US Politics

This is proving a very interesting read.

I'm getting through that article slowly.

The first thing that struck me in section II was how he is cherry picking Trump quotes like 'I love Hispanics' to prove the point that he is not racist. How about the huge number of Trump quotes that prove he is racist? Surely these should count for more than any denials. 'I'm not a racist but ...' sort of thing.

I think this is the point - are there loads of overtly racist quotes? Clearly trump is an absolutely horrific misogynist idiot, but I'm not sure he's said much that is overtly racist. This is the target of the articles dog whistle critique...

dog whistle

gotta be the catchphrase of 2016

How many publicly racist comments are enough to qualify you as a racist? 1 or 2? More?

I'm pretty sure I could find at least a couple.

You need to make it further into the article.

I didn't feel it was defending Trump at all.

Thanks for sharing

Is it something people look for / assume / are more sensitive to because of what he's said in the past? (Central Park 5). Apologies if that's covered. I started reading, and it seems interesting, but not enough time right now...

But yeah, interesting piece that makes clear the author's opinion (not supporting Trump) early on. Will try and read later.

An impressively odious man (one of Stephen Bannon's protégés)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/milo-yiannopoulos-channel-4-cathy-newman_uk_582e0b40e4b0b8f7701070a5

Or the longer original version from C4

https://www.channel4.com/news/milo-yiannopolous-questioned-on-donald-trump-and-stephen-bannon

Very good find.
About 7 hours into that recent Adam Curtis doc, there's a comparison between Surkov and Trump, in the way they both appear to offer something for everyone. In their shitblizzard of contradictory positions everyone can find a statement that works for them.

This is also a decent read:
Prospect Theory

I think it's potentially a sign of the growing chasm between left and right that the left feel inclined to scream 'RACIST' at anyone they don't like on the right. It is also similar to how being concerned about immigration seems to be read as shorthand on the left for massive racist. This doesn't help the people who are most concerned by immigration (especially the working class north of England and the rust belt in US who are being left behind by technology and internationalism) who now feel that the left/intellectuals/elite condescend to them as racist and they need to look for alternatives. Which is often to vote against their historical inclination/best interest. This article is always interesting on that front: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/trump-us-politics-poor-whites/

But yeah, he probably is a bit racist, in a bumbling ill-considered 70 year old white man sorta way, but to make out that it has been the defining thread of his campaign or his greatest failure/crime is potentially wolf-crying and overlooks his far greater failings and incompetencies that will cause far greater problems.

If he's not a racist, why is he appointing an overt racist as his chief advisor?
Seriously, if Theresa May appointed Katie Hopkins as her advisor, what would you assume?

I'd say the appointment of Bannon is potentially the most significant indication he may be a racist. But the point remains that people have been screaming RACIST at him throughout the entire campaign which overlooks his more overt failings/incompetencies and potentially weakens the power of condemnation for if/when an actual open racist does get close to power...

Maybe he hasn't appointed Bannon because he's a racist. He could just have easily appointed him because he's a homophobe or a misogynist and the racism is purely incidental.

Here's the thing though, affording power to someone who is a racist, or any other form of bigot, doesn't make you that bigot, it just means you're the kind of asshat that doesn't care if other people are bigots. There's plenty of other evidence that Trump is a racist though so we don't have to depend on the appointment of Bannon which is sloppy evidence at best.

Really?

More significant an indication than calling Mexican's rapists, systematically refusing tenancy to black people and proposing a ban on Muslim's entering the country?

I agree with you on the primary point though. Tarring all Trump supporters as racists just because some of them were is a poor and ultimately self-damaging argument, same as it was with Brexit supporters. People had their own personal reasons for voting this way and in many cases the associated racism was simply not enough to tip the scales the other way.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/07/10/when-and-why-nationalism-beats-globalism/

similar article about why callingeveryone you disagree with racists doesn't help.

Can you provide the quotes re the Mexicans/rapists? I think this is covered in the article I linked to, when he said something like 'some of the unauthorized migrants coming from Mexico were rapists and hardened criminals' - statistically, I'm sure they were. This kind of provocative populist rhetoric is obviously dangerous and unhelpful in the extreme, but to extrapolate from that that he is clearly a racist is the point I think we need to be careful about.

Anyway, as I said, clearly he's awful, and he's probably a racist, but anyone who wants to effectively oppose these populist-right movements and campaigns (and I do!) needs to be careful they do it on the best possible terms rather than hurling accusations of racism not based in supportable reality.

Read about him earlier today. Vile, self-serving prick.

Sat next to a Trump voter today at work. First time I've actually sat down and spoken to one.

Her main reason was that Trump wasn't Clinton, and that the Clintons think they're above the law. I think it's fair to say she finds the dynastic nature of the Clintons arrogant and presumptive, which I kind of get.

She gave the example of how the Clintons bought a house in Westchester County, N.Y. in the run up to the election and didn't get any of the building permits they needed, they just went ahead with the work. She thought that summed them up so no wonder emailgate chimed.

She said she doesn't necessarily like Trump much as a person but he's a successful businessman and he's beholden to nobody, unlike Hilary who is beholden to many.

Interesting.

Don't shout racist at people fair enough.
But a little acknowledgement that Brexit and trump have enabled some rather unpleasant things is nice.

It's not just the left that doesn't always converse in nuanced terms.

I do find this view interesting- Trump is a failure in business, he's lost money rather than made it. He's also owned by the people whom he owes- who would seem to be, ultimately, Russian.

Enough with the facts, ENOUGH!

trump voters may or not be racist or misogynist, but they undeniably have no issue with overlooking the obvious racism of the person they voted for, which makes them undeniably, c*nts.