• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Slate: Racism Gave us Trump

Hawkeye10 said:
That does not mean they are racist, because it could mean only that they are not stupid. The argument must be won,and so far it has not, the path that represents reason and logic can not at this moment be named.

What we have is dim wits who constantly yell that they know, and that we must believe them, forgoing an examination of the facts and the evidence.

No.
Click to expand...

There are lots of data points cited in the article posted in the op which support his argument. So far, all you have presented is outrage.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Irrelevant, this is not about me and two wrongs dont make a right.

Dude, generally you are on the ball, but dang, you need to do a rethink here cause you are way wrong in defending Obama's fidelity to genetic prejudice.
Click to expand...

I would not argue against the fact that Obama tends to favor minorities when making appointments.
 
TobyOne said:
From the article:

While a large number of Republicans support deportating Hispanic people on big, beautiful slave ships and dumping them in a big, beautiful desert where they will die big, beautiful deaths...


Lol
Click to expand...

I think Agent J wrote that piece. :)
 
calamity said:
I would not argue against the fact that Obama tends to favor minorities when making appointments.
Click to expand...

WOW.

On his short list for SCOTUS is one white guy, and he is only there for the "appease the R's to get a guy on the court" option. Which given the instinctive nature of Obama to need to be a prick regardless of whether doing so makes any sense or not is not likely to be the name that he gives. He is only on the list in case Obama thinks he can talk the Establishment R's into fearing who Trump will pick. Or Hillary.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
WOW.

On his short list for SCOTUS is one white guy, and he is only there for the "appease the R's to get a guy on the court" option. Which given the instinctive nature of Obama to need to be a prick regardless of whether doing so makes any sense or not is not likely to be the name that he gives. He is only on the list in case Obama thinks he can talk the Establishment R's into fearing who Trump will pick. Or Hillary.
Click to expand...

I'm OK with the Indian.
 
calamity said:
I'm OK with the Indian.
Click to expand...

Obama is borderline politically incompetent, but if he had any sense he would put the white guy up and dare Congress to reject him. But damn, this white guy is better than we often see but there has to be 100 other people around who would be even better, this is typical low quality Obama work.
 
notquiteright said:
Maybe the dems in the South are voting for a candidate they think can win in the general, and not someone who too radical for a more traditional South.

Ahhh unlike the Trumpers... ;)
Click to expand...

Wait, wut??? You think Hillary has a chance in hell of winning any of those states in the general? You're joking right?
 
calamity said:
But, Obama hasn't appointed radicals to the Supreme Court. He appointed two somewhat Left leaning judges, just like George W placed two Right leaning judges on the bench during his term. And...in a way, this false sense that Obama is a radical making radical moves is the gist of the author's argument.

Why is Obama perceived as not only a Radical, but also as a Muslim and a foreign born illegitimate president (which is what Trump supporters believe in high numbers: 62% and 61% respectively)?

But, if you want to say it's more a Left-Right thing than a Black-White thing...I'll entertain that argument.
Click to expand...

I think Obama's appointments were extreme leftwing activists with little or no appreciation or respect for the original intent of the Constitution. I suppose that will be a matter of opinion depending on how one views the Constitution.

In my opinion, based purely on his words and actions as President, Obama is also a radical in that sense. I am not a Trump supporter but know a whole bunch of people who are, and not a single one of them thinks Obama was an illegitimate President or a Muslim, so trying to take the focus in that direction doesn't earn a lot of points with me.
 
calamity said:
Slate goes there. "It’s not just anger over jobs and immigration. White voters hope Trump will restore the racial hierarchy upended by Barack Obama."

Calling Trump the racial backlash presidential candidate? Basically, the argument goes, he's the much needed antidote to 8 years of Barack O'Black. Maybe it's true.

How Donald Trump happened: Racism against Barack Obama.
Click to expand...

Blacks would have voted for Idia Amin, Papa Doc, or anyone else with black skin at both times.

I might have too, considering what idiots the Republicans ran against him both times.

Make no mistake, it was BLACK RACISM that got him elected, and after 8 years of BLACK RACISM, that a lot of people are angry.

I offer up the "knockout game" as the prime example. Young black thugs have a ball seeing if they can knock out a white person with one punch, but it have NEVER been considered a hate crime by the black appointees in the justice department.

YET....the first time a white thug does it to a black man, the DOJ, and everyone else is all over it.

Complete RACISM from the very top.

YES, it was much worse against blacks earlier on.

However, does this give black thugs a license to go around doing this and getting away with it, having the silent approval of the White House?

I say NO. That was then and this is now.
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
Blacks would have voted for Idia Amin, Papa Doc, or anyone else with black skin at both times.

I might have too, considering what idiots the Republicans ran against him both times.

Make no mistake, it was BLACK RACISM that got him elected, and after 8 years of BLACK RACISM, that a lot of people are angry.

I offer up the "knockout game" as the prime example. Young black thugs have a ball seeing if they can knock out a white person with one punch, but it have NEVER been considered a hate crime by the black appointees in the justice department.

YET....the first time a white thug does it to a black man, the DOJ, and everyone else is all over it.

Complete RACISM from the very top.

YES, it was much worse against blacks earlier on.

However, does this give black thugs a license to go around doing this and getting away with it, having the silent approval of the White House?

I say NO. That was then and this is now.
Click to expand...
Hate crimes do tend to cut just one way. And, it's not just the DOJ who treats it that way. The media goes out of its way to ignore Black on White violence while tagging anything done in reverse a hate crime. If the races in the Jessica Chambers burning were reversed we'd still see that story on front pages, with fresh opinions and new angles discussed endlessly in print and on television. But, since it was a white victim and black perp, the story gets crickets.

I'm sure that this double standard drives the anger. Black lives matter only when the perp is white or a cop. When the killer is black, suddenly it's not that important anymore. More than a few people are sick of that crap. And, I believe their anger is justified.

Like I asked in my second or third post, would things be different on the Trump front, if our first Black president held views more in line with Clarence Thomas? I think the answer is yes. I am certain that the anger today would be on the Left, if that was the case. And, it wouldn't be any less ugly.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I think Obama's appointments were extreme leftwing activists with little or no appreciation or respect for the original intent of the Constitution. I suppose that will be a matter of opinion depending on how one views the Constitution.

In my opinion, based purely on his words and actions as President, Obama is also a radical in that sense. I am not a Trump supporter but know a whole bunch of people who are, and not a single one of them thinks Obama was an illegitimate President or a Muslim, so trying to take the focus in that direction doesn't earn a lot of points with me.
Click to expand...
Polls consistently show that Trump supporters answer yes to Obama being Muslim and born in another country, which I find very strange.

A lot of people believe Scalia was a radical RW extremist. Alito is also viewed to be of that ilk. Roberts less so, but the Right hates him now only because he voted against their radical ideas. In short, who's considered radical is relative, and very much a partisan POV.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Obama is borderline politically incompetent, but if he had any sense he would put the white guy up and dare Congress to reject him. But damn, this white guy is better than we often see but there has to be 100 other people around who would be even better, this is typical low quality Obama work.
Click to expand...

The Indian is the most qualified person on the list. I hope he chooses him.
 
calamity said:
She's winning those in the D primary. We all know she will never win those states in a general election...except maybe NC. And, I seriously doubt she can win that state.
Click to expand...

Because Hillaryons don't vote on logic. Because math.
 
calamity said:
Barack O'Black is mine. Wipe away. :)

My first thought while reading the article was pragmatic. How would this have played out if our first Black president was a Republican, say a Carson or Steele? Of course that opened up a series of other questions.

Primary among them is this. If our first Black president was someone most Blacks disliked and voted against, someone like Thomas, would all the flipped out Whites--think Tea Party nutjobs with their patriot hats---who overstate the threat Obama posed to the US have stayed quiet? I'm thinking yes. So, that means that the threat is less a black president, than it is a president who represents Blacks.
Click to expand...

Are you sure the white Tea Party nut jobs with their patriot hats are being silent? Perhaps, the're just wearing different hats. And, their threat is not a president who represents Blacks as much as it is a president that doesn't represent whites.
 
Tonawanda said:
Are you sure the white Tea Party nut jobs with their patriot hats are being silent? Perhaps, the're just wearing different hats. And, their threat is not a president who represents Blacks as much as it is a president that doesn't represent whites.
Click to expand...

Why should a president represent "whites"? Isn't a president supposed to represent his constituents, first and foremost? IIRC, Bush and Cheney made it a point to tell those who voted against them to pound sand. So...in a way, I guess Obama not catering to the Right Wing, typically older straight white males, makes perfect sense. In fact, I suspect that those who voted for him wish he challenged them more than he has.
 
calamity said:
Slate goes there. "It’s not just anger over jobs and immigration. White voters hope Trump will restore the racial hierarchy upended by Barack Obama."

Calling Trump the racial backlash presidential candidate? Basically, the argument goes, he's the much needed antidote to 8 years of Barack O'Black. Maybe it's true.

How Donald Trump happened: Racism against Barack Obama.
Click to expand...

I think the article misses a bigger point.

No matter if we are talking about a segment of our society holding onto bigotry or racism, we have a bigger issue that modern politics has amplified. If there is any truth at all to our two party dominant system equating to the height of division oriented politics, then all the US has really developed is the latest iteration of "us" vs. "them." Our problem is we are not doing very much to address these means of divisions.

If Trump really is the antidote to Obama's 8 years, then all the original civil rights movements of the 1950's and 1960's was for not. Said another way, in the hands of today's civil rights leaders and in the hands of today's political establishments we have squandered all that effort.

That is truly sad, and very unfortunate that we took all that effort to look for social unity and ended up just as divided as we have always been.

The message that Trump has clearly is being heard by that bigoted segment of our society that will not go away. The KKK, the David Dukes out there, etc. The Democrats and the media however as perpetuated an idea that all Trump supporters are bigoted, and because of that impression the racial backlash is bound to only get worse. At this point Hillary has a cakewalk right into the White House, this will be the one issue that tends to get in the way of all other issues between Trump and Hillary in the General Election setting.

Slate has a reason for writing in the manner that it does, but from my chair this is a history book moment in American History. Do we look to the reasons we had the civil rights movements so long ago or do we continue to devolve further where modern politics does not seem to care much for social and racial unity?
 
TobyOne said:
From the article:

While a large number of Republicans support deportating Hispanic people on big, beautiful slave ships and dumping them in a big, beautiful desert where they will die big, beautiful deaths...


Lol
Click to expand...

That entire article made my eyes bleed.
 
Ben Crowell said:
The Slate article talks about Trump's prominent advocacy of the "birther" conspiracy theory, and takes this as evidence that Trump is a new and special type of Republican politician who embodies an anti-black racist backlash against Obama, involving pathologies like "status threat" and "white fragility." This seems pretty weak to me for a couple of reasons.

First, it puts all the emphasis on anti-black racism, when Trump's emphasis is on Latinos and Muslims.

Second, Trump's anti-black racism is not new. The birther stuff is coded racism, just like Willie Horton and welfare queens were coded racism.

What's new about Trump is (1) his intense bigotry against Muslims and Latinos, which is overt and not coded; and (2) specific actions that he advocates against Muslims and Latinos, such as closing down mosques and threatening nuclear war against Mexico. (No, I'm not making that up.)
Click to expand...
How can one thumbs down a post 'cause I want to do that to this pile.

Trump wants to follow The Constitution. This is what our country has come to: "Let's not follow The Constitution for fear of some liberal whack jobs calling us racists." The Chicago cancellation is a microcosm of what's been going on politically in America.

You know calling your opponents racists at every juncture has a dulling effect on everybody? Accusations of racism. Calling someone a Hitler. Code words that start riots. Trump has shown one doesn't have to show fear. He has a bigger and better goal for America.
 
Last edited:
OrphanSlug said:
I think the article misses a bigger point.

No matter if we are talking about a segment of our society holding onto bigotry or racism, we have a bigger issue that modern politics has amplified. If there is any truth at all to our two party dominant system equating to the height of division oriented politics, then all the US has really developed is the latest iteration of "us" vs. "them." Our problem is we are not doing very much to address these means of divisions.

If Trump really is the antidote to Obama's 8 years, then all the original civil rights movements of the 1950's and 1960's was for not. Said another way, in the hands of today's civil rights leaders and in the hands of today's political establishments we have squandered all that effort.
Click to expand...
I believe we have squandered it. What we have is a huge grievance industry--both black and white. Trump has just brought the white version of it front and center. But, it's been brewing for a long time.

That is truly sad, and very unfortunate that we took all that effort to look for social unity and ended up just as divided as we have always been.

The message that Trump has clearly is being heard by that bigoted segment of our society that will not go away. The KKK, the David Dukes out there, etc. The Democrats and the media however as perpetuated an idea that all Trump supporters are bigoted, and because of that impression the racial backlash is bound to only get worse. At this point Hillary has a cakewalk right into the White House, this will be the one issue that tends to get in the way of all other issues between Trump and Hillary in the General Election setting.

Slate has a reason for writing in the manner that it does, but from my chair this is a history book moment in American History. Do we look to the reasons we had the civil rights movements so long ago or do we continue to devolve further where modern politics does not seem to care much for social and racial unity?
Click to expand...
There is a lot of racism on the black side of the fence that does not get much attention. What we have there is constant white-blaming and a complete refusal to accept responsibility for poor decisions and violence in the black community that is 100% independent of anything whites have ever done to them. When the first response to a conflict or disagreement is to grab a gun and shoot someone, actions which have become all too common in places like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, St Louis, etc., something fundamental has broken down.

IMO, a lot of whites see this chaos on the other side of the tracks: the violence, the high volume of single parents, the high school drop out rates, etc.; and rightfully rebel against the cries of the social justice warriors, who usually have their hand out, demanding that even more money be thrown into that bottomless pit of despair. In short, it's easy to become racist when the people of the other race do so much stupid ****.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Personally I think it has nothing to do with racism. Nobody's race comes to mind to me when I think Trump or anybody on the GOP ticket. Race relations are simply not on my radar when it comes to this election and I'm guessing that is true for the vast majority of Trump supporters
Click to expand...

Not so much for white v black, agreed. White v Hispanic is a different story. There is a reason why the White Nationalists are signing on to Trump's campaign with such fervor, just as there is a reason why Trump retweets them, just as there is a reason why he coyly suggests that Hispanic Judges can't be objective, etc. He's absolutely riling up anti-Hispanic/immigrant pitches for his personal benefit.
 
cabse5 said:
Trump wants to follow The Constitution.
Click to expand...

No he doesn't. Trump has, if anything, even less respect for the restrictions of the Constitution than the current White House Resident.

This is what our country has come to: "Let's not follow The Constitution any longer for fear of some liberal whack jobs calling us racists."
You know calling your opponents racists at every junction has a dulling effect on everybody?
Click to expand...

True. That's one of the things this election has brought out. By calling every opposition "racist", the left has managed to inoculate people to the charge. When actual racism rears it's head, it can't be identified without the identifier being mocked.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I think the article misses a bigger point.

No matter if we are talking about a segment of our society holding onto bigotry or racism, we have a bigger issue that modern politics has amplified. If there is any truth at all to our two party dominant system equating to the height of division oriented politics, then all the US has really developed is the latest iteration of "us" vs. "them." Our problem is we are not doing very much to address these means of divisions.

If Trump really is the antidote to Obama's 8 years, then all the original civil rights movements of the 1950's and 1960's was for not. Said another way, in the hands of today's civil rights leaders and in the hands of today's political establishments we have squandered all that effort.

That is truly sad, and very unfortunate that we took all that effort to look for social unity and ended up just as divided as we have always been.

The message that Trump has clearly is being heard by that bigoted segment of our society that will not go away. The KKK, the David Dukes out there, etc. The Democrats and the media however as perpetuated an idea that all Trump supporters are bigoted, and because of that impression the racial backlash is bound to only get worse. At this point Hillary has a cakewalk right into the White House, this will be the one issue that tends to get in the way of all other issues between Trump and Hillary in the General Election setting.

Slate has a reason for writing in the manner that it does, but from my chair this is a history book moment in American History. Do we look to the reasons we had the civil rights movements so long ago or do we continue to devolve further where modern politics does not seem to care much for social and racial unity?
Click to expand...

This is just the older generation of poor people being fearful of the changes spearheaded by things like the civil rights movement.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/09/who_are_trumps_supporters.html said:
In terms of demographics, Trump’s supporters are a bit older, less educated and earn less than the average Republican. Slightly over half are women. About half are between 45 and 64 years of age, with another 34 percent over 65 years old and less than 2 percent younger than 30. One half of his voters have a high school education or less, compared to 19 percent with a college or post-graduate degree. Slightly over a third of his supporters earn less than $50,000 per year, while 11 percent earn over $100,000 per year. Definitely not country club Republicans, but not terribly unusual either.
Click to expand...

These are people left behind by our modern society and economy and are primarily fearful due to their ever decreasing place in society. People in that situation tend to blame others and not themselves (whether the blame placed that way is right or wrong, I personally don't know) and things like other races are an easy target because seeing society in terms of groups doesn't require much brain power.

The civil rights movement never really did much for these folks anyway.
 
cpwill said:
No he doesn't. Trump has, if anything, even less respect for the restrictions of the Constitution than the current White House Resident.



True. That's one of the things this election has brought out. By calling every opposition "racist", the left has managed to inoculate people to the charge. When actual racism rears it's head, it can't be identified without the identifier being mocked.
Click to expand...
Trump's demand that every candidate be a natural born -a citizen born in the US to US parent - is definitely in The Constitution. There haven't been any challenges to this so the requirements still stand. Ah, yes, Cruz doesn't fulfill this requirement as a presidential candidate...the constitutional lawyer....
 
calamity said:
Slate goes there. "It’s not just anger over jobs and immigration. White voters hope Trump will restore the racial hierarchy upended by Barack Obama."

Calling Trump the racial backlash presidential candidate? Basically, the argument goes, he's the much needed antidote to 8 years of Barack O'Black. Maybe it's true.

How Donald Trump happened: Racism against Barack Obama.
Click to expand...

What a truly unfortunate, and exceedingly intellectually vacant accusation on the part of the Progressive Machine.

I can appreciate how these dog whistles are meant to get the congregation clapping, but I don't think insulting millions of thoughtful concerned citizens does much to add validity to these race baiting screeds from the left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom