USA Politics

[Herman]

it leads to dangerous beliefs, like some people admitting they believe the millions of people who voted for him are racist.

Why is thinking, or saying, the president and a large portion of his followers are racist, based on an endless history of facts, a "dangerous belief" and constantly saying you need more evidence to make up your mind not?

I don't think Simon or anyone is telling anyone what or whom to vote. On the other hand, the global pandemic is yet another proof nations are not seperate islands anymore. Countries led by populists with autocrat leanings are a danger to the entire world population because, for some reason, they don't protect their own populations and thus pose a grave danger to other countries. The EU has banned travel from the US but obviously this is not airtight.
Also, the whole idea of humanism / christianity is you also try to keep people you're not immediately connected to out of harm's way. This is part of the reasons why Canada and the USA came to liberate Europe in 1944. America is now saddled with a leadership that prefers to do fireworks and speeches rather than prevent mass death, and it is only natural that people in a saner part of the universe are saying "you sure you want that?" Interestingly many times the answer is "Yes we do!"

[greg]

Because demonizing/dehumanizing millions never leads to a brighter future. Never has. And even worse if most of the people aren't even bad. And yes, "racist" is a dehumanizing term. Unless you don't really think racism is actually that bad?

[Karl Henning]

I don't think that's fair. We've explained our views here before only to be called trolls, racists, and iffy people.

Gosh, aren't you the victim?

Point me to a post where you express opposition to trump's racism.

[Herman]

I don't quite understand the plural "we" either.

I am assuming that people who post here speak for themselves, not for some anonymous plurality.

But perhaps it's translation error from the Russian.

[Karl Henning]

You never gave an example.

That denial underscores the point, Mr "what racism?"

[Herman]

Because demonizing/dehumanizing millions never leads to a brighter future. Never has. And even worse if most of the people aren't even bad. And yes, "racist" is a dehumanizing term. Unless you don't really think racism is actually that bad?

So, by extension you're saying the Civil War should not have happened, because it made people in the South feel bad about themselves?

America shouldn't have declared independence because it hurt the King's feelings?

In your naiveté you're turning things around. Racism hurts people's feelings, and more importantly it hinders them from living their lives on an equal basis with white people. Societies all over the world (but obviously we're discussing USA Politix here) are attempting to move forward in this, and to do this it is necessary to name things as they happen.

That is why people are saying, in quite substantial numbers, over a wide political spectrum (except of course Republican career politicians) Trump is and has always been, a racist, who got into the White House because he promised his base racism, starting with Birtherism and Mexican rapists.

Hopefully there will be a massive reaction at the voting booth come November but you can't just say it would hurt Trump's feelings to vote him out of office because he's an incompetent racist. Racism is hurtful and dehumanizing; telling someone who says or does racist things what he's doing may or may not be hurtful, but it is necessary  -  privided it's not just your uncle at Thanksgiving or an old crank on his back porch.

There are obviously millions of people who voted for Trump because of things he said (Birtherism, Mexicans and the whole symphony of dog whistles). Just because they are many should one say, "it can't be racism, he just misspoke"? Obama was a very empathetic smooth talker who rarely showed anger, because he thought it would not work. No doubt Biden will try to instill some optimism in the way people talk about the nation's course. It's no use blaming people for holding on to bad things, just like he's going to discourage people who keep saying Trump should be thrown in jail. That's Trump talk. Biden is not going to do that, and it's very likely either Trump will pardon himself and his kids, or Pence will, after Trump has stepped down should he lose the elections.

[greg]

So, by extension you're saying the Civil War should not have happened, because it made people in the South feel bad about themselves?

America shouldn't have declared independence because it hurt the King's feelings?

In your naiveté you're turning things around. Racism hurts people's feelings, and more importantly it hinders them from living their lives on an equal basis with white people. Societies all over the world (but obviously we're discussing USA Politix here) are attempting to move forward in this, and to do this it is necessary to name things as they happen.

That is why people are saying, in quite substantial numbers, over a wide political spectrum (except of course Republican career politicians) Trump is and has always been, a racist, who got into the White House because he promised his base racism, starting with Birtherism and Mexican rapists.

Hopefully there will be a massive reaction at the voting booth come November but you can't just say it would hurt Trump's feelings to vote him out of office because he's an incompetent racist. Racism is hurtful and dehumanizing; telling someone who says or does racist things what he's doing may or may not be hurtful, but it is necessary  -  privided it's not just your uncle at Thanksgiving or an old crank on his back porch.

There are obviously millions of people who voted for Trump because of things he said (Birtherism, Mexicans and the whole symphony of dog whistles). Just because they are many should one say, "it can't be racism, he just misspoke"? Obama was a very empathetic smooth talker who rarely showed anger, because he thought it would not work. No doubt Biden will try to instill some optimism in the way people talk about the nation's course. It's no use blaming people for holding on to bad things, just like he's going to discourage people who keep saying Trump should be thrown in jail. That's Trump talk. Biden is not going to do that, and it's very likely either Trump will pardon himself and his kids, or Pence will, after Trump has stepped down should he lose the elections.

Commenting on the first question...

I'm sorry, that's just testing my patience... you can't compare slavery to a President that impulsively says weird, questionable things. I often see the comparisons with Hitler, too, and wonder about the psychology of people making such comparisons.

[Herman]

He doesn't say those things impulsively.

He is (and has always been) aware that racist dogwhistles will make lowlifes like him, and there are a lot of lowlifes.

If there's a system in what a person says over the years, if he keeps saying the same things and aiming at the same end, it's not impulsive. It may be automatic and unthinking but it is what this person stands for.

Thinking he's really thinking something else, but his mouth is running away with him (or her) is naive.

Some of his worst utterances were speeches read (in his strange monotone hostage speech) from the teleprompter.

The horrifying American Carnage acceptance speech, for instance, was written in advance. It was pretty much Trump's Fascism in America manifesto.

[Karl Henning]

Because demonizing/dehumanizing millions never leads to a brighter future. Never has. And even worse if most of the people aren't even bad. And yes, "racist" is a dehumanizing term. Unless you don't really think racism is actually that bad?

And yet, you are too incurious to look into the fact of the president's racism.  Not sure that is in any way more defensible than the smug denialism of others

Is "liar" a "dehumanizing term"?
"rapist"?
"thief"?

(* typo *)

[Karl Henning]

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

[greg]

And yet, you are too incurious to look into the fact of the president's racism.  Not sure that is in any way more defensible than the smug denialism of others

Is "liar" a "dehumanizing term"?
"rapist"?
"thief"?

(* typo *)

I would say rapist is.

Let's say because of Biden's questionable touching problem with women, people on the right accuse everyone that votes for him as people that want to grope women, or drag the rhetoric up a step, and secretly want to rape them.

That's fine, right? Why can't people accuse millions of being potential rapists?

[Karl Henning]

I would say rapist is.

Let's say because of Biden's questionable touching problem with women, people on the right accuse everyone that votes for him as people that want to grope women, or drag the rhetoric up a step, and secretly want to rape them.

That's fine, right? Why can't people accuse millions of being potential rapists?

You took this in a very curious, tendentious direction.

Let me make this plain:  whatever the spin on Biden's behavior, calling him a "rapist" would be slander, not "dehumanizing"

So, I rephrase the questions:
If a man habitually lies, is it, "dehumanizing" to call him a liar?
If a man has committed rape, is it "dehumanizing" to call him a rapist?

[Karl Henning]

You never gave an example.

These aren't examples, nope.


Good ol' Turd Blossom

Republicans' latest excuse for Trump

"As more Republicans realize that President Trump is hurtling toward defeat, they can no longer pretend as if things are going swimmingly. Instead, they haul out the old chestnut: It's a communications problem.

On Trump's tweets attacking NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace, Republican strategist Karl Rove declares: "The question is, did what the president tweeted on Monday advance the cause that he laid out on Saturday? And I think the answer is an unambiguous no." The problem, according to Rove, is not Trump's dog-whistling speech at Mount Rushmore, but the tweets that let on what Trump really thinks. "The president has a limited number of days between now and the election. And when he tweets, it's a powerful message. And the question is, does that message continue to advance the narrative that he and those around him decided that he would lay out on [Friday] at Mount Rushmore? And the answer is no, it didn't."

It does not dawn on Rove (or he won't admit) that what Trump said at Mount Rushmore was about as subtle as George Wallace's race-mongering. Perhaps the problem is that Americans do not think there is a left-wing horde seeking to destroy the country. Maybe Americans see Trump's spewing of racist rhetoric as a distraction from his massive failures on the novel coronavirus and the economy, unprecedented corruption and sniveling subservience to Vladimir Putin."

[Daverz]

You took this in a very curious, tendentious direction.

Let me make this plain:  whatever the spin on Biden's behavior, calling him a "rapist" would be slander, not "dehumanizing"

So, I rephrase the questions:
If a man habitually lies, is it, "dehumanizing" to call him a liar?
If a man has committed rape, is it "dehumanizing" to call him a rapist?

Sorry, guys, the chutzpah of a Trump apologist tone trolling about "dehumanization" has finally broken my brain.  (You'd think they'd remember children in cages, but I don't think they see those children as fully human.)  Your seemingly infinite patience is commendable.  I'm outa here. 

[Karl Henning]

The Trump Virus

[greg]

You took this in a very curious, tendentious direction.

Let me make this plain:  whatever the spin on Biden's behavior, calling him a "rapist" would be slander, not "dehumanizing"

So, I rephrase the questions:
If a man habitually lies, is it, "dehumanizing" to call him a liar?
If a man has committed rape, is it "dehumanizing" to call him a rapist?

The first question: it's slander.
The second question: No, then it would just be true.


Why I consider it dehumanizing: Because rape is subject to being thrown in jail for much of one's life. Same as falsely accusing one of murder.

"Racist" sort of walks the line between being just slander and sometimes being dehumanizing. Example, Antifa yelling "racist!" or "Nazi!" and then grouping up to beat up people that are neither. If a label can lead to your physical peril or imprisonment, then yeah, it could be dehumanizing, in my opinion.


Is Trump racist based on:

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

Sorry, guys, the chutzpah of a Trump apologist tone trolling about "dehumanization" has finally broken my brain.  (You'd think they'd remember children in cages, but I don't think they see those children as fully human.)  Your seemingly infinite patience is commendable.  I'm outa here. 

Broken your brain. Not even going to comment on that.

[Herman]

Sorry, guys, the chutzpah of a Trump apologist tone trolling about "dehumanization" has finally broken my brain.  (You'd think they'd remember children in cages, but I don't think they see those children as fully human.)  Your seemingly infinite patience is commendable.  I'm outa here.

Yup, it's getting hard to take this selective naiveté seriously.

[greg]

Yup, it's getting hard to take this selective naiveté seriously.

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

[JBS]

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

The GOP attitude to immigration is based on two things.
1 They think immigrants come here to take advantage of our social welfare net
2 They think immigrants will vote Democratic no matter what they do.
I've seen this stated explicitly numerous times over the years by RW people.
It's fundamentally racist because of the assumptions it makes about immigrants.

Trump's racism is fairly well documented from his years in New York. The only difference is that before he got into politics he tried to hide it. Now he's open about it.

[greg]

The GOP attitude to immigration is based on two things.
1 They think immigrants come here to take advantage of our social welfare net
2 They think immigrants will vote Democratic no matter what they do.
I've seen this stated explicitly numerous times over the years by RW people.
It's fundamentally racist because of the assumptions it makes about immigrants.

Trump's racism is fairly well documented from his years in New York. The only difference is that before he got into politics he tried to hide it. Now he's open about it.

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.