debating such a major social change. Political horse race stories are the opposite.
That says they get flagged, not that they aren't allowed. I have no doubt this post is getting many flags as we type.
I didn't flag it as it's their site, but I'm happier that it's gone.
And when he's talking about the need for people to no longer be silent he's referring to the circles he runs with (VCs, Bilderbergers, etc). So in that sense his statement his very relevant.
> He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage and that we should ban Muslims from entering the country.
He said that a judge of Mexican descent isn't treating him fairly, and that it is probably because of his heritage. That's very different from saying that the judge can't treat him fairly because of his heritage. How could someone with Sam's command of language and attention to detail not see the difference? And where was the condemnation of the Obama admin when they tried to prohibit an Iranian-American judge from presiding over Iranian immigration cases?
> He has accused Obama of somehow being responsible for the recent shooting in Orlando.
The WP originally ran this headline and changed it because it was such a wild inference from what he actually said.
Given the reality of 21st century electoral politics in the United States, I find it unsurprising, yet deeply disappointing all the same, that anyone actually believes this.
In fact, it's hard for me to get too mad at those that think they are working for the cause of good, because even if I believe they are misguided (and would not use such tactics myself), as at least they are doing what they think is the best thing to help. Intent matters (but is, of course, not the only thing, nor even the most important thing).
I've tried to engage people regarding Trump on facebook (not confrontationally; with facts and debate). The last time I replied to a post regarding the Mexican-American judge, the OP deleted the entire post within an hour. The time before that when someone said Trump has no policies I pointed out his major policies/themes that he's had and got radio silence on the thread.
- he is being unfair, so now I say "why"
Now people invert this argument and say Trump is saying "He can't do his job because of his heritage". That's completely different from saying "he is not doing his job, and the most probable reason is his heritage".
Now you can certainly say that even the latter argument is racist or xenophobic or morally wrong, but why fabricate something that he never said or implied?
Anyway, whatever, man. Keep nitpicking if you want. It's really sad that you feel a need to do that to make even a weak attempt to defend that horrible piece of human garbage.
Why are you splitting hairs over semantics when the bottom line is that Trump is racist? Seriously... if the misquote leads to the same conclusion as the actual quote then why does it matter?
And the WP headline remains: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06...
Tapper: But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is, if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job ...
Trump: I think that's why he's doing it.
But instead he says that the judge treated him unfairly due to his race. Literally racist.
Honest questions:
Do you think it is possible that Trump is just mad that he lost and is just trying to discredit the judge?
Do you think Trump is the kind of person that would do something like that?
How is that no evidence? That is evidence to support the claim. Is it proof? Is it enough to condemn the judge? I don't know, but it is false to say that Trump came out of nowhere with this and has no evidence.
But that's clearly false: "“I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest"
And there's nothing racist about that conclusion. People do act based on their identity and heritage, and there's nothing wrong with that. If it affects their rulings as a judge, then that's problem, and all Trump has said is that he's not getting fair rulings (subjective, but that is his POV), and that there's an obvious potential conflict of interest.
If you said "She is dumb because she's a girl," you would be (rightfully) pilloried for being sexist. No reasonable person is going to interpret that statement like you are interpreting Trump's comments.
He says "BIG OUTRAGEOUS THING, with long list of qualifiers that follow" the media reports the first part and completely misses the second. Mostly it's a great way to game the system to get free media attention.
It's pretty amazing how it works.
You also conveniently ignored the fact that Trump wants to ban about 1.2 billion people from entering the US because of their religion, and treat the Muslims already in the US as a fifth column similar to what the Nazis did with the Jews. How long before the frothing-in-the-mouth, 'patriotic', armed Trump goons commit a Kristallnacht against Muslims in the US? this is exactly where we're heading with a Trump presidency.
Frankly, it's disappointing that anyone with a sliver of intelligence can be fooled by this dangerous, reckless, and divisive figure. A figure that has made racism and misogyny acceptable to the masses, and, in the ominous words of the future dictator: "racial profiling is not the worst thing to do".
I didn't ignore it, nobody even mentioned. Every argument should stand on its own, and be built on facts and logic.
Tossing in words like Nazis, frothing-in-the-mouth, dangerous, fool, racism, misogyny, and dictator are all unrelated buzzwords.
If you think this judge situation is so vile and leads to racist dictatorship, why have you not called for the resignation of Obama after his admin tried to force a judge with Iranian heritage from hearing Iranian-American immigration cases?
I hope you would stand up and speak out against such actions, because I know I would.
Re: Muslim ban/profiling. You said that no one mentioned it. Apparently, you and I read different articles by sama then.
I'm sorry, but being a Trump supporter means you accept his positions on race, immigrants, and the economy. Otherwise, why on earth are you supporting him? because he told you he'll "make America great again"? no one can argue with that, but like sama mentioned, this is but a trap to lure you in, but the honey ain't there, it's just hate, misery, and xenophobia all the way inside.
> Trump is calling bias here is because he knows that he antagonized people of Mexican origin
Doesn't matter. Even if Trump deliberately antagonized people of Mexican origin, he still deserves fair treatment in court.
> Re: Muslim ban/profiling
Muslim profiling is the de facto security policy in the United States and has been since way before Trump announced his candidacy. If Muslim profiling is equivalent to Nazi treatment of the Jews, I look forward to your spirited campaign calling for the resignation and charging of Obama. I agree on the Muslim ban: not a good idea, would have no effect on terrorism, and is contrary to the ideals of the country.
> You said that no one mentioned it. Apparently, you and I read different articles by sama then.
It's my fault, I meant no one mentioned it in the thread, and I didn't realize that you were referencing the articles reference. But again, I do think it's irrelevant to the point about the judge. Every argument should stand on logic and truth, otherwise we're just like the conspiracy theorists who put together 1 true argument, and 9 false ones, then point to the true one whenever someone points out the issues with the false ones.
> I'm sorry, but being a Trump supporter means you accept his positions on race, immigrants, and the economy.
I do agree with his position on removing illegal immigrants. They're a modern slave labor class in America that is being capitalized by the rich. They're mistreated, underpaid, and when I look at it the only two solutions I can think of to the problem are open borders or enforcement of the borders. Unfortunately Trump is the only candidate calling for the latter.
Why do you think he isn't getting it? Because he complains? You haven't followed very many court cases if that's how you judge judicial bias.
Or do you have actual concrete evidence from the court case itself to demonstrate bias?
> I do agree with his position on removing illegal immigrants. They're a modern slave labor class in America that is being capitalized by the rich.
True. Either remove them (and block more) or give those already here a way to "go legit" (and still block the border).
The judge is an _American_ of Mexican ethnicity. Trump said that the judge gave unfair rulings because of the judge's ethnicity. Trump is advocating that ethnicity "trumps" citizenship, judicial duty, or any other personal and professional virtues. As Paul Ryan correctly noted this kind of essentialism is textbook racism.
Or put another way. Were the rulings so egregious that a white judge, or a black judge, or an asian judge would rule differently? Aside from the judge's ethnicity what has he said or done in the past to imply any bias against Trump? If Trump truly believes the judge has a strong bias why hasn't he instructed his lawyers to for a motion of recusal, or a change of venue, or any other legal remedy?
> And where was the condemnation of the Obama admin when they tried to prohibit an Iranian-American judge from presiding over Iranian immigration cases?
It was wrong for the Justice Dept to do this. But the Obama admin being wrong doesn't make Trump more right. Both can be wrong. BTW, the Obama DOJ recognized its error, reversed course, and settled with the Iranian-American judge: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/03/454394225/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/...
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/06/09/whites-go-back-eur...
Note that the California La Raza Lawyer's Association explicitly links to the Nationsl Council of La Raza (scroll to the bottom):
http://larazalawyers.net/id3.html
And note this 2002 NYT article mentioning Judge Curiel when he was a federal prosecutor and how much he valued his ethnic and linguistic ties to Mexico.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/26/world/new-web-of-trust-top...
Concerning the 2014 San Diego La Raza Scholarship Fund and Judge Curiel's participation on the selection committee that awarded a scholarship to Ricardo Elorza, self-described as "a boy from Oaxaca, who did not know English and is "undocumented"
http://sdlrla.com/scholarship/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/La-...
> Surely not even you think that Trump is an actual racist, as in: he thinks mexicans are worth less as human beings purely for being mexican.
He's never said anything like that so I don't think he's a frothing at the mouth racist. Based on his public statements I'd say he's a mild racist who holds some old-school prejudicial attitudes on race and gender. His attitudes were fairly normal fifty years ago.
By the same token judge Curiel has not said anything racist or prejudicial against white people in general, or against Trump in particular. He's a judge, and judges put aside their political views and apply the law fairly. They do this all the time. So it would be a stretch to say he has an anger boner against Trump.
> No, you just want to point out how he said things the "wrong" way. Well that incidentally is political correctness which is the very thing people are fed up with.
I agree that PC reactions to perceived racism/sexism/islamophobia can go overboard and obscure the truth. Such as the Sam Harris vs Ben Affleck incident.
The problem in this case Trump is basically saying "this guy hates me because he's mexican". There's no "right" way to say this. There's no deeper truth being unearthed. The judge made rulings against Trump, and Trump unloaded against the guy. This is Trump trying to save face and settle a personal score.
The WP headline is still there: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06...
Can you show any evidence that the judge has acted in a manner unfit of his judicial duty? Or that the case lead to outcomes that were harsher than the norm for such a decision?
So either he is fit to be a judge and is capable of being impartial or he isnt.
by the way Trumps attorney has said publicly that they will not seek to have the judge removed from the case. Actions speak louder than words.
That depends on the basis of the claim. If its based on presumptions about group identity and how that will produce actions, then yes. If it is based on systematic gathering of data on judicial decisions, factual circumstances which cover the expected non-race inputs to those decisions, and information of about defendants' and judges' races, then, no.
Trump has directly said that the judge must be biased, because of his ethnic heritage and the supposed "fact" (which isn't actually a fact, but anyway) that Trump is "building a wall" -- that is, the claim actually being made by Trump is that it is impossible for any person of Mexican heritage to not be biased against Trump because of Trump's specific policy stances.
He then decided of his own volition to bring up the judge's ethnicity at a political rally and on national TV. This, mind you, was before he made what Paul Ryan called "the textbook definition of a racist comment": "I'm building a wall; it's an inherent conflict of interest."
Even if you manage to convince yourself that Trump did not say anything overtly racist (which can be done with a tremendous amount of motivated reasoning), he still shat the bed twice by prioritizing his business interests over his political campaign and making the conversation about the judge's race.
Why? Hitler didn't implement it himself either, he had staff for that. He just told them to get cracking.
(That doesn't mean Trump will, but dismissing the possibility for grounds of incompetency seems a too easy way out.)
There are a lot more resemblances with Trump than you think.
I never said anything even remotely close to that.
Oh wait, you mean Trump? Tons of examples if you look. Criticizing a judge for being Mexican is one recent example.
Parties just endlessly change definitions of terms until it fits their narrative.
Why, pray tell, should I find ethnic bigotry less repugnant than racism?
Crippled America, Time To Get Tough, The Art of the Deal, The Art of the Comeback, The America We Deserve The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Work and Life by Ivanka Trump, The Way to the Top, How to Get Rich, Think Like a Billionaire, The Best Golf Advice I Ever Received, Why We Want You To Be Rich, The Best Real Estate Advice I Ever Received, Think Big and Kick Ass, Never Give Up, Think Like a Champion, Midas Touch
https://www.amazon.com/Crippled-America-Make-Great-Again/dp/...
I think it's just plain lazy.
In Presidential elections, we generally have terrible choices (even if this doesn't become obvious until much later). This year is particularly noteworthy.
Painting one side as evil incarnate is neither insightful nor productive, and the type of fodder easily available on hundreds of other sites.
Here in Chicago we had Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders tell us that if Rahm gets re-elected his billionare friends will take over and destroy the city. Warren and Sanders never once mentioned their friends, the Daley family, and how the Daley dynasty left Chicago with debt it cannot ever pay off. Meanwhile, Rahm is raising taxes for pension perks for public sector unions and other lefty causes. More welfare, more section 8 housing, more tax raises on business, more anti-business legislation, more police in poor areas, etc. He did literally the opposite of what they claimed. Why do we let Warren and Sanders hysterically lie to us like this? Why do we let the left dominate this angry narrative and excuse them for it when its discovered to be a falsehood? The billionaires taking over narrative works, that's why, even when its clearly bullshit.
No idea about what a Trump presidency would be like, he clearly is playing the Tea party playbook here to get motivated GOP primary voters out there, but I imagine he'd be a milquetoast president probably unable to do much unless he maintains GOP majority in congress, and even then in-fighting in the GOP would be pretty rough on him. Honestly, a gridlocked congress that is ineffective would probably be best. There's a lot of federal meddling that is questionable to me that we've accepted as the status quo. Stopping that could only help.
I also think we also over-value what the presidency is. Its not a dictator. Without the support of congress, the president is fairly powerless outside of war powers and even those are limited without congress post-Nixon/Johnson. One of the wonders of the US is how well the founders got the balance of power right from early on. These decisions still pay dividends today.
That said, Clinton with a GOP majority congress is ideal to me. This scenario has enough gridlock to keep big government away a bit, enough gridlock to get good compromises, and Clinton's left-leaning stance on social issues are better, to me at least, than strict right-wing nonsense about alienating certain ethnic or religious groups. I also think SCOTUS has a strong right-wing advantage and it would be nice for Clinton to even that out.
* Building a giant wall along the U.S.'s southern border to keep Mexicans out
* Rounding up and deporting Hispanics currently in the U.S. on a mass scale never before seen in history
I mean, yes, he's not proposing herding Hispanics into gas chambers, but he absolutely is talking about making American policy tilt harder against one particular race than it ever has in the past. Maybe that doesn't make him Hitler, but it definitely makes him something.
This is in no way saying "its not that bad of a policy" its still a horrible thing to propose, but saying "American policy tilt harder against one particular race than it ever has in the past" is ignoring a lot of history, unless you're talking about very recent events.
It's interesting that a presidential candidate can differentiate themselves from other candidates (and receive so much hatred) by stating that they will enforce the law when elected.
Making everyone obey the law is not tilting policy against one group just because that group has abused it disproportionately.
Also, your first point isn't entirely correct; there already is a wall; Trump just wants to extend it (again, to enforce the law).
Also, people just like to complain. The most fervent supporters on both sides of the political spectrum are passionately complaining about something.
Having someone say "This is broken, I will do my best to fix it" is leaps and bounds better than 99% of politicians who pretend there is no problem. I will take someone who attempts and fails to fix a problem over the person saying there is no problem.
As Hitler was Austrian, technically speaking, he was an immigrant too.
Only after WW2 did the countries and societies start to drift apart (to no small part due to Hitler's semi-forced Anschluss of Austria).
Well, the Anschluß took care of that.
It's possible that certain Republican leaders fit the description. But plenty of high-ranking Republicans have been willing to speak out against Trump, and those who endorse him mostly seem to be sincere about it. And of course everybody on the opposing side takes pretty much every opportunity to trash him (IMO rightfully so).
What's scary about Trump isn't that people are unwilling to speak out against him. What's scary is that so many people actually want him to win. Trump isn't the problem, Trump is the most visible and frightening symptom of a massive wave of ignorance and insecurity among the American electorate. He's the blood in the stool. Speaking out about how bad the blood is won't really help, you need to go in and kill the cancer that's causing it.
In any case, it's the electorate that really matters, not the leadership. I don't see any prospective voters afraid to speak their mind. Trump supporters among the general population all seem to be completely sincere. Trump opposers are unafraid to declare it.
He doesn't say he is "unfit" because he can't -- How can you not think a comment like that from McConnell is pretty damning of Trump's abilities?
I'm not hearing that this time around, except for people who are basically saying "I can't believe I have to choose between these two, I think I'll just stay home and get drunk on election day instead."
Perhaps this is just a reflection of my memory or my media consumption. But that's why I started my comment off with an explicit disclaimer that it's just about what I've seen.
The issue is not the massive wave of ignorance and insecurity, the issue is that those people will procreate more ignorant and insecure people and the issue will never end.
We have a system where the well-thought vote of an educated person has the same value than the sensationalism-based vote of an ignorant and insecure person, the problem is that the educated people is getting outnumbered, so whoever manages to move the feelings of the ignorant and insecure people has the election already won...
Highly procreative undereducated underclasses have long been a staple of American life. Give people enough resources and opportunities, and they will often better themselves. What you are seeing is what happens when you economically squeeze people.
The paradox is that giving people resources and opportunities is the wisdom behind left-wing politics, the opposite of what Trump and the Republican party represent...
They would disagree. Probably disagree with each other if you look close enough and can pin them down to a position. Everyone wants to provide resources and opportunities. Everyone simply disagrees on the best way to do this. (I certainly think of the market as only an imperfect but useful mechanism.)
This sounds more like the military industrial complex than the Social Security Administration. The SSA pays out something like $870 billion per year (2015) with fewer than 70 thousand employees. It's spending less than a percent of that amount on wages. That's way better than most private charities.
In terms of draining resources out of our society versus benefiting it, the right wing darling of the military industrial complex is far worse than the darling of FDR's New Deal.
You sound like these employees produce those $870 billion. In fact they take them from one set of people and send them to another set of people. Getting handsome pay, union benefits, pensions and what not on the way.
> That's way better than most private charities.
Charities do not have IRS, FBI and the police to jail anybody who does not pay them and take their property. So they have to do it the old-fashioned way - by convincing people to give them money voluntarily. So if you want to compare, add the costs of enforcement to it.
> the right wing darling of the military industrial complex is far worse
I just heard couple of days ago Hillary Clinton boasting about almost everything in iPhone being fruits of government-sponsored research. I don't think it's true, but to the measure it is, most of this research is done by the military industrial complex. In fact, the left often mentions the internet is rooted in government research - to the measure that it is, it's the same military again. You can't have it both ways - either it's bad, and the research they do and money government funnels to them is evil, or they actually do cool things and money funneled to them are great investment. You can't have both.
And btw the whole military budget is 16% of all federal budget. And that doesn't take into account what state and local governments spend.
Demagogic hate-mongering has become the default mode of the political theater that now passes as "public discourse" in our media on both ends of the political spectrum. The new internet media gives strong incentives to that which gains attention, and nothing gains attention like outrage.
What's scary about Trump isn't that people are unwilling to speak out against him. What's scary is that so many people actually want him to win. Trump isn't the problem, Trump is the most visible and frightening symptom of a massive wave of ignorance and insecurity among the American electorate. He's the blood in the stool. Speaking out about how bad the blood is won't really help, you need to go in and kill the cancer that's causing it.
Blood in the stool is quite apt. The cancer is the incentive structure of our media. Let's face it, the current incentive structure of our media today is one in which things like Gawker thrive and anything which is actually substantive suffers a prolonged trickling death. Again, it's the incentives. Outrage politics and the current social media are just the high fructose corn syrup of the mind.
For "substantive" content, this is by far "the best of times" -- such content is very much on the Internet if look for it.
E.g., nearly every interview, debate, or speech of Trump is on YouTube. Good coverage of Trump's positions are on his Web site. So, we have solid primary sources and easy to find good references. I just counted -- I have 187 unique YouTube URLs on Trump.
If you want to know what Trump has said and/or written, primary sources are readily available. In particular, you don't have to take the word of others about what Trump said.
Maybe you will or will not like what Trump has said, but at least now you can know what the heck he actually did say. Sure, this is the first time for such in all of history. So, "best of times".
For more substantive comment, for anyone with such a comment, many blogs and fora are readily available. Finding such things may not always be easy (my startup is intended to help with people finding content on the Internet), but at one time Technorati said that they were tracking 100 million blogs. E.g., as we know here, Sam Altman had some comments, and all of us found them.
For more substantive comment, for anyone with such a comment, many blogs and fora are readily available. Finding such things may not always be easy (my startup is intended to help with people finding content on the Internet)
If there is value in finding such things, there is clearly a degradation of value in their obscuration. Until the general populace can navigate and find their way to the new sources of substantive content, the internet is effectively degraded in this regard.
For your last paragraph, my view is that for ballpark 2/3rds of the content of value on the Internet, searches people would like to do, and results they would like to find there is no good search engine or search means. Part, much of, the challenge is your substantive, that is, how to find (suitably) substantive content. I haven't said my work is for substantive content; the word I have used is content with the meaning the user has in mind, but your substantive is a special case of my meaning. So are entertaining, artistic taste, level of detail, etc.
Sounds like you stand to be an eager user of my startup! Maybe another 3 billion people will also!
Just how to build such a tool is a challenge. I worked out how, but the crucial core internals are some original applied math I derived based on some advanced prerequisites. Some of the prerequisites are astounding -- wouldn't believe that any such things could be true, but they are, and they are astoundingly powerful.
But the user interface is dirt simple -- even a boy of 10 in Thailand who knows no English should be able to learn to use the English language version of the site in five minutes from someone who knows and in 15 minutes on their own. The user experience stands to be fun, something of an addictive adventure.
The code, intended for production, is running and in alpha test.
Ah, YC turned it down!
I am not sure, exactly, how that is scary. Let's take a look at the reality of our current political situation, fear mongering and demagogic arguments aside. We in the US live in a country with two parties that have, for all intents and purposes, chosen their two favorites for leaders. When we go to the polls in November we will either vote for Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump. You have essentially three choices at this very moment:
1) Pick Mrs. Clinton because you believe in her principles and values more than Mr. Trumps. 2) Pick Mr. Trump because you believe in his principles and values more than Mrs. Clintons. 3) Don't vote for either Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump and get whatever the rest of the population picks.
So when people say it is "scary that so many people actually want him to win", remember it is not all that scary. They just believe in his principles and values more than they believe in Mrs. Clintons. They have reason. You might think their reasons are ridiculous, stupid, or absurd. But there are only two candidates and you can only side with one. Let's not make this any bigger than it actually is.
If God descended from heaven and snapped his fingers and declared, "This November, you shall decide between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton," then I wouldn't find it particularly surprising or worrying that ~50% of the electorate would support Trump.
But the fact that people chose him out of a wide field during the primaries is a totally different story. Yes, none of the other choices were particularly compelling, but neither were they the inconceivable choice represented by Clinton.
It's not that they believe in him more than Clinton, it's that they believe in him more than Rubio and Cruz and Christie and Jeb Bush.
A big chunk of voters basically just said "fuck it" to the whole process and gave up on even the pretense of sane politicians. Who are they going to choose for Congress? Who are they going to nominate for president the next time around? Maybe they'll realize this was a mistake and get back to some form of sanity, but I'm not optimistic.
Sure, the Republican primary electorate found Trump compelling, and that's why they won. And that's what scares me. I don't think they necessarily should have found any of the others compelling (what an awful field of candidates, I mean, seriously, what happened there?) but that's beside the point.
In 2000, Bush mainly kept his mouth shut. But Gore's campaign manager made a series of public statements along the lines of "Gore has clearly won, and if this goes to Bush it's a travesty of the election." That didn't help heal or unite the country after the election; arguably, the division has remained ever since.
Trump could do the same thing, but do it much more loudly, bombastically, and in a more attention-grabbing way. The only prevention would be for him to lose so strongly that nobody listens, and everyone writes it off as the whining of a bitter self-deluded loser.
Trump didn't attract enthusiastic supporters across party lines because they were apathetic jokesters. He may sound insane to you, but to a very large "silent majority" he is the first voice of sanity in a long time.
[citation needed]
Edit: and since you are not the person that posted the sanders quote.. im not sure how you know what they think their premise is.
> Poor white people have advantages that poor black people don't have because of racism... I don't see why you consider it racist to point that out.
I don't but that's not what Sanders said. If he said that, that indeed would be true, but he didn't.
I disagree. I don't believe his intent was to degrade. I think he was trying to acknowledge a truth about our culture, ironically an inequality born out of racism. Here is the full quote so anyone reading this doesn't just see the "taken out of context reddit meme" version.
"So to answer your question, I would say, and I think it’s similar to what the secretary said, when you’re white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto. You don’t know what it’s like to be poor. You don’t know what it’s like to be hassled when you walk down the street or you get dragged out of a car.
And I believe that as a nation in the year 2016, we must be firm in making it clear. We will end institutional racism and reform a broken criminal justice system."
Why, then, should it be shocking or appalling to hear the claim made with the parties' races reversed? Are we to assume that people who aren't white are incapable of bias? Are we to assume that a judge has no power over the people whose cases are heard in his courtroom? Is the total equality of all races a principle worth upholding, or one merely worth claiming when it's convenient, and trivial to ignore when it's not? Are we, in short, to assume that only white people can be bigots?
(And, I mean, you can argue that the question is ill-founded and wrongheaded all you like, and I realize that's the temptingly easy option. You might, though, if you're really as worried about a Trump win in November as blog posts like Mr. Altman's make out, think instead about how you might actually convince somebody who asks a question like that, instead of just trying to shout him down.)
If it was presented as "I'm black, and I'm for more equal rights in America, and he's white, so I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage", which I think is more akin to how it was originally presented, they yes, people would be upset if it was proclaimed loudly and publicly in a national forum.
If it was "He's German, and I'm Jewish, therefore I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage" then yes, people would be upset.
I don't know why you think it wouldn't be a big deal. There would be plenty of people denouncing statements like that. There would also be overly apologetic liberals and overly radicalized minorities defending the statements (wrongly, IMO). Those have their equivalents in the current situation as well.
Don't cast aspersions on people's character (is he violating his oath of office?) based purely on their race. We have a word for that. It's called racism, and it applies both ways.
I'm sure you're right that defendants in trials say stupid shit about judges, and I'm sure some of those comments are overtly racist. If the races in this situation were reversed, I still wouldn't vote for the hot-headed loudmouth.
He never said Mexicans are not smart, should go to different schools, or that they can't drink from the same water.
All he said that this judge in particular has a background as an activist lawyer that belongs to an organization that promotes separation of the latino race, and has participated in granting scholarships to undocumented mexicans. And he suggests that background creates a bias in the case.
American society would not accept a judge with ties to the segregationist movement presiding over the case of a black man accused a crime against a white man.
Or how about a judge that was part of BLM presiding the case of a white cop accused of killing a black youth?
Would that be racist too?
Are defense attorneys racist when they dismiss jurors?
Judges are people too, everyone has biases.
Not really. We have to be more careful with the words than that.
Here's the difference: Trump said that the judge's rulings show that the judge is biased. So, if we accept that the judge is biased, then we want a reason, that is, we want some motivation. Well, it turns out, this judge has Mexican ancestry, is active in some pro-Mexican political causes that conflict with Trump's campaign positions on illegal Mexican immigration. So, Trump said that it appears that this pro-Mexican background of the judge is the judge's motivation for the judge being unfair to Trump.
The huge point is, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican background could not be fair. Instead Trump claimed that it was solid that this judge WAS already unfair to Trump and, then, later, saw as motivation the judge's pro-Mexican background.
It has been easy for the media to distort this situation into Trump claiming that the judge must be unfair because he has a Mexican background. Nope, that's a huge distortion, playing with words. Simply put, Trump claims that the judge is unfair because of the judge's rulings.
I tried to be clear. And it really is clear: Trump claims that the judge IS unfair, and his reasons for saying that are that, as Trump claims, the judge has ruled in unfair ways. So, we get this far, the judge unfair, without mentioning Mexico. Or, the REASON Trump is saying that the judge is unfair is "because" of the judge's rulings against Trump. Then, as in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKmpB7SeNE
with
> All I'm trying to do is figure out why I'm being treated so unfairly by a judge. And a lot of people agree with it. All I want to do, all I want to do is find out why I'm being treated so unfairly by a judge.
Trump is looking for the judge's motivation -- common enough in legal cases, right? So, Trump concludes that the judge's motivation in being unfair is the judge's Mexican background and support of pro-Mexican causes that conflict with some of Trump's campaign positions.
So, we have two uses of "because". Really the second use would be better written, Trump says that the judge's motivation to be unfair was "because" of the judge's Mexican background, etc.
That is, Trump is addressing not just one point about the judge but two -- (1) unfair rulings and (2) motivation for the unfairness. The Mexican part has only to do with point (2).
But, sure, the media that wants headlines claiming that Trump is racist leaps to combine points (1) and (2) and say that Trump says that the judge is unfair "because" of his Mexican background, etc. No: Trump says that the judge is unfair "because" of the judge's rulings and then says that the judge is motivated to be unfair "because" the judge's Mexican background conflicts with Trump's campaign positions.
The media has leaped, nearly in unison, to have a lot of fun, get a lot of clicks, confusing the rulings and the motivations for the rulings to claim that Trump is racist. Trump has claimed that the media is dishonest and disgusting, and IMHO this is an example.
Was the judge unfair? Heck if I know -- I'm not a lawyer. But, unfair or not, maybe as a defendant, as part of a good defense, Trump gets to push back against the judge.
But no way does the record support that Trump is being racist, that is, support that Trump says that any judge with a Mexican background will automatically be unfair.
In one interview, Trump was asked why he didn't say that the judge's rulings were unfair and stop there and not mention Mexico. Sure, Trump might have done that. But Trump says he is a "counter puncher" and, e.g., ready to attack back, in this case, say that the motivation (right, my attempt at being more clear) of the judge was the Mexican stuff. In such counter punching, Trump builds his reputation as no pushover and gets more media attention. In response in this case, much of the media took the opportunity to attack back by playing with the word "because" by conflating the two issues, the rulings and the motivations.
IMHO, Trump is this and that but he's not racist at all. The media -- too often deliberately disgustingly deceptive.
As you mention, for a Muslim judge, would he have to be unfair? Nope. But if a Muslim judge WERE unfair, could his motivation for being unfair be that he was a Muslim and Trump's campaign statements about Muslims? Sure.
Again, there is not just one point to be explained but two -- (1) unfairness and (2) motivation for unfairness. Being Mexican or Muslim would have only to do with (2).
So, again, just for you, Trump claims that some of the judge's rulings were unfair. Then Trump looked for the judge's motivation for the unfair rulings and noticed the ancestry and political causes and concluded that those were were the motivation for the judge being unfair.
My point is, what Trump was doing was not racist. Maybe Trump was blowing smoke in a legal case, looking for attention, pushing back against a legal case being brought during a campaign and for maybe political reasons, etc., but I don't think Trump was being racist.
Too much of the media wanted to attack Trump and claim that what Trump said was that no judge with Mexican ancestry could be fair to him, but that is nothing like what Trump said. It's more than split hairs.
IMHO, the solid, primary sources do not support that claim.
I do intend to post to this thread a response to Altman's post where I give details, but to me the Trump-judge thing went through three steps:
Step 1. Trump asserted that the judge made some unfair decisions against Trump. Maybe Trump was just blowing smoke as part of a good defense, but maybe he was on solid ground. I'm not a lawyer. Then Trump asked -- I have a quote -- why the judge was being unfair.
Step 2. Soon it was clear enough that the judge had Mexican ancestry and was active in some pro-Mexican political activities that conflicted with Trump's campaign positions on illegal immigration from Mexico. Then, and only then, did Trump assert that this background of the judge was likely the reason the judge was unfair.
Or, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican ancestry would have to be unfair. Instead, Trump claimed that this judge's actions in the case showed that the judge was unfair to Trump and, then, could, easily enough, see explanatory reasons in the judge's background. Or, if want to say that someone is being unfair, then it helps to give an explanatory reason. In law, that's called motivation or some such, right, and is regarded as important, right?
Step 3. Since then, a lot more has come out on the judge. He's close to some groups that are wildly racist, e.g., want everyone in the US of Western European descent to return to Europe. Trump has concluded that the judge should recuse himself from the case. If the judge does not recuse, then the case starts to look just political.
Maybe a judge really is strongly for pro-Mexican political causes and is eager to be unfair to others. So, in that case we can't say that the judge is unfair because of his pro-Mexican causes? That would be a license for anyone with pro-Mexican causes to be unfair without being criticized.
Sure he did. Then he doubled down on it by saying a Muslim Judge might be unfair, too. I'm not sure how anybody could fail to see racism here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06...But I can't find the primary sources that support this claim. To me, at this point, the claim looks like just attacks on Trump by people who want to attack him for other reasons.
Indeed, from all I can find, Trump is the opposite of racist.
I'm ready, willing, able, and eager to consider some primary sources that show I'm significantly wrong.
For such a claim, as for any serious claim in this election, I just want some solid evidence.
For immigration, Trump is for enforcing the laws. That's not evidence of being racist. Part of one way of enforcing the laws is to build a wall. That's not racist either; it's enforcing our immigration laws.
For "rapists", some of the illegal immigrants across the Mexican border have been rapists. Trump didn't say that all the illegal immigrants were rapists.
More generally, our legal immigration system was well designed and very careful about who gets admitted. The flow of illegal immigrants across the border with Mexico has everyone who is able physically to cross the border at all. That includes people from Mexico, from elsewhere in Central and South America, people from Cuba, and, now, some people from the war areas of the Mideast, likely including ISIS soldiers. Stopping that illegal immigration is important for US public health, US public safety, US drug enforcement, the US economy, and US national security and is not racist.
The Mexican border is also a source of illegal drugs -- a good wall would greatly slow that. Again, a wall to slow the flow of illegal drugs is not racist.
For Mexicans, Trump has said over and over that he has hired thousands of Mexicans and regards them as excellent workers. So, clearly Trump is not a "racist" on Mexicans.
There is good evidence, e.g., in Arizona, that a lot of people from Mexico and now US citizens will be voting for Trump because they agree with Trump that we should not have illegal immigrants from Mexico. Apparently those US citizens do not regard Trump as racist against people from Mexico.
> His proposed policies have even gained him an endorsement from the KKK.
A political candidate can't keep some dirt bags from saying they like the candidate. But when some dirt bags do so say, then the candidate can reject the support, and Trump did that right away. There was a delay of some seconds, but there are some explanations of that that do not cast a bad light on Trump.
Actually, there is a lot of quite positive evidence that Trump has been a leader against racism. IIRC, Trump was a leader in letting everyone in to his high end golf club in Florida.
I'm still looking for evidence that Trump is racist. So far I like Trump -- if there is something wrong with him, then I want to know it.
Hoover? Was totally oblivious to the The Great Depression. Didn't see the crash coming; didn't know what to do to fix it.
FDR? Was too slow getting us out of The Great Depression. We came out in 90 days flat once people started shooting at us. The damage to the US from The Great Depression was horrible with much of it still with us. He did get us mobilized to win WWII and won it.
Ike? Won WWII in Europe (before he was President). As President, won the war in Korea, pushed back against the Soviets in Berlin, kept the Cold War cold, kept up our military, e.g., nukes, B-52s, ICBMs, SSBNs, and jet airplanes, kept us out of Viet Nam. Did the right things in the Little Rock racism crisis. Ike was slow to keep the economy going. Did respond to Sputnik.
JKF? Did get the economy going again. Started the Apollo program moon shot. Didn't keep us out of Viet Nam. In the end, did the right things in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but looked to the Soviets like a wimp who could be taken advantage of and, thus, partly stimulated that crisis.
LBJ? Went wacko over Viet Nam, killed a lot of people, wasted a lot of money, inflated the US economy.
Nixon? Also wacko over Viet Nam and continued to inflate the US economy. Was a crook. Was driven out of office in disgrace.
Ford? Got out of Viet Nam only after Congress flatly cut off the money.
Carter? Poor leader. Didn't take US energy seriously. Got pushed around by the Iranians. His helicopter effort at Iran flopped.
Reagan? Was a good leader, but had a lot of just silly ideas about what the US should do. Spent a lot of money -- fiscal stimulus -- that did help get the economy going again. Did scare the Soviets over Star Wars and, thus, may have helped the Soviets to give up. Left office mentally handicapped.
Bush 41? Put General Schwarzkopf in charge in Gulf War I who -- in an 8 week air campaign and a 100 hour ground campaign -- totally blew away Saddam's 7 million man army while having fewer US casualties from enemy action than from recreational sports activities. Brilliant. Otherwise neglected the economy.
...
My view is that (1) the US now has some very serious problems, (2) Trump has a lot of determination and a lot of okay to good general approaches for solutions, (3) Trump is good enough as a leader to be able to build consensus for getting things done, (4) he is fully sincere, (5) we are very lucky he is doing what he is, and (6) he has a good shot at being the best president we've had back at least to Hoover where my knowledge of US history is too weak to comment.
Let's DO get out all the important information, but let's NOT be so tough minded that we miss a great opportunity.
I really don't think that's true.
Do you think John McCain actually supports Trump?
I think the healthy majority of GOP politicians are unhappy with Trump, but saying that is politically dangerous.
If he does beat Shillary in the finals, it will at least be nice having most of my peers back to an anti-government slant like during the Bush years.
A vote for a third party is clearly a vote not for either major party candidate.
The parties didn't "mess up" choosing their candidates - the problem is the basis of their entire platform. To the extent that the Repubocrats feel entitled to the Libertarian votes and Demlican the Green, it only affects how much lip service they'll pay to get those votes. Either branch of The Party is not going to run a candidate who will eg dismantle the NSA or the federal reserve. Why would their owners suddenly want to buy pro-freedom positions and diminish their own power?
I also think it's more self honest to be in the group of non-voters, and helps rebuke this extremely condescending attitude that non-voters are "apathetic". In actuality, they're all individuals who've made a rational decision that playing a rigged game is a waste of their time, regardless of how strongly they'll justify it. Silent fucking majority.
Just because the parties agree on some issues doesn't mean the system is rigged.