Racial tension ramping up....

[Adami]

I think one of the main complaints about Trump's remarks isn't that he said that it takes two to tango or whatever. I think we can all agree on this.

I think it's that he quickly brushed aside any talk of white supremacists or Nazis or anything, and almost exclusively focused on the left. So even though a member of the white nationalists group drove into a crowd and killed someone, his main focus was shifting the blame to the counter protesters. It is technically true? Sure. However, his focus, wording, demeanor, and so forth are all very important and can't all be completely ignored because technically the underlying point has some merit.

[XeRocks81]

picking up the thread about "Alt-Left"   this is a pretty good rundown of why that's not a thing https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-alt-left/

Ultimately, the intent seems to be to frame alt-left as the opposite of alt-right and create a false equivalence between groups on the far ends of the right and left. But here's the thing: No left-wing group has ever called itself the alt-left. And the groups smeared by the alt-left label don't include anything like the heinousness of overt white supremacism that has increasingly defined the alt-right.

[Adami]

I'm a bit concerned that a man rammed his car into a crowd of people, causing at least one death, and instead the conversation is about how horrible the people who got run over were.

[El Barto]

I'm a bit concerned that a man rammed his car into a crowd of people, causing at least one death, and instead the conversation is about how horrible the people who got run over were.

Who's done that? Not talking about people commenting on FOX articles, but real people. Who should I be looking up here?

[Adami]

I'm a bit concerned that a man rammed his car into a crowd of people, causing at least one death, and instead the conversation is about how horrible the people who got run over were.

Who's done that? Not talking about people commenting on FOX articles, but real people. Who should I be looking up here?

This message board? Compare the amount of talk on the two aspects.

Also random message boards. Also President Trump.

[PowerSlave]

I realize that the conversation has steered far away from this, but I found this yahoo news article about Lee's feeling towards confederate monuments. It's yahoo news, so it's liable to be flimsy reporting at best, but I'm curious if anyone can confirm the story? Could be interesting to the debate if it's true...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/robert-e-lee-thought-confederate-220734970.html

[El Barto]

I'm a bit concerned that a man rammed his car into a crowd of people, causing at least one death, and instead the conversation is about how horrible the people who got run over were.

Who's done that? Not talking about people commenting on FOX articles, but real people. Who should I be looking up here?

This message board? Compare the amount of talk on the two aspects.

Also random message boards. Also President Trump.

Well, a few of us have suggested that it takes two sides to fight, but I don't recall anybody calling the dead girl or her co-victims awful. I'm pretty sure we few have made it clear that the Nazis are assholes. I've pointed out that the tactics of this Alt-left thing were unsound. I've certainly expressed some dismay that freedom of thought is under attack, but I haven't really related the people doing so to the recently runover, or even their anti-protest compatriots.

One thing three of us have been on about for quite some time, though, is that the tendency for people to interpret "well, they kind of put themselves into a situation" as "they're awful people!!!!" really sucks balls. 

[Cool Chris]

I think that was brought up earlier. Maybe I am thinking of another article.

Also, someone a while back referred to the CSA as an enemy country to the USA during the Civil War, thus we should never have remembrances of foreign powers we were at war with on our land. I may be wrong and am happy to be corrected, but didn't the government of the USA consider the Succession illegal and against the Constitution, and thus never recognized the CSA as a foreign combatant? Small point but it just occurred to me, when thinking about these monuments of the CSA and its soldiers.

[Adami]

I'm a bit concerned that a man rammed his car into a crowd of people, causing at least one death, and instead the conversation is about how horrible the people who got run over were.

Who's done that? Not talking about people commenting on FOX articles, but real people. Who should I be looking up here?

This message board? Compare the amount of talk on the two aspects.

Also random message boards. Also President Trump.

Well, a few of us have suggested that it takes two sides to fight, but I don't recall anybody calling the dead girl or her co-victims awful. I'm pretty sure we few have made it clear that the Nazis are assholes. I've pointed out that the tactics of this Alt-left thing were unsound. I've certainly expressed some dismay that freedom of thought is under attack, but I haven't really related the people doing so to the recently runover, or even their anti-protest compatriots.

One thing three of us have been on about for quite some time, though, is that the tendency for people to interpret "well, they kind of put themselves into a situation" as "they're awful people!!!!" really sucks balls.

Oh, I poorly worded my thing. I didn't mean to imply that people here were calling them awful. I meant that is the topic of the conversation. We're discussing the role of the counter protesters, and then BLM people, and so forth and how responsible they were or weren't. The idea of talking about the fact that a car rammed into a crowd and killed someone, very similar to what ISIS has done, has barely been mentioned other than "oh yea, that was bad" type thing.

[portnoy311]

I think that was brought up earlier. Maybe I am thinking of another article.

Also, someone a while back referred to the CSA as an enemy country to the USA during the Civil War, thus we should never have remembrances of foreign powers we were at war with on our land. I may be wrong and am happy to be corrected, but didn't the government of the USA consider the Succession illegal and against the Constitution, and thus never recognized the CSA as a foreign combatant? Small point but it just occurred to me, when thinking about these monuments of the CSA and its soldiers.

That was me, or at least I was one of the people who brought up that point. But isn't that like saying Vietnam War wasn't an actual war because Congress hasn't declared war since WWII? If anything it makes it even more dubious as they viewed themselves as a country who was at war with the US, against even recognition by the US.

[Cool Chris]

Right, it is largely semantics. My point was back then, they wouldn't have seen the CSA as a foreign combatant, but more of a stray child, who was brought back in to the fold, thus erecting monuments wouldn't seem as egregious.

The idea of talking about the fact that a car rammed into a crowd and killed someone, very similar to what ISIS has done, has barely been mentioned other than "oh yea, that was bad" type thing.

I think the ONLY argument some people may have, is what motivated the asshole at the time (other than hate, natch). The ISIS dude who straps a bomb to his chest and walks in to the market wakes up knowing that's what he's going to do. Did asshole (surprised Barto hasn't glossed him yet like he does everyone else) wake up that morning with that in mind? Did he feel threatened in any way by the counter-protesters? Was he provoked? These questions may be answered already, I am not following this story closely.

[Adami]

I didn't compare it to suicide bombers, I compared to ISIS people who have rammed cars into crowds.

And there's no excuse for what he did. Doesn't matter if he did it in the heat of the moment, or if he felt threatened. I don't get to take out a crowd of people if I feel threatened. If he feels in harms way, he can go in reverse.

I also notice that those kinds of questions aren't asked of other groups of people who do similar things. Do we ask if the violent BLM people feel provoked or threatened or do we just say they're violent? 

[Cool Chris]

You are 100% right, or 99% right, I am not arguing with you. If an angry mob has my car surrounded and is pounding the hell out of it, I am driving out of there. Of course that isn't what happened here. No, we shouldn't give him the benefit of any doubt. Mobs can be violent, either systematically, or reactively (made-up word). But I honestly don't know what other recent incident to compare this too, on any side of the spectrum. 

[portnoy311]

Right, it is largely semantics. My point was back then, they wouldn't have seen the CSA as a foreign combatant, but more of a stray child, who was brought back in to the fold, thus erecting monuments wouldn't seem as egregious.

The idea of talking about the fact that a car rammed into a crowd and killed someone, very similar to what ISIS has done, has barely been mentioned other than "oh yea, that was bad" type thing.

I think the ONLY argument some people may have, is what motivated the asshole at the time (other than hate, natch). The ISIS dude who straps a bomb to his chest and walks in to the market wakes up knowing that's what he's going to do. Did asshole (surprised Barto hasn't glossed him yet like he does everyone else) wake up that morning with that in mind? Did he feel threatened in any way by the counter-protesters? Was he provoked? These questions may be answered already, I am not following this story closely.

But the Civil War was very real. These weren't just children, they were military generals and leaders literally waging war against the US. How our government at the time legally viewed the CSA is irrelevant when they also recognized the brutality and scope of the war brought against the US.

[El Barto]

The idea of talking about the fact that a car rammed into a crowd and killed someone, very similar to what ISIS has done, has barely been mentioned other than "oh yea, that was bad" type thing.

I think the ONLY argument some people may have, is what motivated the asshole at the time (other than hate, natch). The ISIS dude who straps a bomb to his chest and walks in to the market wakes up knowing that's what he's going to do. Did asshole (surprised Barto hasn't glossed him yet like he does everyone else) wake up that morning with that in mind? Did he feel threatened in any way by the counter-protesters? Was he provoked? These questions may be answered already, I am not following this story closely.

To be honest, the need to specifically denounce the guy as an asshole never occurred to me (though it's likely I did in passing). It'd be like starting a thread here to pronounce that the Earth is round or that fish swim in water. Not speaking for anybody else, but I kind of gathered the guy's status as a tool was taken as read and we were moving on to the more discussable aspects of what went down. If the only pertinent part of it is whether or not he's a POS this thread would simply be an 18 post quote pyramid following "Yup, he's a tool."

[Implode]

Adami, I think the reason no one is talking about the driver is that we all agree that it was a terrible thing. There's nothing to argue about on that end. (I hope.  )

[Adami]

Adami, I think the reason no one is talking about the driver is that we all agree that it was a terrible thing. There's nothing to argue about on that end. (I hope.  )

Oh I gotcha. Don't think we should be arguing about whether what he did was wrong. But we're not talking about how to stop future incidents. We're not talking about what to do about it. We just brush it aside. If a Muslim had done this, there'd be talk of new laws, etc.

[XeRocks81]

 But I honestly don't know what other recent incident to compare this too, on any side of the spectrum.

Weren't there a few similar incidents of cars being used by terrorists in europe just last year?

[XeRocks81]

About confederate memorials.  They are definitely a part of US history,  that's why they belong in a museum about racism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/16/the-whole-point-of-confederate-monuments-is-to-celebrate-white-supremacy/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.2bd70987d9f7

[bosk1]

The idea of talking about the fact that a car rammed into a crowd and killed someone, very similar to what ISIS has done, has barely been mentioned other than "oh yea, that was bad" type thing.

I think the ONLY argument some people may have, is what motivated the asshole at the time (other than hate, natch). The ISIS dude who straps a bomb to his chest and walks in to the market wakes up knowing that's what he's going to do. Did asshole (surprised Barto hasn't glossed him yet like he does everyone else) wake up that morning with that in mind? Did he feel threatened in any way by the counter-protesters? Was he provoked? These questions may be answered already, I am not following this story closely.

To be honest, the need to specifically denounce the guy as an asshole never occurred to me (though it's likely I did in passing). It'd be like starting a thread here to pronounce that the Earth is round or that fish swim in water. Not speaking for anybody else, but I kind of gathered the guy's status as a tool was taken as read and we were moving on to the more discussable aspects of what went down. If the only pertinent part of it is whether or not he's a POS this thread would simply be an 18 post quote pyramid following "Yup, he's a tool."

Yeah, pretty much this.  Adami, we aren't talking about it more for the simple reason that we are in agreement and there isn't anything else to say, that's all.

[Stadler]

Damn, you guys have been busy since yesterday.

This logic of "Trump has to disavow" is ridiculous, I'm sorry.   Jodie Foster is not at all accountable when John Hinkley cites her as a rationale for his evil deeds.   

I don't think you can compare the two because while nobody would argue that Jodie Foster actually did anything to encourage John Hinckley, I think it's very easy to argue that Donald Trump, in words and actions, has at times encouraged white supremacists right from the start of his campaign (that old "Mexicans are rapists" gem).

I understand your point, but I'm skittish about that "encouraged".  You've got people that hate Trump no matter what he does, that aren't willing to give him even the slightest benefit of the doubt, and interpret EVERY possible statement in the least flattering light... why isn't that the case on the opposite side?   Meaning, it's just as likely that the hate groups aren't really getting "encouragement" as much as they are interpreting everything they hear in the most flattering light.   And when you have a platform that doesn't pander to identity politics (like some on the left most certainly do), when you don't think that identity politics are a silver bullet that trump all other issues, it's easy to find things that fit - or can be made to fit - into the agenda.

Look, Trump is a flawed, failing President; I don't think there is any argument on that.   But the knock on him is that "he doesn't stand for anything"; you can't really then say "well, except for racism, because, uh..."   I really do truly feel he has zero allegiance to ANY cause; the white supremacists, business, anything, other than Brand Trump.    I could well be wrong, and this is deep cover for some more sinister agenda, but the facts don't really support that.   Even BANNON - who's supposed to be the house racist - has come out and said these hate groups are losers (I think that's the exact word he used, too, among others).   

[Stadler]

picking up the thread about "Alt-Left"   this is a pretty good rundown of why that's not a thing https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-alt-left/

Ultimately, the intent seems to be to frame alt-left as the opposite of alt-right and create a false equivalence between groups on the far ends of the right and left. But here's the thing: No left-wing group has ever called itself the alt-left. And the groups smeared by the alt-left label don't include anything like the heinousness of overt white supremacism that has increasingly defined the alt-right.

And at first, Obama hated the phrase "Obamacare" and refused to use it.   Look, I get it, we're all supposed to pop hernias saying the obvious, how bad Nazi's are and how they're responsible for everything from killing people to New Coke to the abomination that was bringing Joe Lynn Turner into Deep Purple.   But whether it's ACTUALLY called "alt-Left", or whether it's embraced as a term or not, the fact remains:  extremism of ANY kind is something to be watched, to be mistrusted, and to be met with an appropriate level of skepticism. 

This is human nature taking over; the overt, immediate harm to a relatively small number of people has import, when the slower, more systemic harm to the ENTIRE COUNTRY gets glossed over as "nothing to worry about".  It's like the preface to that book "Risk!" by Dave I-can't-remember-his-last-name-but-he-went-to-Harvard; he talks about the woman in court fighting like Erin Brockovich because some company might have polluted water that increased the odds of brain cancer by 1 in 10,000, but during breaks went out and chain-smoked cigarettes that are almost a certainty to kill her early. 

I got in trouble from Jingle for calling people "liberals", so I'll say, it's easy to say "this isn't a problem" when you happen to agree with some of the premises of the group being discussed (and no, this isn't irony; I DO see the alt-right as a very BIG problem, and I share little in agreement with them.  I just have a more profound faith in our system to ultimately lead us to the right place without the immediacy of excess emotion).   

[Stadler]

I'm a bit concerned that a man rammed his car into a crowd of people, causing at least one death, and instead the conversation is about how horrible the people who got run over were.

Who's done that? Not talking about people commenting on FOX articles, but real people. Who should I be looking up here?

This message board? Compare the amount of talk on the two aspects.

Also random message boards. Also President Trump.

Well, a few of us have suggested that it takes two sides to fight, but I don't recall anybody calling the dead girl or her co-victims awful. I'm pretty sure we few have made it clear that the Nazis are assholes. I've pointed out that the tactics of this Alt-left thing were unsound. I've certainly expressed some dismay that freedom of thought is under attack, but I haven't really related the people doing so to the recently runover, or even their anti-protest compatriots.

One thing three of us have been on about for quite some time, though, is that the tendency for people to interpret "well, they kind of put themselves into a situation" as "they're awful people!!!!" really sucks balls.

Oh, I poorly worded my thing. I didn't mean to imply that people here were calling them awful. I meant that is the topic of the conversation. We're discussing the role of the counter protesters, and then BLM people, and so forth and how responsible they were or weren't. The idea of talking about the fact that a car rammed into a crowd and killed someone, very similar to what ISIS has done, has barely been mentioned other than "oh yea, that was bad" type thing.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not sure what else can be said about that. It was a heinous act, pure and simple.  I feel bad for that woman, individually, because from all accounts (well, her mom; I watched excerpts from the memorial) she was a passionate caring person that didn't deserve to die so young.  I can't really help that that's not the most intellectually compelling aspect of this event.   That's not to say it's not the most tragic, but it is, unfortunately, a symbol of more than just the courage of one woman to stand up and have her beliefs heard. 

[XeRocks81]

And when you have a platform that doesn't pander to identity politics (like some on the left most certainly do), when you don't think that identity politics are a silver bullet that trump all other issues, it's easy to find things that fit - or can be made to fit - into the agenda.

Dude you were almost there.  If he had a platform that didn't pander to identity politics as you put it,  maybe he had a platform that pandered to other interests.  Anti-muslim and anti-immigration interests,  taking back the country interests, you know,  white supremacy.

edit:  doesn't mean he believes any of it, but we know who was advising him.

[Stadler]

I didn't compare it to suicide bombers, I compared to ISIS people who have rammed cars into crowds.

And there's no excuse for what he did. Doesn't matter if he did it in the heat of the moment, or if he felt threatened. I don't get to take out a crowd of people if I feel threatened. If he feels in harms way, he can go in reverse.

I also notice that those kinds of questions aren't asked of other groups of people who do similar things. Do we ask if the violent BLM people feel provoked or threatened or do we just say they're violent?

You've veered into the idea that he's being defended.   Jingle keeps positing scenarios that are exactly as you put it forth above in the attempt to justify reactions to the Nazi's; why is this any different?  We have conclusively shown that if you are threatened with imminent harm, you ARE allowed to strike back.   Yeah, he could have reversed.   But the protestors could have stayed home to begin with, the counter-protestors could have assembled a block away, Hillary could have been President... that's not how the analysis goes.   I think this goes to the heart of the discussion, if you strip away the prejudicial facts of the case.   

I can't help but go back to something that El Barto says often in a completely different context:  this is like a plane crash.  You don't necessarily have one catastrophic, preventable, reversible event that caused the plane to go down, but rather a series of events that, in a chain, culminate in a tragic event.   Breaking that chain is imperative, but simply taking out a link is problematic for many reasons.  I think we're talking about that chain now.  That doesn't minimize the tragedy that is the "perfect storm", nor does justifying the presence of any of those links.   

I can't imagine the feelings I would have if it was my kid; I'd be so sad that she lost her life over something so ridiculous as some old asshole refusing to see the world as it is, multi-faceted (as opposed to the way he wants to see it, white).  I'd be proud as heck that she went down fighting for something she believed in.  I'd be shocked.  I'd be devastated.   But my individual feelings don't, and shouldn't, supercede what is ultimately right (as in, the best answer for our country, for the collective).   

[Stadler]

The idea of talking about the fact that a car rammed into a crowd and killed someone, very similar to what ISIS has done, has barely been mentioned other than "oh yea, that was bad" type thing.

I think the ONLY argument some people may have, is what motivated the asshole at the time (other than hate, natch). The ISIS dude who straps a bomb to his chest and walks in to the market wakes up knowing that's what he's going to do. Did asshole (surprised Barto hasn't glossed him yet like he does everyone else) wake up that morning with that in mind? Did he feel threatened in any way by the counter-protesters? Was he provoked? These questions may be answered already, I am not following this story closely.

To be honest, the need to specifically denounce the guy as an asshole never occurred to me (though it's likely I did in passing). It'd be like starting a thread here to pronounce that the Earth is round or that fish swim in water. Not speaking for anybody else, but I kind of gathered the guy's status as a tool was taken as read and we were moving on to the more discussable aspects of what went down. If the only pertinent part of it is whether or not he's a POS this thread would simply be an 18 post quote pyramid following "Yup, he's a tool."

And a smattering of "+1  "'s.   

[Stadler]

About confederate memorials.  They are definitely a part of US history,  that's why they belong in a museum about racism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/16/the-whole-point-of-confederate-monuments-is-to-celebrate-white-supremacy/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.2bd70987d9f7

I disagree with that.   The Confederacy wasn't just about "racism".   In fact, given the misinformation and the lack of awareness of many with regards to the "electoral college", I would proffer that the idea of the Confederacy is more relevant than ever, and is being clouded - no, let's be more direct and say "overwhelmed" - by the spectre of racism.

This is what I mean by the notion that "identity politics do not trump other issues".   Yes, racism was an element of that whole fiasco.   But there was racism in the north AND south before the Civil War, during the Civil War, and unfortunately, after the Civil War.   Some of you would argue (not wrongly) that there is racism today.

What the Confederacy was about more than racism (I know, I know, I must be DEPLORABLE!) is STATES RIGHTS.   That doesn't marshal people protesting in the streets, it doesn't lend itself to cute little memes with a beautiful (in every sense of the word) black woman standing down armed, armored law enforcement, but it IS for better or worse the crux of the issue.  The Founding Fathers did not consciously and with forethought punt the slavery issue because they were white racist bastards; they punted it because they knew something that the emotional and reactive didn't:   that without a union of States (someone look up the name of this country; it'll tell you a lot) slavery wasn't going ANYWHERE.   It was here to stay as long as each colony was an entity unto itself.  Further, that "union" of states, united in purpose, would never happen if a prerequisite was "get rid of slavery".   Adams in particular - this was the guy that risked EVERYTHING to defend British soldiers in a court case just prior to the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, to much scorn and ridicule, I might add - knew slavery to be a dead end economically, politically, and from a basic human rights perspective.  He was not naïve; he knew it ran afoul of almost every tenet of the new "Bill of Rights" document. 

But he knew it had to be a process (this is why Adams is by far my favorite of the Founding Fathers).   And so the first step was to get the country - as opposed to the colonies individually - united as states.   The United States of America.   From there, the Federal sovereignty could assert it's power, always in keeping with the powers reserved to the States explicitly and implicitly in the Constitution, and address the elephant in the room.   The CFA was a reaction and a rejection to that. 

[Stadler]

And when you have a platform that doesn't pander to identity politics (like some on the left most certainly do), when you don't think that identity politics are a silver bullet that trump all other issues, it's easy to find things that fit - or can be made to fit - into the agenda.

Dude you were almost there.  If he had a platform that didn't pander to identity politics as you put it,  maybe he had a platform that pandered to other interests.  Anti-muslim and anti-immigration interests,  taking back the country interests, you know,  white supremacy.

edit:  doesn't mean he believes any of it, but we know who was advising him.

Since I DON'T know, enlighten me.  Who was advising him?  The guy who ALSO came out and called those white supremacists "losers"?   

He DOES have a platform that panders to other interests:  himself.   What you're falling victim to is the Twitter mentality of politics in the USA circa 2017, and that is, the REQUIREMENT that if it isn't in black and white, repeated OVER AND OVER like a mantra, it doesn't exist.   That he DOESN'T pander to "identity politics" doesn't automatically mean he panders to the opposite of that.   I don't at all think that identity politics should control the conversation, however, I am for gay marriage, I am for equal pay for women, I am for the idea that we, all 325 million of us, deserve the same rights under the Constitution and the laws and regulations of our country, and deserve the same consideration for any endeavor we undertake.   This isn't new; I've said this countless times on this forum and others.    The libertarian in me says that anyone should be able to marry or fuck or whatever they choose with any other consenting adult regardless of gender; but I can't see myself ever voting for a candidate based solely on that platform or concept.  I feel the economics of the nation are far more important than the feelings of any one person with respect to their personal relationship.  That doesn't make me a bigot. 

[XeRocks81]

Since I DON'T know, enlighten me.  Who was advising him?  The guy who ALSO came out and called those white supremacists "losers"?   

OMG Bannon called them losers ! Silly me, I take back everything I ever said about him,  he's an awesome guy! 

It doesn't change anything.

[antigoon]

I would say that Trump's campaign was all about identity politics. Just as much if not more than the others. It was just...white identity politics.

[Kattelox]

I've never really checked into this thread before but now I'm amazed some of ya'll have been pulling double duty with these subjects (until recent events elsewhere). Good stuff...

[Stadler]

Since I DON'T know, enlighten me.  Who was advising him?  The guy who ALSO came out and called those white supremacists "losers"?   

OMG Bannon called them losers ! Silly me, I take back everything I ever said about him,  he's an awesome guy! 

It doesn't change anything.

Not for someone who's mind is already made up, no.   But it is relevant information to process and incorporate into your world view.   You can dismiss it as "PR", but the Steve Bannon I'm familiar with hasn't shown all that much sensitivity to PR concerns before.  He tends to just not say anything rather than say platitudes intended to get his opposition to be kind to him. 

[Stadler]

I would say that Trump's campaign was all about identity politics. Just as much if not more than the others. It was just...white identity politics.

Respectfully I disagree.  This is a major point, one that doesn't get discussed enough, in my opinion.   I've said it here already (recently), but this is a problem with the nature of the discourse today and this need to be "proactively PC".   That you DON'T actively advocate for something does NOT mean you are against it.   I honestly do not believe that by NOT making special interest "identity politics" the number one priority that it means that it's defacto "white identity politics".   

He was by and large silent on gay rights and gay initiatives.  He was by and large silent (pre-election; I don't know WHAT he was thinking with the recent announcement) on trans issues.   He was callous and careless with the Mexican comments, but that was in the context of immigration, not "race relations".  Much of the "racist" evidence against Trump is a stretch and defies credibility ("Mexican" isn't a "race", it's a nationality; he wasn't calling out "Latinos", he was arguably referring to the citizens of our neighboring country.   His "Muslim ban" didn't touch 90% of the world's Muslims, so is a pretty crappy ban on "Muslims".   There's a lot of "Hmm, he MUST be a racist, so let's see what fits!" in this argument). 

[antigoon]

I would say that Trump's campaign was all about identity politics. Just as much if not more than the others. It was just...white identity politics.

Respectfully I disagree.  This is a major point, one that doesn't get discussed enough, in my opinion.   I've said it here already (recently), but this is a problem with the nature of the discourse today and this need to be "proactively PC".   That you DON'T actively advocate for something does NOT mean you are against it.   I honestly do not believe that by NOT making special interest "identity politics" the number one priority that it means that it's defacto "white identity politics".   

He was by and large silent on gay rights and gay initiatives.  He was by and large silent (pre-election; I don't know WHAT he was thinking with the recent announcement) on trans issues.   He was callous and careless with the Mexican comments, but that was in the context of immigration, not "race relations".  Much of the "racist" evidence against Trump is a stretch and defies credibility ("Mexican" isn't a "race", it's a nationality; he wasn't calling out "Latinos", he was arguably referring to the citizens of our neighboring country.   His "Muslim ban" didn't touch 90% of the world's Muslims, so is a pretty crappy ban on "Muslims".   There's a lot of "Hmm, he MUST be a racist, so let's see what fits!" in this argument). 

I dunno man, from my perspective his entire campaign was about stoking white grievance. Starting with "Make America Great Again" all the way through to the end. You're right that not actively advocating for something doesn't automatically mean you're against it, but I don't think that's what happened here. The Trump campaign really leaned into this stuff in a way that recent Republican nominees have not.

[Stadler]

I would say that Trump's campaign was all about identity politics. Just as much if not more than the others. It was just...white identity politics.

Respectfully I disagree.  This is a major point, one that doesn't get discussed enough, in my opinion.   I've said it here already (recently), but this is a problem with the nature of the discourse today and this need to be "proactively PC".   That you DON'T actively advocate for something does NOT mean you are against it.   I honestly do not believe that by NOT making special interest "identity politics" the number one priority that it means that it's defacto "white identity politics".   

He was by and large silent on gay rights and gay initiatives.  He was by and large silent (pre-election; I don't know WHAT he was thinking with the recent announcement) on trans issues.   He was callous and careless with the Mexican comments, but that was in the context of immigration, not "race relations".  Much of the "racist" evidence against Trump is a stretch and defies credibility ("Mexican" isn't a "race", it's a nationality; he wasn't calling out "Latinos", he was arguably referring to the citizens of our neighboring country.   His "Muslim ban" didn't touch 90% of the world's Muslims, so is a pretty crappy ban on "Muslims".   There's a lot of "Hmm, he MUST be a racist, so let's see what fits!" in this argument). 

I dunno man, from my perspective his entire campaign was about stoking white grievance. Starting with "Make America Great Again" all the way through to the end. You're right that not actively advocating for something doesn't automatically mean you're against it, but I don't think that's what happened here. The Trump campaign really leaned into this stuff in a way that recent Republican nominees have not.

I struggle with this.  I see your point, I really do.  I struggle with the notion of appealing to A class of voter, as a general proposition, because that class has a definable issue to be addressed, and the notion of appealing to a subclass of that voter for insidious reasons.     Look, this isn't two-dimensional.  If I'm a racist teacher, and your platform is a pointed appeal to teachers, and I support you as a teacher, what part does the "racist" play in that?   People can and do make decisions for one reason, many reasons, or no reason at all.   I have been clear:  I was ready to vote for Hillary until she perjured herself; I have a big problem with the apparent lawlessness of the Clintons.  I think Bill was one of our best Presidents - ever - and I would vote for him today, but I say that with the knowledge that because of term limits, he can't run.  If that rule were rescinded, I'd have a big problem because of his acknowledged perjury and some of the other, less official ways he's run afoul of the system (the "airport meeting with Loretta Lynch" comes to mind).   It wasn't enough for me to then vote for Trump (whose inexperience was enough for me to not vote for him; Obama served in the Senate and he proved himself to not be prepared for the Presidency, so how could a guy who has NEVER held elected office be prepared for that?)

So how do you boil things down to that level?   I think ALL candidates of any stripe receive votes from demographics that they'd rather not acknowledge, and Trump is no different.   I think the issues at play here lend themselves to abuse, but - like alcohol and marijuana - you have to sort of accept that very few things come with NO baggage whatsoever.   That a candidate appeals to a "white voter" doesn't make that appeal racist, any more than that a candidate appeals to a "black voter" makes that a racist appeal (or does it?)