231 replies to this topic

[Casen]

What gets me the most about anti-Trump people is how they've basically explicitly proven leftists in general are total neurotic hypocrites with no self-awareness. To go into detail nothing regarding his statement about illegal Mexican immigration implies at fucking all he meant "All Mexicans are rapists", the literal wording doesn't say that even if it is ethically questionable and admittedly quite crass. Even if it is wrong that, on a factual level, a disproportionate amount of illegal Mexican immigrants are rapists, it doesn't mean he's a functional racist. Now this is something that a lot of emotional liberal people do not understand - functional racism. They tend to think, or at least act in practice, that anything meeting the broad criteria of "racism" is worse that anything that doesn't. A person who says nigger to a black person isn't worse than a person who murders 100 people for non-racist reasons. Sounds obvious, right? But less blatant and slightly more nuanced examples of this are not acknowledged or acted on intelligently by a lot of people.

My point is even if Trump is slightly "racist" in a sorta old man who says awkward shit sorta way, there's no obvious reason why he would let, or want, this to manifest into functional racism, that is the advocation of specific policies that discriminate against, say, Mexicans. His hiring practices, at least nowadays, and general actions obviously show he judges people as individuals (at least in spite of race and sex) even if he may generalize and say assholish things. This means he's not a functional racist. This is worth understanding when the alternative to him is going to be a neocon warmongerer who's killed more brown people than he ever did. It's a no-brainer for someone smart to wish for Trump over Hillary at least if you're worried about net human harm.

This all proves a metric fuckton of leftists are disingenuous hypocrites because supposedly "smart", "witty people" like the stupid smug fucks at the Daily Show and Colbert Report (shows I used to enjoy when I was a generic dumb liberal) regurgitate endlessly and matter-of-factly with no self awareness that his vague statements make him a racist against Mexicans - when if a right-wing figure did the equivalent strawmanning to a left-wing figure they'd jump on it and endlessly deconstruct it like I've done here. Face it, 95% of people don't care about being objective towards politicians they don't like ideologically or otherwise, because hey, it helps demean them overall and, whilst dishonest, is technically pragmatic. I personally hold as principle to not lie, because I don't like lying.

Of course let's address the elephant in the room: His proposed ban on Muslims. Let's not split hairs here and just accept it's discriminatory but not technically racist. But, it is also 1). Temporary, 2) Not going to effect Muslims currently here and 3). Won't directly harm any Muslim whereas bombing foreign (all predominantly Muslim) countries definitely will. This is what I mean by pragmatism: the technically de-jure discriminatory policy causes less harm to the group being discriminated against than the policy that isn't technically discriminatory. That's how smart people should think when choosing between binary choices. Any leftist who isn't utilitarian is a retarded borderline religious person. That's what the main issue is regarding hardline Communists, most of their views, especially the social ones not directly tied to (by most people's criteria) economics come off as arbitrary, unpragmatic, and borderline dogmatic.

Edited by Casen, 07 May 2016 - 09:05 AM.

[Pasidon]

I wouldn't even care if he was a legitimate racist.  Whatever that means these days.  There's already too many people in this country, and I don't want them here either.  I don't even like white people being here.  Mexicans and Muslims are fine in their own square of land.  Their counties are probably better anyway.

 

By the way, whatever happened to Anonymous' war on Trump?  All they did was give out his credit card information.  I guess he hasn't strangled any newborn children and wrote a blog about like, like they hoped.

[OmegaBolt]

Even if it is wrong that, on a factual level, a disproportionate amount of illegal Mexican immigrants are rapists, it doesn't mean he's a functional racist. Now this is something that a lot of emotional liberal people do not understand - functional racism.

This is what the phrase "clutching at straws" was made for. Yes, acting on racist beliefs is worse than just thinking it, but they're not at all mutually exclusive. The idea that someone can be a racist but never act on it is nonsense, particularly when they have a lot of power such as owning a huge business or running a country. Do you think someone who harbours less, or no, respect for a certain sector of society are gonna pay as much attention to them when in office? And what do you think happens when certain issues and groups are not given the attention they need from their own government to solve problems that effect them? This is why racial divides still exist in America. This is why more non-whites are in poverty, in areas that are underfunded compared to white-majority areas, lower education, higher crime rates etc etc. It has a ginormous impact. It's not one guy on the street with a personal bias, it's someone who has literal influence over the entire country. Do you think he's gonna clamp down on the police massively disproportionately targeting non-whites? Is he gonna force the police to go after whites for crimes they get off lightly with, while a black/hispanic/arab would get jail time?

His vitriol is already creating problems, you know.

http://www.latimes.c...0313-story.html
http://thinkprogress...trump-hate-map/
https://theintercept...uslim-rhetoric/
http://www.telesurtv...60301-0030.html
http://edition.cnn.c...boston-beating/

It's endless.
 

A person who says nigger to a black person isn't worse than a person who murders 100 people for non-racist reasons.

Nobody sane thinks that, you are ridiculously exaggerating.
 

My point is even if Trump is slightly "racist" in a sorta old man who says awkward shit sorta way, there's no obvious reason why he would let, or want, this to manifest into functional racism

That makes no sense. I don't know people who conscious work against their own beliefs because they somehow realise they're wrong and yet still believe them anyway. You're putting amazing faith in a man who says whatever comes into his head to show self constraint.
 

His hiring practices, at least nowadays, and general actions obviously show he judges people as individuals

If you think "hiring practices" is a sign that someone isn't racist then... maybe you're a classic American capitalist that mistakes corporations for Humans. You know why someone would hire someone else? Because they make them more money. It's not a sign of generosity. Trump wants the best people for the job, or perhaps the cheapest labour (which happens to be immigrants and Mexicans), because he wants money. It says nothing about his humanitarianism. It's business.
 

deonstruct it like I've done here

What? Where?
 

I personally hold as principle to not lie, because I don't like lying.

So you'd support the biggest liar on stage? http://www.politifac...s/donald-trump/
 

Of course let's address the elephant in the room: His proposed ban on Muslims. Let's not split hairs here and just accept it's discriminatory but not technically racist. But, it is also 1). Temporary

1) You assume it will be temporary. There are lots of temporary measures that are never repealed. And 2) So what if it is temporary? That doesn't make such a suggestion any better.
 

2) Not going to effect Muslims currently here

1) Could mean they can't leave and return, or at least would have to go through even greater scrutiny than they already do. 2) They may have family who want to visit or join them.
 

3) Won't directly harm any Muslim

Unless they're refugees right? Who need sanctuary now their homeland has been bombed to shit. Rather than helping those people, many your own victims, you close the border. It's rather pathetic.

What I really don't get is that you acknowledge his discrimination and yet are willing to put up with it. Don't you realise that there are 300 million people in the United States and you really think this guy is an acceptable candidate for President? Out of all those people? Do you really think a racist, whether "functional" or not, is the best you can do? Don't you deserve better? Why not vote for someone who actually wants to help you and fellow countrymen rather than shut down the lives of others? Yet for some reason people always settle for "well he's not that bad". "At least he's not a huge racist". What could he do to make you think him unsuitable for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. He said it himself: he could shoot someone on the street and people would still support him.

When I see a Trump rally where black guys are threatened with death, people are beaten and forcibly removed, where the press is restricted or kept out while the crowd chant "USA, USA, USA" all I see are blood lusted chimpanzees.

[Casen]

Okay for the record I don't even think Trump actually is racist, I was just giving it as an example if he actually was awkward old man racist. To be fair though you're technically right "mild" racism that isn't KKK lynching racism from someone holding a lot of power can still manifest as "institutional" racism, subtly or otherwise. My point still stands though, and to elaborate I find it unusual that, if he was a racist, that statement he made about Mexican immigration is apparently the evidence, because he's been trying to clarify that for some time probably realizing he worded it questionably - yet he's remained constant on the temporary Muslim ban issue - a stance extremely controversial that, he, mind you, is open about and has not rescinded. If he's open about that why would he not be open about the racism he supposedly holds towards Mexicans? I mean that's not a clear-cut excuse, granted racism is more controversial than anti-Islamism, but my point stands the racism charge is pure conjecture. I did hear about some housing issue from decades ago, not sure if that's confirmed, but that may be about as stupid as the people nitpicking at the "racist" newsletters Ron Paul apparently wrote - or not, a few decades ago. May not even be the dude's views anymore. But my point is the actual inherent racism presumed of Trump is not proven.

 

Also to address your point about hate crimes going up and a more broad implied point of how many white nationalist/nazi types have jumped the Trump train, lemme bring up Ron Paul again: People will support the thing "closest" to their views especially when they're ether A): Ostracized(desperate). or B): Hyper pragmatic like me - and not many people like me exist. Now before this is jumped on, keep in mind "closest" to your views really really REALLY needs to be looked at relatively, and people tend to not do this when judging people of opposing political camps, for example when people say Marine Le Pen is far right (in the same category as literal Nazis or the Golden Dawn), yet the views they have on French for the ethnic French are probably the average opinion of a French person from three decades ago. To be consistent you need to think French people three decades ago were literal Nazis. It's not much different when a retarded American conservative compares Bernie Sanders to Joseph Stalin because SOCIALISM! SCARY!!!!!! But I digress, my point is WN types - as well as most leftists - for totally consistent reasons, do not like American foreign policy. Sharing this opinion does not make them the same thing. On top of that, this is my personal experience, far rightists /like/ the fact that Leftists are so stupid they think he's a "fascist" they they might as well support him over the other candidates to enrage leftists. The general "American Nationalism" point is still preferable in ether case to what they have now, but obviously Trump has no interest in ethnic or racial preservation in the USA.

Funny thing: I don't agree with Trump on the Muslim ban, I think the best course of action is to allow refugees here (and Canada). It's the best compromise. They threaten ethnic homogeneity in Europe (which immigration policies the past few decades have already done, I mean ffs London is minority ethnic English and if you have a problem with that apparently you want to kill 6 million Muslims. No nuance is assumed of human thought anymore. No wonder there's far right extremism), but at the same time I'm not a blithering racist and I don't mind the USA being multicultural/multiethnic, so the best most humane compromise is to allow them here.

But like I said, to reiterate priorities. You stated that I should want the most qualified person for the job, and to reiterate for the thousandth time, chances are it's going to be Trump versus Hillary. I really sincerely think you should consider it at the very VERY fucking least debatable which one is worse, rather than the emotional knee-jerk towards Trump being the worst, for the reason I gave. As someone who has been against American neo-conservative foreign policy since day fucking one I was mature enough to understand the gist of politics, I absolutely positively refuse to give up on my one chance of smashing that system. Can you really deny it's debatable whether Trump, all his 100% confirmed flaws, is worse than a woman who is a crook, is so corrupt and status quo, has apparently helped in the suppression of indigenous rights activists in Honduras, and so on. I've mentioned it twenty times. Can it not be debated perhaps Trump's relatively isolationist foreign policy would cause less harm than Hillary's even if we're assuming Trump worst case scenario? Can we at least admit it's up in the air, and that's the rabid leftists attacking Trump supporters and Trump himself whilst giving Hillary far less, if any, attention is short sighted? This woman is scum. Trump at least is a bit coherent about being an asshole who hates political correctness. This woman plays the female card constantly and acts all nice when she is literally satan.

Yes, I am voting for Trump 95% for foreign policy reasons and some of his opinions. That's how much I think it matters, and how much I have been waiting for someone who at least represents some key points I agree with to get elected, that I never expected in my fucking life, and I resent people literally acting like I am evil for doing so. When people are literally working hard to smash said candidate, and I myself have been directly demonized and ostracized for calmly explaining why I choose Trump over Hillary, why the fuck am I supposed to be "horrified" at how violent Trump people have been to annoying borderline SJW anti-Trump protesters when those people have been absolute fucking scum towards me? I've had the desire to do such as well after what I've experienced and what I've seen.

[PurpleGaga27]

IMO, Trump definitely isn't racist but I sincerely hope that Donald Trump isn't the next Donald Sterling.

 

Apparently, the Republican/GOP people as of today is divided. Trump may or may not be a Republican, but he's something else of a new party other than Independent, Green, Whig, Progressive, etc. (not sure what to call it)

[Mathijs]

My point still stands though, and to elaborate I find it unusual that, if he was a racist, that statement he made about Mexican immigration is apparently the evidence, because he's been trying to clarify that for some time probably realizing he worded it questionably.

Poorly disguised backpedaling. A guy running for president (Republican nominee at the time) needs to have more of a grasp of what the hell comes out of his mouth. Everyone can make mistakes, a slip of the tongue may happen, but saying shit like...

 

"They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

 

"I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding."

 

...is inexcusable. Doesn't mather how many times he's tried to explain it away, saying it in the first place is a clear sign that he's not fit to be in a position where he'll be representing a country in talking to foreign heads of state on a a near daily basis. A president should express cohesiveness: making sweeping generalisations based on poorly informed gut feeling (Mexicans aren't bringing massive amounts of criminal activity/rape and torture doesn't actually work) is exactly what a president should not be doing. 

 

As to him not being a racist... well, he talks the talk, and I think people should be judged based on what comes out of their mouth. Personal responsibility and all that. What else can we judge him on? I don't know the guy. Is he kidding? Is he just a demagogue saying things to get people riled up and ready to vote for him? If so, that sounds like the establishment to me.

 

Here's how it is: you like Trump, who has said some pretty racist things, but you also know racism is bad, so you've got to combine these two ideas somehow. Easiest way out? Claim that Trump, despite saying things that are obviously racist, is somehow not actually a racist.  You're moving the goal posts so you don't have to reflect on what you're truly supporting. It's a complete fallacy. Seems to me you like Trump despite him being a racist. Which is fine by me, but you've got to own up to it.

[Casen]

It's not a fallacy. People can say questionable things in questionable ways, make mistakes, and like I said the statement can mean a lot of things. The guy obviously doesn't believe that all Mexicans are rapists - my point is whatever he meant wasn't racist. It's a shit way of wording stuff but there's nothing intrinsic 100% undebatable about his statement that must mean "all Mexicans are rapists". That's my point. And like I said I don't disagree with some/many criticisms of him.
 

I agree he needs to have a grasp of what comes out of his mouth, but unless he's going to implement policies that explicitly discriminate against Mexicans solely for being Mexican, then he's not a racist.

 

Here's how it is: you like Trump, who has said some pretty racist things, but you also know racism is bad, so you've got to combine these two ideas somehow. Easiest way out? Claim that Trump, despite saying things that are obviously racist, is somehow not actually a racist.  You're moving the goal posts so you don't have to reflect on what you're truly supporting. It's a complete fallacy. Seems to me you like Trump despite him being a racist. Which is fine by me, but you've got to own up to it.

 

Quite frankly no, I don't think he's a racist. That's it. I don't think he's a person who wants to discriminate against a group solely based on their race. He's been totally consistent he is totally okay with Mexicans coming over legally.

Edited by Casen, 07 May 2016 - 04:28 PM.

[Mathijs]

So unless someone saying racist things gets into government to start implementing racist laws, that someone isn't racist? Grand Imperial Wizard'll be glad to hear it.

 

Okay. Let's say that deep down, Trump is not actually a racist.

Why is there such a backlog of racist quotes and other racist actions attributed to him? Is he too dumb to understand what he's saying? Does he live in perpetual Opposite Day? The likeliest explanation (besides him being a racist), to me, is this: he's pretending to be racist in order to appeal to and provide a traditional scapegoat to disgruntled Americans, in order to tap into a demographic that feels the goverment has abandoned them. And that disqualifies him as good president material in my book. Trump's a man who lives in the spotlights, everyday Americans look up to him, he exerts clear influence; and he's using that influence to fuel ignorant ideas, provide phony solutions to real problems, and further increase divides in the population. Most of his claims are factually untrue, but he spreads them anyway for his personal gain.

 

If he's not a racist, he's still completely irresponsible demagogue. I'm thinking he's both.

[OmegaBolt]

Okay for the record I don't even think Trump actually is racist, I was just giving it as an example if he actually was awkward old man racist.

How is that really helpful? Let's not talk about hypotheticals, let's talk about what he's actually been doing.
 

To be fair though you're technically right "mild" racism that isn't KKK lynching racism from someone holding a lot of power can still manifest as "institutional" racism, subtly or otherwise. My point still stands though

How does your point still stand? I gave you some reasons why I think your argument is empty, and you say "you're right, but you're not right". What does that mean?
 

that statement he made about Mexican immigration is apparently the evidence, because he's been trying to clarify that for some time probably realizing he worded it questionably - yet he's remained constant on the temporary Muslim ban issue - a stance extremely controversial that, he, mind you, is open about and has not rescinded. If he's open about that why would he not be open about the racism he supposedly holds towards Mexicans?

None of these sentences make sense to me. Are you suggesting that because he openly agrees with people that criticize his own idea (which is fucking mental to begin with, HE SAID IT and yet he agrees it's a whacko idea - what a lunatic) and yet didn't recognize his Mexican statement was crazy, somehow creates an inconsistency? I don't see how it does. It certainly doesn't clear him of any racist attitudes. There are many reasons why he might be inconsistent: 1) He's always inconsistent. 2) It is more acceptable to say something about Mexican immigrants than it is about Muslims at the moment. 3) There was more built up pressure on him to retract or admit the absurdity of everything he said because by the time the Muslim ban came around he had been in the political race for a while. That Mexican comment was an early shock that people took for granted.
 

But my point is the actual inherent racism presumed of Trump is not proven.

What do you mean by proven? How do you "prove" someone thinks less of another race of people except by judging their words and actions? Which is what everyone is doing with Donald Trump.
 

People will support the thing "closest" to their views

So why the fuck do you want to support a guy who's views are closely linked to open white supremacists?

And he lies about it... here's Trump pretending not to know who the KKK are (which would make him an ignorant, uneducated buffoon unfit for office) let alone Grand Goblin Wizard David Duke, despite earlier having known exactly who he was, therefore making him a liar who would rather not disregard racist votes (a classic republican strategy): http://www.politifac...-about-former-/
 

Now before this is jumped on, keep in mind "closest" to your views really really REALLY needs to be looked at relatively

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. The reason they support him is because he belittles minority groups and empowers the bigots. He says whatever he wants and doesn't care, just like they want to. He throws people out of his rallies, he says he'll pay for any legal fees of his supporters if they get sued for roughing up a dissident. He gives them a space to output their apish energy and never tells them they're wrong. That's incredibly dangerous and hateful, already inspiring violence, and if he becomes President it so far seems very likely he'll REALLY turn the other cheek - not just to his supporters, but to existing police brutality.

I mean ffs London is minority ethnic English

Seriously... what are you basing that on? White British is by far the majority even in the most racially diverce city in the UK, and that's even ignoring British born people of another racial group.

http://www.londonspo...n-by-ethnicity/
 

I absolutely positively refuse to give up on my one chance of smashing that system.

By voting for a billionaire who is exactly "the system". Just because he has no political skill, doesn't mean he's not the status quo. He openly said when he first started running that he used to be the one buying off politicians. Do you really think he's gonna remove money from politics so future elections can change America for the betterment of the people? Highly doubtful, he'd be going against his own interest. He' surrounded entirely by businessmen, and now literally fusing the two. Not just legal bribery and super PACs, but an actual corporate leader in direct control with absolutely no experience at all and showing no capability from his campaign either.

The best you can hope for is that by allowing Donald Trump to become President the facade of democracy is so shattered that there is a meaningful revolution of some kind, but that's flipping a coin.

Although Hillary is horrific, but you do at least know what she's going to do and can rally against her. Bernie has wrecked her against all odds whether he wins or not, so she has a lot to account for. Trump is a wild card who's going to completely divide the country. Those racially motivated radicals who support his extreme ideas and everyone else. I bet if he wins there will be clashes on the street honestly. The scary thing is, then he'll be in control of the police.
 

Yes, I am voting for Trump 95% for foreign policy reasons and some of his opinions.

What is his foreign policy exactly? Does he have "policy" on anything? He says things, he never goes into detail (except as Mathijs pointed out, that he loves torture and waterboarding, which is fucking mental, regressive and medieval), so what do you really know about his so called policy? It seems to me you're mostly guessing and assuming what he's gonna do based on his inconsistent ramblings. As far as I'm aware he's never released any detailed document or used any credible source of information to back up his (still unformed) strategy.

Search "trump foreign policy" on Google and you get a nice load of quotes that are completey contradictory. Some of his worse ones though, that are not a change of strategy at all:

"He said he wants U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, but more importantly, “I want other countries to get on the ground fighting ISIS.”" -- More occupation? More US soldiers killed? War against the Syrian government now?
"“We will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally -- the state of Israel,” Trump said." -- Great, no peace for Palestine, just more support for a rogue nation with nuclear weapons.
"“We will totally dismantle Iran's global terror network,” Trump said." -- War with Iran then? Finally, the military industrial complex will love that, they've been tying for decades.
"Says Trump in a campaign ad: “I will...quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no one -- and I mean, no one -- will mess with us.”" -- Can it get any bigger than it already is? How much more money can go into it?
"The career diplomats who got us into many foreign policy messes say I have no experience in foreign policy. They think that successful diplomacy requires years of experience and an understanding of all the nuances that have been carefully considered before reaching a conclusion." -- Cool, a lack of a nuance is EXACTLY what US foreign policy needs... as if that hasn't been the problem all along.

And remember this is the guy that used footage from Morocco in a campaign video and pretended it was the Mexican border. So I dunno what his position is and you can't rely on someone you don't even understand to lead your country.

[duke_Qa]

 

the last few replies reminded me of this fun article: America Has Never Been So Ripe For Tyranny

Edited by duke_Qa, 07 May 2016 - 06:00 PM.

[OmegaBolt]

Shit just got scarier for the rest of the world. Trump just threatened to effectively default on national debt: http://www.vox.com/2...t-default-debt Which would first, cause ginormous ripples in the economy if he came anywhere close to President, even before being elected, as people desperately try to save their money and get out, but secondly would collapse the global economy the likes of which no depression has yet come close to. I dunno if even the Russians and Chinese can buy gold fast enough if Trump is elected.

Edited by OmegaBolt, 08 May 2016 - 08:04 PM.

[Mathijs]

Well at the very least we can assert that he's got prior experience in defaulting.

[OmegaBolt]

Apparently the Democratic Party are preparing for Hillary's potential indictment over her private e-mail server used to hold classified information.

 

[Pasidon]

So they're dealing with a convicted criminal.  I wonder if they ever would if they thought Hillary could beat Trump.

[OmegaBolt]

So the democratic election has been filled with voting serious issues across many states, but the worst seems to have been California, which appears to be an absolute debacle.

 

[PurpleGaga27]

So far neither Trump nor Clinton have their vice-president running mate yet, and now there's word from news sources that Bernie Sanders is endorsing Clinton.

[Pavey(Thrandy)]

I like Trump more.If anyone is going to start the Last Crusade it's him.

[Pasidon]

So much for Sanders being the moral compass.  Endorsing a criminal is usually frowned upon in most brands of philosophy.  Go go, team Trump.  If he gets my future ex-wife, Sarah Pailen as his VP, I'll be satisfied with white people again.

[Pasidon]

Although, do you like cringing?  Well, I love my Trump baby, but he shouldn't post things like this on his FB page...

 

https://www.facebook...57309144940725/

[Pavey(Thrandy)]

I am addicted to cringe!