# Trump

219 replies to this topic

### #1 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

Explaining

• Members
• 879 posts

Posted 13 August 2017 - 04:29 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2...rash/index.html

I'm not a fan of CNN for fair and balanced reporting, but this story has a video in it I couldn't find on my other usual news websites. Before I get into all the problems I have with this situation I'd like recognize a hopeful observation. Video of the fighting among protesters shows mostly Caucasian on Caucasian. What I mean to recognize is that this situation is not solely along racial lines, at least on one side of the protest of course.

We cannot know for sure what the suspects motivation was to have driven the car through the crowd. I can only imagine it was a combination of hate and hopeful martyrdom from the people he shares his political ideas with.

Many media outlets have condemned Trumps response to the events. Trump blames bad behavior from all sides. Many think he should have come out and specifically denounce the white supremacists and white-nationalists. Many in the media see mirror images of Trumps nod or lack condemnation of white supremacists as history repeating itself and compare Trump to Hitler.

The issue that concerns me the most is these incidents such as this is, appeal for young men and women to enter hate groups. Much as untold young Muslim men turned to join terrorists organizations after deadly attacks became remarkable enough to make mainstream media stories on the web and broadcasts throughout the world. An infinite loop of hate.

Let's assume for the discussion that Trump is not the dog wagged at all by the tail of the hard right. What would be his best and most logical path forward? The way I see it his three options are as follows.

1. He could do nothing, blow-off the situation and continue to address it in general or ambiguous language. He may also create other news to have the publics attention shifted from issue, such as inflaming the North Korean brinkmanship.

2. He could take a shot at serious condemnation or order the FBI to work on dismantling some of the most extreme groups.

3. He could carefully hint at embracing this arm of support from extreme white nationalists in future speeches.

These options are just generalities of course, with that in mind what path do expect Trump follow?

### #2 billvon

billvon

Understanding

• Members
• 276 posts

Posted 13 August 2017 - 04:38 PM

He will continue to choose a path between 1 and 3.  He will for the most part do nothing, but drop subtle hints about his support for white supremacy (retweeting things from white supremacists, note that Black Lives Matter are terrorists whereas white supremacists get a pass, defunding groups fighting white supremacy.)  That's why so many white supremacists are celebrating.

### #3 Buffy

Buffy

Resident Slayer

• 8942 posts

Posted 13 August 2017 - 07:56 PM

In America we have enshrined freedom of speech as so important, it is the first amendment in the Bill of Rights to our Constitution. Obviously, what that means is that we do permit even hate speech as properly protected. The only thing that prevents this from becoming a problem--that is that it ends up encouraging harmful behavior and becoming a threat to our institutions--is that that same right becomes a powerful mechanism for condemning that hate.

What you heard a lot of in the aftermath of this weekend were a lot of those white supremicists whinging that the response from those condemning them was "infringing their right to free speech."

As you hear me say constantly around here, "Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from Ridicule."

Or more to the point, "My criticism is not infringement on your right to free speech, it's the exercise of mine."

One of the problems in recent years, especially as right-leaning parties have become more radical, trying to take advantage of the energizing effect of more extreme political positions, is that the press has backed off from critical analysis of political statements in favor of the "both sides do it" approach which allows them to merely uncritically report positions without getting attacked by those who would call that criticism "infringement" or the bias of the "liberal media." This has been a survival mechanism for both the media and centrist politicians, but it has allowed the political fringe to be emboldened.

The "Alt-Right" is literally a movement whereby traditionally racist and sexist beliefs are stated without the euphemisms and "dog whistles" that have been used to hide them in the past, while coming up with a new term that does not have the political baggage of "neo-Nazi" or "White Supremacist."

One of the most common reasons people have given in the last year by Trump supporters for backing him is something to the effect of "he tells it like it is," with his support for mass deportation, dismissal of minority issues and even tacit anti-Semitism (i.e the way the Holocaust proclamation this year made no mention of Jews, which the White House press office notably refused to correct).

If you think that the White Supremacists have not noticed this, let me disabuse you of that notion.

After Trump gave his public comments yesterday in which he said:

We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It has been going on for a long time in our country -- not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. It has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America.

...invoking not only the "both sides do it" as well as trying to clearly absolve himself of any guilt as to it's growth in the last couple of years of his ascendancy.

Now I'm going to assume that not many of you are familiar with the White Supremacist movement, and aren't familiar with one of it's most popular publications, The Daily Stormer, but they didn't have any problem decoding Trump's statement:

It would sure appear that the dog heard his master's whistles.

(Also, to decode their secret language, "antifa" is "anti-fascists," by which they mean anyone who vocally opposes their opinions).

Now what's interesting is that this incident has so exposed the Republican party to attacks of appeasing the White Supremacist/Alt-Right segment of the population for easy votes, that there have been a large number (sadly not a majority) of leading Republicans to immediately not only condemn them explicitly but to call out Trump for not doing so, including McCain, Hatch, Grassley, Rubio and many others. Good on them.

Trump has proven that he has no problems expressing very strong opinions and disgust for just about everything with only two exceptions: Putin and the White Supremacists that show up at his rallies waving Confederate flags. And that's a real warning to America about what he actually holds dear.

But what the general issue does expose is that we need to all be vigilant in calling out aberrant and extremist beliefs to ensure that no segment of the population--young or old--is led to believe that those beliefs are socially acceptable.

To a certain extent, the church has led this movement in America, and I'd argue that the strong backing the Evangelical Christians have given to Trump has made them has destroyed their moral authority, but that might be left for a separate thread.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,
Buffy

### #4 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

Explaining

• Members
• 879 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 11:47 AM

There are two men, a VP, and a senior manager at the company that I've spent my entire career with. We all started around the same time and moved through the ranks together. I'd like to think I know them pretty well as I spend more waking hours a day with them than my own family. I trust, and respect both of these men to act in a sociable acceptable way.

In all the years we have worked together I have never heard them utter any single negative word or racial slur towards minorities. Yet both men expressed and continue to express their full support for Trump. One of them shocked me at lunch today when he stated that the media is making everything out to be Trumps fault. He thinks many other men in their 40's and 50's feel the same way and they are sick of it. As far as he's concerned Trump can do whatever he wants at this point and he will back him.

Thank you for your thoughts guys. Is it just me, or does this presidency and the fall out from it seem surreal?

Surreal, Surreal, Surreal. I can't get that word off my mind.

### #5 Farming guy

Farming guy

Explaining

• Members
• 905 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 05:04 PM

Thank you for your thoughts guys. Is it just me, or does this presidency and the fall out from it seem surreal?

Surreal, Surreal, Surreal. I can't get that word off my mind.

I mostly feel sad and disgusted.  It's just so disheartening to view the lack of courage displayed by our so called "leaders".

So Trump proved that he could become president, but he can't be a good, or even decent one, because he has so little good or decent within himself.  I have yet to see an ounce of compassion within him.  How anyone with anything but hatred within themselves can continue to support him is beyond reason.

### #6 Buffy

Buffy

Resident Slayer

• 8942 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 08:12 PM

There are two men, a VP, and a senior manager at the company that I've spent my entire career with. We all started around the same time and moved through the ranks together. I'd like to think I know them pretty well as I spend more waking hours a day with them than my own family. I trust, and respect both of these men to act in a sociable acceptable way.

In all the years we have worked together I have never heard them utter any single negative word or racial slur towards minorities. Yet both men expressed and continue to express their full support for Trump. One of them shocked me at lunch today when he stated that the media is making everything out to be Trumps fault. He thinks many other men in their 40's and 50's feel the same way and they are sick of it. As far as he's concerned Trump can do whatever he wants at this point and he will back him.

I know lots of these people. My dad is one. A chunk of my high school class--proportional to most of the polls you've seen--are like this too. In my experience, the breakdown by age group reduces radically with age, just as you see in the polls too.

Of these people, I notice three distinct strains:

• Outright racists, who while they'll keep their mouths shut in public or in mixed groups, mostly keep it to themselves, but really let loose when they've got fellow racists around, and occasionally let it out by accident because it's always just below the surface. This is really a tiny group.
• Unconscious racists, who swear they don't have a racist bone in their body and point to all their black/Latino/Jewish friends, but who have learned to use the talking points prepared for them by their more racist friends that appear to be more palatable: strong anti-immigrant (more than illegal, immigration of "undesirable" people, like Muslims and people who "won't assimilate"), anti-integration, anti-affirmative action, and in the same vein, very anti-LGBT. These people will always hire a white person over a minority and not notice what they're doing.
• Conservatives in denial: These are people for whom Trump is a Rorschach test. He's whatever they think he *ought* to be. He's just a successful business man, and they're blind to the things that are clear indications of pandering to the radical right base that Trump has specialized in targeting. My dad and your co-workers fall into that category, and my perception is that this is the largest group of "Trump supporters." Scary thing is that these people will unconsciously pick white people to work for them, but if they have a policy that promotes affirmative action, they'll mostly fall into line because that's actually what Abe Lincoln would do.

Most of the real racism in America is the first two groups, but because affirmative action actually isn't terribly widespread beyond government and large corporations, along with bursts of anti-affirmative action policy pushes, we still see minorities and women struggling to reach their representation in the population and having similar wages to white males that is the fault of all three groups. And that's why affirmative action has a purpose, and trying to apply it to supposed "discrimination against white people" is so silly: if you're at the top of the heap, people in other groups demanding their fair share when you've got more than they do, isn't "discrimination."

But that "feeling" of "economic anxiety" that is pointed to by all three groups above really has at it's root a combination of the fact that most of them are being squeezed by the increase in income inequality, but they're being directed to the demands of "undeserving" minorities for their fair share as the "real cause" of their very real less secure economic situation.

I won't engage in any conspiracy theories about who is doing what to make this happen, but the shift in where the benefits of society has been going is very real:

So yes, folks that are far below the poverty line are now less likely to starve to death or at least suffer malnutrition, but basically all the money went to folks in the top 5% and really the people in the top 1% took about 90% of it.

So it's not the moochers who took all your money. It's the really, really rich.

But listening to Fox News, right-wing radio and most of all just about every Trump speech, you'll be pretty much convinced it's the moochers (47%, scary Muslims and Mexicans, etc).

The anxiety is real, and the loss is undeniable. But the people who took it require a real re-examination, and that's not coming from the sources of information that these groups "trust."

There is also a cultural "loss" theme in here two, but I've found that by far, a lot of those issues are actually rooted in this perceived economic anxiety. If people weren't so squeezed, they wouldn't be so anxious to find someone to blame.

I've been puzzling about how to go about changing this, and I don't have good answers, although I've learned how to carry on a conversation with these folks, and have gotten as far as finding their limits, but the main problem comes down to "what they know that just ain't so."

Two half truths don't make one truth,

Buffy

### #7 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

Explaining

• Members
• 879 posts

Posted 15 August 2017 - 08:13 AM

FG-I agree there is very little good in him. I keep looking for some in different situations, but I don't see it in any of his actions. I work in the water industry and Trump through EPA director Pruitt are slowly dismantling regulations that have been in place for years.

We constantly analyze and reap data from testing different locations, the water intake, inside the plant at several locations and the send-out product. As well we should in light of the Flint Michigan crisis. You would think the regs would get tighter on us, not loosen up. If my operators were required to do tests on all his/her samples for Ph, alkalinity, Cl2, etc. every two hours, and now that data is required only once per eight hours, it won't save the company any money. It will just be less work for my operators, less tests for them to run. I can't imagine what's going on with the regs. concerning oil and gas companies.

Buffy,

I've also noticed the different classifications of Trump supporters and lots of misdirected blame.

On a side note, do either of you know why he is so adamant about Mexico building/paying for the wall? If he wants it so bad why doesn't he just build it? I understand it was a campaign promise, but the US has plenty of money he could just build it and be done with it. I don't think the people that want the wall care how it gets there, they just want it up. He could even spin it to say he's creating jobs on this side of the border. Why is he insistent that they pay for it? Am I missing something?

### #8 Buffy

Buffy

Resident Slayer

• 8942 posts

Posted 15 August 2017 - 09:02 AM

On a side note, do either of you know why he is so adamant about Mexico building/paying for the wall? If he wants it so bad why doesn't he just build it? I understand it was a campaign promise, but the US has plenty of money he could just build it and be done with it. I don't think the people that want the wall care how it gets there, they just want it up. He could even spin it to say he's creating jobs on this side of the border. Why is he insistent that they pay for it? Am I missing something?

Most people are balking at the cost: current estimates range from $25B to$50B, and the uncertainty is because there are some daunting practical problems:

Where does it go?

Yes we've got a fence for a lot of it, but a huge chunk of it is the Rio Grande River, which in most spots is easily fordable. Do you put it down the middle of the river? That's quite an engineering challenge. Do you put it on either side?

Most of the land on our side is privately held, and you'd need to buy it or impose eminent domain on it.

Or you could put it on Mexico's side, and just "take" their land. I imagine the Mexicans would be even less likely to support that than paying for it.

Even for the non-river portions, a "wall" takes up quite a bit more space than a fence because it needs a major foundation, especially if you're going to meet Trump's specification that it has to prevent digging under it too. So that means the same problems outlined above with the river.

Also, this can be no "ordinary" wall. Trump's specification varied with whatever number popped into his head while he was talking about it, but any height is surmountable with a big enough ladder. And as mentioned above, there's digging under that can be done, and the Mexican drug cartels have built some amazing ones.

So what that means is that, as the Russians found in creating the old Iron Curtain or as we have in Korea, you end up needing some pretty hefty fortifications along with things like land mines, and pretty much you need an entire army to guard it 24x7x365. Some say you'd need to add to the Border Patrol about 10 times as many people along with machine gun towers and constant helicopter surveillance (note: drones won't work unless you arm them and give the remote pilots right to shoot to kill; a topic for a separate thread) as they have now on an annual basis forever to really keep people out.

And as France learned with the Maginot Line, people who want to get in will just fly over or around it.

Like the Great Wall,you'd be able to see it from space, but it won't really ever do what you want it to do.

So it would be the biggest boondoggle in US history, even if you're one of those weirdos that think all NASA spending is a waste.

The current House budget proposal does have a \$1.5B allocation for "studies" on getting the wall started, but let's see if it survives passage. Not even Republicans are enthusiastic about this. Only Trump is because he "promised."

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money,

Buffy

### #9 Farming guy

Farming guy

Explaining

• Members
• 905 posts

Posted 15 August 2017 - 04:06 PM

And that's why affirmative action has a purpose, and trying to apply it to supposed "discrimination against white people" is so silly: if you're at the top of the heap, people in other groups demanding their fair share when you've got more than they do, isn't "discrimination."

Here is a good point that we need to think about more.  Why has affirmative action failed so miserably at bringing more minorities out of poverty? What can we do to get more people to view each other as equals?

When it comes to doing business with other people, the only thing I care about is competence and a dedication to getting the job done.  I don't understand why race comes into the picture for so many others.  I have noticed that racism can be sneaky, and I've seen it pop up from people who I thought knew better.

### #10 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

Explaining

• Members
• 879 posts

Posted 15 August 2017 - 06:04 PM

http://www.freerepub...ws/668014/posts

In my opinion affirmative action has not leveled the playing field it was intended to. I live about an hour and a half from Philadelphia, but get the news stations for our local TV channels. When mayor Street announced that the brothers and sisters were now running the city after his election win, it caused quite a stir around here.

Out here in the farmland many of my neighbors make the commute to the city for their jobs. I would say out here 90% are Caucasians. In the city there is a certain amount of work that must be given to minority owned companies. I believe to get some of these contracts they must also employ a certain number of minority's. Since they know they're getting the work the bids are severely inflated, quality control is terrible, and corruption is rampant.

I agree with you, I'm a competence and attitude guy, I don't care what color or creed they are if they can do the job and are receptive to learning they deserve to get a chance like everyone else. The problem is the forced assignment to minority breeds a lot of contempt with the people such as my neighbors. Many who think they are now at a disadvantage. I don't know what the answer is to even the playing field, but I don't think it is working as it is.

### #11 billvon

billvon

Understanding

• Members
• 276 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:14 AM

Also, this can be no "ordinary" wall. Trump's specification varied with whatever number popped into his head while he was talking about it, but any height is surmountable with a big enough ladder. And as mentioned above, there's digging under that can be done, and the Mexican drug cartels have built some amazing ones.

I would also point out that one of those specifications is that it has to be transparent.  From Trump:

"You have to be able to see through it. In other words, if you can’t see through that wall — so it could be a steel wall with openings, but you have to have openings because you have to see what’s on the other side of the wall.  As horrible as it sounds, when they throw the large sacks of drugs over, and if you have people on the other side of the wall, you don’t see them—they hit you on the head with 60 pounds of stuff? It’s over.  As crazy as that sounds, you need transparency through that wall. But we have some incredible designs.”

Deepwater 6 said:

In all the years we have worked together I have never heard them utter any single negative word or racial slur towards minorities. Yet both men expressed and continue to express their full support for Trump. One of them shocked me at lunch today when he stated that the media is making everything out to be Trumps fault. He thinks many other men in their 40's and 50's feel the same way and they are sick of it. As far as he's concerned Trump can do whatever he wants at this point and he will back him.

Thank you for your thoughts guys. Is it just me, or does this presidency and the fall out from it seem surreal?

Yes, definitely surreal.  He will hear a rumor on FOX and Friends and then tweet it as if it was fact, then he will say in a speech: "I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct, not make a quick statement. . . .You don't make statements that direct unless you know the fact. And it takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts. And it is a very, very important process to me. It is a very important statement. So I don't want to go quickly and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement."

Trump is using an interesting approach to truth.  He's claiming that any time something bad is published about him, it's "fake news."  That way anything can be immediately dismissed by throwing it under the general heading "fake news" - and his supporters (and you have some good examples aboev) have an easy way to avoid dealing with the truth.

### #12 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

Explaining

• Members
• 879 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 01:33 PM

Exactly, everything gets thrown in the "fake news" bin when he disagrees. What bothers me most though is that he will be presented the facts about something or someone by numerous credible sources and he still maintains his take on it. To me this is a form of lying not just an opposing point of view. A person that publically makes false claims or "made up claims" is an inconvenience for subjects that are inconsequential, but since I'm forced to question his character, telling us such things as, we're locked and loaded in regard to our nuclear arsenal makes me uneasy.

Last I heard 5 of the Joint Chiefs came out with a statement condemning white supremacy along with a slew of Republican senators. The pressure is building on the CEO's of the companies who haven't resigned from the panel Trump put together.

http://www.cnn.com/2...cism/index.html

### #13 Farming guy

Farming guy

Explaining

• Members
• 905 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 05:05 PM

Exactly, everything gets thrown in the "fake news" bin when he disagrees. What bothers me most though is that he will be presented the facts about something or someone by numerous credible sources and he still maintains his take on it. To me this is a form of lying not just an opposing point of view. A person that publically makes false claims or "made up claims" is an inconvenience for subjects that are inconsequential, but since I'm forced to question his character, telling us such things as, we're locked and loaded in regard to our nuclear arsenal makes me uneasy.

Last I heard 5 of the Joint Chiefs came out with a statement condemning white supremacy along with a slew of Republican senators. The pressure is building on the CEO's of the companies who haven't resigned from the panel Trump put together.

http://www.cnn.com/2...cism/index.html

Can you imagine the horror of having Trump for a boss?  How can his aides and the White House staff maintain any self respect as they defend his statements and twitter proclamations?

### #14 Turtle

Turtle

Member

• Members
• 15451 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 05:25 PM

Can you imagine the horror of having Trump for a boss?  How can his aides and the White House staff maintain any self respect as they defend his statements and twitter proclamations?

Birds of a feather...

### #15 serenesam

serenesam

Understanding

• Members
• 265 posts

Posted 19 August 2017 - 02:26 PM

I have to wonder if it's racist to think/believe that White people should have a homeland? I saw somewhere that America is going to be majority Non-White by 2050.

I mean, after all, pretty much all the homelands of Non-White countries will still be around?

### #16 Farming guy

Farming guy

Explaining

• Members
• 905 posts

Posted 19 August 2017 - 04:21 PM

Racist or not, it's rather nonsensical.  We "white" people are of predominantly European origin, and last I knew those European countries still exist.

Trump and his supporters seem to have trouble discerning perpetrators from victims.

If the white race is superior, why are so many behaving like children?

### #17 Turtle

Turtle

Member

• Members
• 15451 posts

Posted 19 August 2017 - 04:53 PM

I have to wonder if it's racist to think/believe that White people should have a homeland?

Yes, it is racist.