2020 US Election (Part One)

[Estebonrober]

It seems clear to me that fact that "you" meaning the audience was white and "Mexicans" aren't was part of his explicit point.

most of us heard it that way.

 

[rah]

People hear what they want to hear. I'm not a fan of Trump, but this one has been overdone. There are many more comments that are much more blatant.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It seems clear to me that fact that "you" meaning the audience was white and "Mexicans" aren't was part of his explicit point.

most of us heard it that way.

Oh, I'm not saying it's hard to understand. I just think it's another dimension of what made the address racist, besides the easily remembered "They're rapists," and I wish it too would be included in discussions of that opening racist bid.

There are many more comments that are much more blatant.

The way that the less blatant ones function I think is important to call into the analysis. Not only did he categorically describe Mexicans as rapists. He also, less blatantly, categorically described the people to whom he pointed as "the best" even though he didn't know who they were. Racism operates through assumptions running two directions: how bad the other is and how good the in-group is. Except in the case of overt white supremacists, the second part usually goes unvoiced, just operates as an assumption. Here, the fact that he voiced it a little bit was part of the prep work for those more blatant ones to come.

this one has been overdone

Criticism of Trump can never be overdone.

 

[rah]

You can assume intent but never prove it. That's why it's best to limit your criticism to the more blatant ones.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm not talking about intent. I'm talking about how the pair of comments will function, regardless of the intent of the speaker.

(Though that's clear enough, too, I should think)

 

[rah]

In your opinion. Everyone gets one. Not saying you are in error.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Biden is still up an average of 6% on Sanders, but there is no question that Sanders is gaining with Biden staying relatively stagnant. Yang and Bloomberg are trending upwards too with Yang close to cracking a 5% average. Warren and Bootyjudge are clearly trending down.

 

[rah]

I think it was pretty clever for bloomy to enter late and avoid a lot of the early sniping. And god, is he spending the money. Without trashing other Dems.

 

[Berzerker]

No. He didn't say "some" of the people were rapists. He said "They're rapists". Full stop. You're adding a "some" to the allegation that wasn't there, in order to spin things in Trump's favor. In fact, he didn't even really fully concede that some Mexican immigrants are good people, because he qualified that with "I assume", which of course implies that he could very well be wrong, he's just assuming that some of them might not be rapists, bringing drugs and crime. He only said that to give his supporters political cover, to claim as you are doing that "Well he didn't say ALL Mexicans". It was said as a disingenuous, begrudging, obligatory, fig-leaf and most people recognized it immediately as such.

But he didn't say "Mexicans are rapists", he said rapists were among the Mexicans coming across the border illegally. Yeah, he stumbled thru it and probably realized if he didn't add his assumption the Democrats would raise a fuss, they did anyway. He didn't say "They're rapists" full stop, he described a specific group of people who do in fact exist - countless stories of rape associated with the border. You're taking what he said out of context. Full stop.

If your wife calls you on the phone and asks "Is there enough food in the fridge for dinner tonight" and you say "I assume there it" she will recognize that as you just trying to tell her what she wants to hear while wanting to avoid accountability for potentially being wrong. If she asks "Are the kids at home with you?" and you respond with "I assume so" she's not going to accept that answer, because it's a disingenuous and/or sarcastic deflection.

I dont see that as analogous, Trump offered his caveat as an afterthought when he realized he was generalizing too much. I posted the clip, nothing about his assumption was said sarcastically or any other hidden message you see in it. Look for yourself. Trump does not hide his sarcasm, his facial expressions are pronounced. If he was being sarcastic it would have been written all over his face.

Here's a thought exercise:Would you call this a fair and accurate statement?

You guys assume some of Trump's supporters on the internet are good people? Why isn't he sending his best? "Mexicans are rapists" was the accusation against Trump. He employed Mexicans until the Democrats threw them under the bus to score points off his hypocrisy. Trump exaggerated, he over did the hyperbole to stress the problem at the border. Most people coming across the border are good people and most people here know that.

As for your question, I'd need to know the numbers. In the context of Trump's speech, no. While he didn't provide numbers he over stated/emphasized the bad people. Politicians have been doing that forever, I'm sure somewhere in the archives we'd find Obama, Hillary and Biden making inflammatory speeches. If I was Mexican I'd be upset by his generalization but I'd also admit a problem exists.

 

[Sommerswerd]

But he didn't say "Mexicans are rapists", he said rapists were among the Mexicans coming across the border illegally.

Strawmanning again you... just as I predicted. He said that the people Mexico is "sending" are rapists. There was not "some" in that statement. In other words, Mexican immigrants are rapists.

Yeah, he stumbled thru it

Yep, spoken like a true Republican apologist... the dude has been on TV as long as he had a bank account and you're making excuses for him "stumbling thru" his words?? Gimme an effing break, the guy is a pro at speaking on TV... he said what he meant and he meant what he said... "They're rapists" is what he said about Mexican immigrants. Defend that or get the eff off the pot.

Trump offered his caveat as an afterthought when he realized he was generalizing too much.

Yes, I agree... as an experienced TV man he realized instantly that the racist things he said would be portrayed as racist, and tried to give his defenders a fig leaf of cover.

You guys assume some of Trump's supporters on the internet are good people?

No... we don't.... LMAO you still don't get it.

Hillary

is irrelevant to this discussion. You need to seek professional help... fast

 

[Lexicus]

but I'd also admit a problem exists.

What problem exists?

 

[Takhisis]

Not trying to get involved in this squabble but aren't Jews white people?

Not if you're a Neo Nazi.

For the record, I already quoted (2 years ago, I think) pro-Trump Jew shills explicitly claiming that Jews weren't white people, in a live event, to a WASP audience.

 

[Zardnaar]

For the record, I already quoted (2 years ago, I think) pro-Trump Jew shills explicitly claiming that Jews weren't white people, in a live event, to a WASP audience.

You can always find 1. To a large extent I think it's up to you what to self identify as. Unless you're pretending to be something else and lying about it.

 

[stinkubus]

FFS the "Jews will not replace us" bit is all about an antisemitic conspiracy theory that a cabal of wealthy Jews promote non-white immigration to the US to commit "White Genocide". It's got nothing to do with whether or not Jews are white.

Yesterday I made the mistake of indulging with a reply to one of these ridiculous semantic games. Don't be like me.

 

[Zardnaar]

FFS the "Jews will not replace us" bit is all about an antisemitic conspiracy theory that a cabal of wealthy Jews promote non-white immigration to the US to commit "White Genocide". It's got nothing to do with whether or not Jews are white.

Yesterday I made the mistake of indulging with a reply to one of these ridiculous semantic games. Don't be like me.

Generally can't tell who Jews are anyway maybe Israelis tourists.

 

[Takhisis]

FFS the "Jews will not replace us" bit is all about an antisemitic conspiracy theory that a cabal of wealthy Jews promote non-white immigration to the US to commit "White Genocide". It's got nothing to do with whether or not Jews are white.

Except that if Jews are replacing whites then the Jews cannot be whites. It's insane logic at its best.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Except that if Jews are replacing whites then the Jews cannot be whites.

Sure they can... if the chanters are Christian whites not wanting to be "replaced" by Jewish whites.

People of one ethnicity, religion, nationality etc., have been hating people within the same race, but of another ethnicity, religion, nationality etc., for ages.

 

[Lexicus]

It's funny because the reality is that some Jewish people are white, some are not. There are even black Jews though they are relatively rare.

But, in leftbook (at least a few years back, dunno if this is still a big thing now) many communities splintered and broke apart over the question of whether Jews were PoC. This may seem like an absurd thing to have a serious disagreement over, but inside the Vampire Castle whether or not someone is a "PoC" matters very much because a whole host of other high-stakes issues ride on the question. Most of the people claiming Jewish people are not white were also Zionists who regarded Zionism as a form of "nationalism of oppressed people" (a common line of thinking is that nationalism is a Good Thing if it manifests among "oppressed" or "marginalized" people, but a Bad Thing if it manifests among white people). Thus, anti-Zionism was a form of racism, even genocidal, denying an oppressed people their right to national self-determination and so on. Then there were the people who insisted that Jewish people are white, that Zionism is a form of European settler-colonialism. It ultimately boils down to some people regard Zionism as genocidal and some regard anti-Zionism as genocidal! But it is very interesting to see that argument couched in terms of whether Jewish people count as "PoC" or not. Imo that provides a lot of insight into how the Vampire Castle works.

 

[Berzerker]

What problem exists?

For one, dead bodies littering the desert. Or women and girls being raped. Or gang members preying on Mexicans and central Americans. Or (fill in the blank)... Illegal immigration wasn't a big deal 5 decades ago before the cold and drug wars decimated countries south of the border.

 

[luiz]

It's funny because the reality is that some Jewish people are white, some are not. There are even black Jews though they are relatively rare.

But, in leftbook (at least a few years back, dunno if this is still a big thing now) many communities splintered and broke apart over the question of whether Jews were PoC. This may seem like an absurd thing to have a serious disagreement over, but inside the Vampire Castle whether or not someone is a "PoC" matters very much because a whole host of other high-stakes issues ride on the question. Most of the people claiming Jewish people are not white were also Zionists who regarded Zionism as a form of "nationalism of oppressed people" (a common line of thinking is that nationalism is a Good Thing if it manifests among "oppressed" or "marginalized" people, but a Bad Thing if it manifests among white people). Thus, anti-Zionism was a form of racism, even genocidal, denying an oppressed people their right to national self-determination and so on. Then there were the people who insisted that Jewish people are white, that Zionism is a form of European settler-colonialism. It ultimately boils down to some people regard Zionism as genocidal and some regard anti-Zionism as genocidal! But it is very interesting to see that argument couched in terms of whether Jewish people count as "PoC" or not. Imo that provides a lot of insight into how the Vampire Castle works.

Maybe the issue is that PoC is an imbecile term.