USA Politics

[Gurn Blanston]

So you believe Trump wanting a border wall is indisputably racist?

In and of itself, it may or may not be, since a wall is an inanimate object all on its own. But no act of that type exists without context. And when you add the context, taken from his own words and actions over the last 5 years, then disputing the inherent racism of building the wall is a task only a fool or a hopeless political lackey would undertake.

[greg]

In and of itself, it may or may not be, since a wall is an inanimate object all on its own. But no act of that type exists without context. And when you add the context, taken from his own words and actions over the last 5 years, then disputing the inherent racism of building the wall is a task only a fool or a hopeless political lackey would undertake.

Finally, a reasonable answer. I did expect the mention of context to pop up from someone.

Why I'm questioning whether he is racist is, what in his past is at least 90% undeniably racist (in this case towards Mexicans/Hispanic) to make this reek of racism? (though keep in mind, my phrasing "reek" is my own, and would be the only one to make any sort of sense- what was sold to me was building a wall itself is the racism part, not the context part).



I also want someone to answer this:

Is Trump racist based on:

1) reasonable suspicion or
2) lack of reasonable doubt?

it is important because there we can understand the difference in how we judge people.

[JBS]

I mean, all that stuff is part of a different discussion. It doesn't exactly address my question.

If his New York years are racist, then fine. But what has been sold to me is that building a border wall is racist.

Because the facts show that the Wall won't do anything to help border security.  Short increments of wall do, but that was already part of our border security before  Trump came in.

So the Wall is useless. And why does Trump want it? To keep out immigrants. And why does  he want to keep out immigrants? Because  in Trumpworld, immigrants are bad people who want to leech off the rest of us.  Of course  somehow white European immigrants are not bad people, especially if they support Trump.

It's a purely racist attitude to immigrants. And it's not just Trump. It's most of the GOP.

[SimonNZ]

I also want someone to answer this:it is important because there we can understand the difference in how we judge people.

It's utterly banal to say there's a difference in the way we judge people if we might be sending them to jail and the way we judge their character as voters.

The only one who thinks this is news is you.

[greg]

Because the facts show that the Wall won't do anything to help border security.  Short increments of wall do, but that was already part of our border security before  Trump came in.

So the Wall is useless. And why does Trump want it? To keep out immigrants. And why does  he want to keep out immigrants? Because  in Trumpworld, immigrants are bad people who want to leech off the rest of us.  Of course  somehow white European immigrants are not bad people, especially if they support Trump.

It's a purely racist attitude to immigrants. And it's not just Trump. It's most of the GOP.

Wait, doesn't helping border security mean keeping out (illegal) immigrants? And if he knows that it's useless for that, then why are you saying his goal is to keep out immigrants?

Does he just not know that it's ineffective or is he just throwing money on a silly project?

It's utterly banal to say there's a difference in the way we judge people if we might be sending them to jail and the way we judge their character as voters.

The only one who thinks this is news is you.

I'm not sure how this is an answer to my question... I'm getting a headache most likely from so many replies, so that may be it.

[SimonNZ]

Wait, doesn't helping border security mean keeping out (illegal) immigrants? And if he knows that it's useless for that, then why are you saying his goal is to keep out immigrants?

Does he just not know that it's ineffective or is he just throwing money on a silly project?

These questions have been answered multiple times already. He knows its popular with his base, efficiency means nothing as long as the idea can generate a three word chant at rallies.

[JBS]

So why the resistance to build it? The government already wastes enough money. What's a few billion more in DC? Those blocking the measure know that it will work hence the reason for not funding it.
That is absolutely dishonest. The government under Trump has legalized about 4-5 million immigrants and he has said repeatedly that our economy needs them. The problem is with the illegal immigrants. There is nothing racist with a nation wanting to control its immigration flow or protect its borders, prevent illegal crossings and deport those who have broken laws and are a threat. Dismissing all such actions as racist is just a lame attempt to stop any meaningful actions being done to stop abuses of our immigration laws.

I have heard that line about legalizing 4-5 million immigrants. It has no connection to the real world I know of. Could you explain what it's supposed to be?

But Trump's immigration agenda is aimed at all immigrants. For instance, today's announcement that has the goal of kicking out as many student visa  holders as possible. His treatment of asylum seekers that equates them to criminals. And so on. He's not against only illegal immigrants. He's against immigrants, period.

[Todd]

The big, beautiful wall is pie in the sky.  Chipping away at the international system is real: Trump administration begins formal withdrawal from World Health Organization

Super-Creepy 46 will probably find a way to weasel the US back in, but you have to celebrate the small victories while you can.

[Karl Henning]

Seen on Twitter:

"It's increasingly difficult to pretend you support decency in public life and remain a Republican. It's getting to be like saying you belong to the pro-equality branch of the KKK."

[Gurn Blanston]

The big, beautiful wall is pie in the sky.  Chipping away at the international system is real: Trump administration begins formal withdrawal from World Health Organization

Super-Creepy 46 will probably find a way to weasel the US back in, but you have to celebrate the small victories while you can.

Well, if you had read further, the "withdrawal" is scheduled for July 2021. By which time it may be moot. It's a whatchacall "Talking Point" for the Base, that's all...

[Herman]

Trump pretty much started Lame Ducking in January 2017.

The only things he's done is install judges. The rest is symbolism.

[Karl Henning]

Well, if you had read further, the "withdrawal" is scheduled for July 2021. By which time it may be moot. It's a whatchacall "Talking Point" for the Base, that's all...

Todd  needs a fresh pair of pom-poms....

[arpeggio]

I just saw this ad by Trump about defunding police:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOOlOMLaFho

It is very insulting and there is no justification for it.  If a person actually believes that we do not want the police, they are so delusional that we would be wasting our time trying to engage with them.  They are a lost cause.

[Todd]

Well, if you had read further, the "withdrawal" is scheduled for July 2021. By which time it may be moot. It's a whatchacall "Talking Point" for the Base, that's all...

Yes, I'm fully aware of all that, which is why I stated that Super-Creepy 46 will weasel the US back in.  The action has caused discomfort and some protests amongst international sorts, though, so they see it as material and real, even if you do not.  If by some miracle Trump wins reelection, it could have more far-reaching consequences.  As it stands, the US can cause fiscal discomfort at the WHO, which itself is a laudable goal.  While there is obviously an aspect of playing to the base, Trump has caused real damage to the international system.  Just seeing Super-Creepy 46 get elected is not going to be enough to restore levels of trust in the US and its institutions to pre-2016 (or pre-2000) levels. 

Again, you have to celebrate the small victories while you can.

Trump pretty much started Lame Ducking in January 2017.

Then why all the outrage online and in the press, and why all the posturing by non-Americans?

The only things he's done is install judges. The rest is symbolism.

This is factually inaccurate.  Trump signed an excellent tax cut into law, and he has done a good job of rolling back regulations.  He and DeVos have not gutted education, which was something you stated would happen.  So, he could have done more.

[SimonNZ]

Super-Creepy 46

From the Guardian's review of the new book by Trump's niece:

[...]"Trump's notorious treatment of women is also discussed. Mary Trump says that when her uncle provided material, it was "an aggrieved compendium of women" – Madonna and the ice skater Katarina Witt among them – "he had expected to date but who, having refused him, were suddenly the worst, ugliest and fattest slobs he'd ever met."

"I stopped asking him for an interview," she writes, adding that on a visit to Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida to work on the book, she was wearing a bathing suit when Trump looked at his niece and said: "Holy shit, Mary. You're stacked."[...]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/07/donald-trump-abuse-father-niece-mary-book

[geralmar]

Crickets here about Putin's bounties on American servicemen, eh?

Given that this a European-based website that might be expected.  I wish the U.S. media would pay it more attention, however.  (Pandemic everything.)  I'm a long-ago army veteran and believe while trump's behaviour may not meet the legal definition of treason, it can still be labeled traitorous.  Fortunately the military press seems to be covering.

[SimonNZ]

Given that this a European-based website that might be expected.  I wish the U.S. media would pay it more attention, however.  (Pandemic everything.)  I'm a long-ago army veteran and believe while trump's behaviour may not meet the legal definition of treason, it can still be labeled traitorous.  Fortunately the military press seems to be covering.

Which military press do you follow?

[arpeggio]

Yes, I'm fully aware of all that, which is why I stated that Super-Creepy 46 will weasel the US back in.  The action has caused discomfort and some protests amongst international sorts, though, so they see it as material and real, even if you do not.  If by some miracle Trump wins reelection, it could have more far-reaching consequences.  As it stands, the US can cause fiscal discomfort at the WHO, which itself is a laudable goal.  While there is obviously an aspect of playing to the base, Trump has caused real damage to the international system.  Just seeing Super-Creepy 46 get elected is not going to be enough to restore levels of trust in the US and its institutions to pre-2016 (or pre-2000) levels. 

Again, you have to celebrate the small victories while you can.



Then why all the outrage online and in the press, and why all the posturing by non-Americans?



This is factually inaccurate.  Trump signed an excellent tax cut into law, and he has done a good job of rolling back regulations.  He and DeVos have not gutted education, which was something you stated would happen.  So, he could have done more.

Baloney.   I refuse to believe that a person of you intelligence does not already know the answers to any of your questions.

[geralmar]

Which military press do you follow?

Army Times

https://www.armytimes.com

Not a slavish follower.  Did my military obligation decades ago.

[SimonNZ]

Army Times

https://www.armytimes.com

Not a slavish follower.  Did my military obligation decades ago.

Thanks.