***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[dwalk31]

If you want to narrow the scope to insults, I guess you can call trump “race neutral”, but when it comes to his politics he’s far from it. The way he’s actively turned non white immigrants into boogeymen on the national stage is more than enough evidence of that. And whether he believes in to personally or not doesn’t matter because he’s well aware that his base believes it and that’s who he panders too.

I think that often, in this thread and other places, people are conflating immigration (broad) with undocumented immigration (narrow). The latter has real consequences. There is a reason that President Obama, and other presidents, deported so many undocumented immigrants. And they were not called racist for it. People, quite skillfully, ignore the tremendous perils and risks placed on young children by their parents when they attempt to cross the border illegally. Often times the children die on the way. At other times they are sold into sex trafficking or used as drug mules and die as a result. If they successfully cross, then they are faced with exploitation once here in America. Undocumented immigrants fear notifying authorities when they are wronged due to the risk of deportation. These are very real issues as they relate to undocumented immigrants. This is why the only real solution is comprehensive immigration reform. The issue is with the legislative branch, and it has been that way for a while.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

I think that often, in this thread and other places, people are conflating immigration (broad) with undocumented immigration (narrow). The latter has real consequences. There is a reason that President Obama, and other presidents, deported so many undocumented immigrants. And they were not called racist for it. People, quite skillfully, ignore the tremendous perils and risks placed on young children by their parents when they attempt to cross the border illegally. Often times the children die on the way. At other times they are sold into sex trafficking or used as drug mules and die as a result. If they successfully cross, then they are faced with exploitation once here in America. Undocumented immigrants fear notifying authorities when they are wronged due to the risk of deportation. These are very real issues as they relate to undocumented immigrants. This is why the only real solution is comprehensive immigration reform. The issue is with the legislative branch, and it has been that way for a while.

But the difference between Trump and other presidents is that while seeking immigration reform and deporting undocumented immigrants, they didn’t completely gas light the countries social climate with xenophobia and nationalism and far right conspiracy theories. Policy maybe directed towards undocumented immigrants specifically but we all have to live in this social climate and when xenophobia and nationalism is pushed from the highest office, it’s minorities as a whole who’s lives get impacted disproportionately? We know way to much about bias, microagression, and the history of this country to reinforce those ideals on the national stage. Whether it’s by policy or by dog whistle rhetoric.

 

[dacomeup]

hink that often, in this thread and other places, people are conflating immigration (broad) with undocumented immigration (narrow)

That would be cute if we didn't have specific rhetoric and actions from this President that show that he is consistently attacks BOTH. Claims about not wanting people to immigrate from **** hole countries has nothing to do with human trafficking or drug mules. Stating that you want to get rid of the diversity visa lottery has nothing to do with that either. And you can look at the rhetoric surrounding undocumented immigration and draw many of the same conclusions. Small percentages of undocumented immigrants commit crimes, but again the President paints a broad brush about how many bad hombres are coming into the country, among other tactics that he uses to cause panic amongst his base. Donald Trump doesn't care about children having their lives at risk, which is why there are thousands in cages after being snatched from their parents at the border. Any other notion is insulting.

 

[dwalk31]

But the difference between Trump and other presidents is that while seeking immigration reform and deporting undocumented immigrants, they didn’t completely gas light the countries social climate with xenophobia and nationalism and far right conspiracy theories. Policy maybe directed towards undocumented immigrants specifically but we all have to live in this social climate and when xenophobia and nationalism is pushed from the highest office, it’s minorities as a whole who’s lives get impacted disproportionately.

Again, you conflate nationalism with the abhorrent white nationalism. Nationalism, in it of itself, isn’t a bad thing. While I agree that the president of the United States should not be promoting xenophobia, or racism, it seems clear (at least to me) that he has publicly condemned racism on several occasions. People like to place a lot of focus on what trump says. But when he literally condemns white supremacy and all forms of racism people just gloss over it like he didn’t say it. Do his words and actions matter? Or do they not?

He has consistently said that he wants immigrants, but that they need to come in legally. He has consistently said that his comments referencing gang members is not in reference to “all” immigrants. Yet many still somehow warp the statements to be he I s xenophobic and against all non-white immigration. That is a stretch based on his words while in office. And it is a stretch based on his actions while in office. Now, if it is true, then it is truly disgusting.

 

[dwalk31]

That would be cute if we didn't have specific rhetoric and actions from this President that show that he is consistently attacks BOTH. Claims about not wanting people to immigrate from **** hole countries has nothing to do with human trafficking or drug mules. Stating that you want to get rid of the diversity visa lottery has nothing to do with that either. And you can look at the rhetoric surrounding undocumented immigration and draw many of the same conclusions. Small percentages of undocumented immigrants commit crimes, but again the President paints a broad brush about how many bad hombres are coming into the country, among other tactics that he uses to cause panic amongst his base. Donald Trump doesn't care about children having their lives at risk, which is why there are thousands in cages after being snatched from their parents at the border. Any other notion is insulting.

Your analysis is short-sighted. There are larger future implications in incentivizing undocumented immigration. I outlined them earlier. Trump, by the way, did not coin the term **** hole. And the term, as I’m sure you know, has nothing to do with race. You can google the definition. Again, I’m the first to admit that he should do better with his language generally, but the idea that it is racially charged seems without merit. Not to mention this was a private conversation that was leaked. Imagine all of the out-of-context conclusions that could be drawn from your private conversations.

 

[dacomeup]

. Not to mention this was a private conversation that was leaked. Imagine all of the out-of-context conclusions that could be drawn from your private conversations.

What is out of context about calling African/Carribean countries **** holes? The lengths that you're willing to go to in order to defend bigotry is amazing as an alleged black man from the south. I don't need to Google the definition. I don't need to know whether or not Donald Trump invented the term. There are accounts of people being in shock and appalled who were present during the conversation. Why is it that YOU consistently find ways to defend it?

My analysis of the President's rhetoric is not short-sighted in the least bit. This is about gaslighting and issue that he knows will send his base in a frenzy. If it we're about anything else, then he would be offering policies that would fix the issues.

 

[dwalk31]

What is out of context about calling African/Carribean countries **** holes? The lengths that you're willing to go to in order to defend bigotry is amazing as an alleged black man from the south. I don't need to Google the definition. I don't need to know whether or not Donald Trump invented the term. There are accounts of people being in shock and appalled who were present during the conversation. Why is it that YOU consistently find ways to defend it?

My analysis of the President's rhetoric is not short-sighted in the least bit. This is about gaslighting and issue that he knows will send his base in a frenzy. If it we're about anything else, then he would be offering policies that would fix the issues.

The issue is that you are implying that he called them s-hole countries because of the color of the skin of the people that live there. You make that leap without any evidence. As I’ve stated, if that’s why he said it, then it’s disgusting. I know gaslighting is the new cool term everyone is using, but words don’t have new meanings because Trump used them.

And you all like to get personal on this thread, but there is nothing alleged about my race. I am a black Alpha from Decatur, GA. It does not wash off. How about you?

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Again, you conflate nationalism with the abhorrent white nationalism. Nationalism, in it of itself, isn’t a bad thing. While I agree that the president of the United States should not be promoting xenophobia, or racism, it seems clear (at least to me) that he has publicly condemned racism on several occasions. People like to place a lot of focus on what trump says. But when he literally condemns white supremacy and all forms of racism people just gloss over it like he didn’t say it. Do his words and actions matter? Or do they not?

He has consistently said that he wants immigrants, but that they need to come in legally. He has consistently said that his comments referencing gang members is not in reference to “all” immigrants. Yet many still somehow warp the statements to be he I s xenophobic and against all non-white immigration. That is a stretch based on his words while in office. And it is a stretch based on his actions while in office. Now, if it is true, then it is truly disgusting.

The problem is that he’ll “literally” Condem racism and then casually throw around the term “nationalist” in a political climate that has a very specific political associate with that word. And now a week before elections, this whole “birth right” nonsense that will probably get no actionable policy, how do you think that’s adding to the social climate? One can only infer that trumps stance on immigration is that the less people that come here the better. It just so happens that the countries he often talks about are non white.

 

[cubanref]

Even if you somehow don't believe that trump is a racist, the racists believe trump is a racist...

 

[dwalk31]

Even if you somehow don't believe that trump is a racist, the racists believe trump is a racist...

I think that was a nice one-liner from Gillum. But is the new standard confirming what racists believe? Is it your position that whatever racists believe is true?

I sure hope not.

 

[dwalk31]

The problem is that he’ll “literally” Condem racism and then casually throw around the term “nationalist” in a political climate that has a very specific political associate with that word. And now a week before elections, this whole “birth right” nonsense that will probably get no actionable policy, how do you think that’s adding to the social climate? One can only infer that trumps stance on immigration is that the less people that come here the better. It just so happens that the countries he often talks about are non white.

Words have meaning. Nationalist isn’t a bad word. Just like Globalist isn’t.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

We often hear about this “culture war” that’s going on

Words have meaning. Nationalist isn’t a bad word. Just like Globalist isn’t.

They do have meaning and we also don’t live inside of a vacuum void of nuance, especially in the political sphere.

I don’t think Trump is a political genius, but I do believe that he knows his base.

 

[kdawg]

People, quite skillfully, ignore the tremendous perils and risks placed on young children by their parents when they attempt to cross the border illegally.

So building a wall is about protecting the potential immigrants?

In the same way that banning abortion is to save innocent children?

 

[Belgium]

The thing with applying the most literal standard possible to racism is that it doesn’t match with the reality of how people use language, particularly in politics where the art of the dog whistle has been mastered. That almost forcibly retricts racism to the most vile blatantly racist statements, while ignoring everything in between.
How could birtherism be racist? Obama just happened to be black.

Unless an elected official with racist intent is either extremely reckless or KKK-tier racist, they will rarely use direct racist language explicitly targeted against black people. They’ll try to package it in a less direct manner for plausible deniability.

 

[dwalk31]

So building a wall is about protecting the potential immigrants?

In the same way that banning abortion is saves innocent children?

I think the wall is mostly symbolic, but yes I think reducing the incentive of illegally crossing the border protects potential immigrants long term.

Not sure anyone here is advocating banning abortion, but there are long-lasting issues mentally and physically related to abortions.

 

[dwalk31]

The thing with applying the most literal standard possible to racism is that it doesn’t match with the reality of how people use language, particularly in politics where the art of the dog whistle has been mastered. That almost forcibly retricts racism to the most vile blatantly racist statements, while ignoring everything in between.
How could birtherism be racist? Obama just happened to be black.

Unless an elected official with racist intent is either extremely reckless or KKK-tier racist, they will rarely use direct racist language explicitly targeted against black people. They’ll try to package it in a less direct manner for plausible deniability.

If you are conceding that it is plausible that he isn’t racist, or saying things to be racist, then I don’t think our positions are at odds.

Many in this thread act is if that isn’t plausible. Like there is only one possible explanation. I think it is because of their preconceived notions.

 

[dacomeup]

The thing with applying the most literal standard possible to racism is that it doesn’t match with the reality of how people use language, particularly in politics where the art of the dog whistle has been mastered. That almost forcibly retricts racism to the most vile blatantly racist statements, while ignoring everything in between.
How could birtherism be racist? Obama just happened to be black.

Unless an elected official with racist intent is either extremely reckless or KKK-tier racist, they will rarely use direct racist language explicitly targeted against black people. They’ll try to package it in a less direct manner for plausible deniability.

Exactly. We don't need a smoking gun every time to deduce racism. It's really not that difficult to do, but clearly some people choose to rationalize his statements for their own justification of support, or simply don't give a ****. Which is completely fine, just don't piss on me and tell me it's rain.

 

[Belgium]

Words have meaning. Nationalist isn’t a bad word. Just like Globalist isn’t.

Globalist is an inherently neutral term, however it's not always used as such. In some cases it is used as a dog whistle against jews. As you can see here, no direct mention of jews. Yet this entire sentence is about jews.
Hence the importance of nuance. Is globalist a bad word? No. Is it used in certain circles as a (rather blatant) dog whistle? Yes. It's not mutually exclusive.

 

[dwalk31]

Globalist is an inherently neutral term, however it's not always used as such. In some cases it is used as a dog whistle against jews. As you can see here, no direct mention of jews. Yet this entire sentence is about jews.

Can we agree that just because racists use words to be racist, that doesn’t make the words racist?

Because if that’s the case, any word David Duke (who President Trump has publicly disavowed on several occasions) says would automatically become a racist word/dog whistle. Surely that isn’t the standard. We shouldn’t give idiots like that much power.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Whether Trump is actual racist or not is of no consequence in reality. It’s who he panders too as person of power and influence. The more he emboldens people who dislike minorities, people who dislike immigrants, people who dislike Muslims, the more the social climate works against those people. Simple as that. Trump knows what his rhetoric does and who it emboldens but he also knows keeping those people energized is exactly what will keep him in office. The last thing these groups need is a social climate that gives the people that already hate them another reason to look at them sideways co-signed (intentionally or not) by the president.

 

[gry60]

Can we agree that just because racists use words to be racist, that doesn’t make the words racist?

No we can't.
People give meanings to words, not the other way around. We didn't find language like we found gravity, we created it. "Negro" in Spanish has different connotations than in English or any other language the word appears. Language is contextual, and you know it because every single time the context of Trump's words doesn't favor your position, you want to ignore context to make his words more palatable.

You are being dishonest.

 

[Belgium]

Can we agree that just because racists use words to be racist, that doesn’t make the words racist?

Because if that’s the case, any word David Duke (who President Trump has publicly disavowed on several occasions) says would automatically become a racist word/dog whistle. Surely that isn’t the standard. We shouldn’t give idiots like that much power.

I don't think I implied disagreeing with that but it requires more nuance. In fact I specifically said that globalist is not a bad word, as well as noting that a word can be inherently neutral but also used in a dog whistle/racist context. The two are not mutually exclusive. Globalist isn't a bad word, but the way globalist was used in that example clearly has a very different meaning.
What I wanted to point out is that there is a lot more nuance to words than just their inherent commonly accepted meaning and connotations. Context is also important of course, as well as the individual making the comments.

David Duke is obviously the most extreme example but I used him because I knew it would hardly take any time at all to find the kind of example I was looking for. It's not just the Klan folks who use globalist in that context for the record, just the most obvious example. David Duke and his Klan supporters generally opt to leave the dog whistles behind and get straight to the point.
The "globalist" dog whistle is probably one of the more common dog whistles against jews because it offers a lot of plausible deniabillity.

It is kind of the purpose of a dog whistle to begin with. When someone willfully uses a dog whistle, that individual's goal is to try get a point across that would be too racist or otherwise offensive if said in more direct terms, while also offering sufficient plausible deniability if you're called out on it. Inherently neutral terms are essential to this process, particularly regarding the plausible deniability.
Strategist and former Reagan adviser Lee Atwater's 1981 quote continues to be an excellent demonstration of this principle. The modern day dog whistles have advanced but the principle is largely unchanged.

You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”

 

[dacomeup]

It's such a dishonest argument. And he knows it. These are also public figures who are very intentional with their wording. They know what saying these words mean and do.

 

[dwalk31]

No we can't.
People give meanings to words, not the other way around. We didn't find language like we found gravity, we created it. "Negro" in Spanish has different connotations than in English or any other language the word appears. Language is contextual, and you know it because every single time the context of Trump's words doesn't favor your position, you want to ignore context to make his words more palatable.

You are being dishonest.

We can agree to disagree, respectfully. I tend to think people ignore the larger context to advance a racist narrative to fit their political leanings. Calling political opponents racist, isn’t a new strategy. And saying “well he might not be racist, but he emboldens them” is a very low bar. Idiotic racists are likely embolden by all manner of nonsense. Just recently the news attempted to blame Trump’s rhetoric for the anti-Semitic massacre. I’m sure you’d agree that’s ridiculous. And it ignores the context that his daughter, grandchildren, and Son-in-law are all Jewish. But facts be darned.

It is as ridiculous to assert Trump is anti-immigration when his wife and father are immigrants.

 

[fargin]

Trump is no more a racist, than a trashcan is not a trashcan.