Trump inspired hate

[JulieInNaplesFL]

*looks at the left*
*Cringes*
*Looks at the right*
*Winces*

FUCK Y'ALL BOTH.

What happened to just being decent folk, promoting civilized behavior and not intentionally becoming a stain on society. Looks like I have to actually look into seriously considering my personal safety.

I just want to be left the fuck alone, because the world is and always has been going to shit.
I'm looking at both the right and left, how they hate each other, only to realize I hate them both.

Dang guy, Stop using common sense in here. you'll make some heads explode.

PS. Great post I'm with you.

 

[malakos]

You never met any?

No. It's a logical impossibility.

Try being black among Hasidim.

Arab Muslims frequently despise Blacks too. Does that make them "White supremacists"?

There are plenty of Jews who don't seem to know they aren't totally considered white.

And there are Catholics who don't seem to know that their religion is Christian. Doesn't change the objective facts of the matter.

However, there absolutely is no shortage of bigotry against non-whites among Jews.

I don't doubt it. I bet there are plenty of, say, Japanese nationals, for instance, who view most other races with contempt. Prejudice is quite diverse and is present across groups.

White supremacism is a very particular ideology. General racial prejudice being far more broad, it's clear to me that it simply reflects the general human tendency towards xenophobia, not a developed ideology in the same way.

 

[malakos]

@AlteredEgo You're correct in so far as many (most?) Jews pass as White in a society in which the regard for racial realism is fading. Race for most now is mostly just viewed as a "skin deep" matter. Many/most Jews in North America have a similar appearance to people of predominant European ancestry, so they are considered White, practically speaking.

However, when it comes to White supremacists, the story is different. White supremacists have never recognized Jews as part of their race. They have always been the ancient enemy.

 

[b.c.]

You're FOS. You said you don't expect the President to condemn the actions of the murderer. But he's already done that! You're just so extremely biased that you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

YOU'RE the one with reading comprehension issues. I said I didn't expect the president to condemn the hate filled mentality of the neo nazis, supremacists, racists, and bigots who showed up, many from out of state, in Charlottesville, including these sorts:

Militia force armed with assault rifles marches through US town ahead of white nationalist rally

NOR outright condemn the kind of bigotry and mentality that led to this guy deliberately driving a fkn car through a crowd of people. After all, did he not, on several occasions during his campaign, intimate such actions on the part of his constituents? Did his campaign and rhetoric not inspire people who harbor such thoughts?

But, for the record, that is NOT just my opinion, champ, unless you are also incapable of comprehending the numerous links above about complaints, from the left and the right, that Trump's comments on the happenings in Charlottesville didn't go far ENOUGH... (well, far enough for YOU, I guess):

“Mr President - we must call evil by its name,” said Republican Senator Cory Gardner, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

For reference, here are some real and genuine expressions of disgust and solidarity in the face of the kind of alt-right b.s. philosophy YOU are quick to sugarcoat:

Theresa May condemns 'racism, hatred and violence' in Virginia
Mourning and acts of solidarity for the victims of the Charlottesville attack at a white nationalist rally
Charlottesville mayor largely blames Trump for white supremacist violence

“Look at the campaign he ran,” Charlottesville Mayor Michael Signer said in an interview with CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday. “I mean, look at the intentional courting, both on the one hand of all these white supremacists, white nationalists — a group like that — anti-Semitic groups, and then look on the other hand the repeated failure to step up, condemn, denounce, silence, you know, put to bed all those different efforts, just like we saw yesterday. I mean, this is not hard.”

 

[TexanStar]

@AlteredEgo You're correct in so far as many (most?) Jews pass as White in a society in which the regard for racial realism is fading. Race for most now is mostly just viewed as a "skin deep" matter. Many/most Jews in North America have a similar appearance to people of predominant European ancestry, so they are considered White, practically speaking.

However, when it comes to White supremacists, the story is different. White supremacists have never recognized Jews as part of their race. They have always been the ancient enemy.

This becomes overly complicated.

White supremacism can refer to the neo-nazi type political movements, or it can refer to just the ideology of whites as superior.

White can refer to anthropological definitions about the caucasian race, or it can refer to the social structure.

~95% of Jews in America identify themselves as white when responding to census questions and such. 100 years ago, you could ask a Jewish person if they're white and they would say "No, I'm a Jew", but nowadays they'd say "Yes, I'm white".

So when AE says that Jews can be white supremacists, she's right, because she's viewing it from a racial group that's socially considered white and capable of being racist against not whites. When you say they can't, you're right as well, because you're viewing it from the angle of Neo Nazis and such who hate Jews and wouldn't welcome them into those specific groups. Keep arguing it if you want, but it's just perspective.

None of this changes the fact that an act of terrorism was committed in Virginia by a white supremacist and our president has been very wishy washy in clearly calling out that behavior as intolerable, just as he is in similar cases of terrorism committed against minorities (failing to decry bombing of mosques, race-based murders, etc). He continues to position himself as someone who will be as much of a friend to white supremacy groups as he can get away with as president.

 

[Klingsor]

.There you go. Can't beat these guys.

Guess I have to use emojis more frequently.

 

[malakos]

White supremacism can refer to the neo-nazi type political movements, or it can refer to just the ideology of whites as superior.

What goes with it beyond that? If one simply believes the White race is superior (as in qualitatively better) and there's nothing more to it, how does that qualify the term "supremacy"?

White can refer to anthropological definitions about the caucasian race, or it can refer to the social structure.

"Social structure"? Lol, no, I don't have any patience for sociological revisionist BS. That's where you get the sort of nonsense about all White people being racists.

~95% of Jews in America identify themselves as white when responding to census questions and such.

The US Census uses a very broad definition of "White" that is actually just a placeholder for Caucasoid. That's not what White supremacists mean by White.

100 years ago, you could ask a Jewish person if they're white and they would say "No, I'm a Jew", but nowadays they'd say "Yes, I'm white".

Yes, because of the shifting mainstream usage. But the usage of White supremacists is not the usage of the mainstream.

So when AE says that Jews can be white supremacists, she's right, because she's viewing it from a racial group that's socially considered white and capable of being racist against not whites.

I acknowledged that it's correct to say that Jews are White in the contemporary mainstream usage. Being White in that sense and "being racist against non-Whites" does not qualify White supremacism though. To suggest such is to assume that the cause of racial prejudice is necessarily an ideology of superiority and drive to dominate, which is totally off base.

you're viewing it from the angle of Neo Nazis and such who hate Jews

Certainly not just Neo-Nazis. Especially in the current situation, most who are advocating for White identity and who view the Jews as a harmful force are not National Socialists. National Socialism is a very specific ideology that most of these people do not believe in. Of course buffoons like Industrialsize, b.c., and sargon20 don't care about that and just go around calling everyone Nazis.

None of this changes the fact that an act of terrorism was committed in Virginia by a white supremacist

I've tried to do some research on his background and haven't found anything yet. You're saying you have? Or you're just assuming his ideology given the context?

and our president has been very wishy washy in clearly calling out that behavior as intolerable

He has not made particularly elaborate statements, but that is not particularly unusual. Especially with only one person killed. Typically Presidents only make elaborate addresses at times of mass tragedies.

What I would not concede to is in his being unclear in calling it out:

"We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!" (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/896420822780444672)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/896467135391596544

"We must remember this truth: No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are ALL AMERICANS FIRST." (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/896481262776360960)


The 2nd link includes the "on many sides" bit. That is only part that's not crystal clear, and it's up to interpretation. For one thing, it's sandwiched within many clear statements. The phrase itself was part of a statement condemning the violence.

Now, I don't think too many people are actually stupid enough to think that one man killing a young woman and injuring many by driving into a crowd specifically could be blamed on more than one party. So it seems paranoid to me to think the POTUS would be manipulating an idea that is so obviously false. Rather, I think it's more reasonable to suspect that he is using this incident to make a broader comment on the growing climate of violence from radicalized segments of our society. You're welcome to think that's inappropriate, but especially given how political this case was, I'd say it's fair.

just as he is in similar cases of terrorism committed against minorities (failing to decry bombing of mosques, race-based murders, etc).

I don't recall Presidents ever making a point on remarking on every "hate crime". Nor on every burning of a mosque or synagogue. You actually expect that to be a duty of the POTUS? If you're talking about something more remarkable, where past Presidents have made statements in similar situations, I'd be curious for you to name the cases.

But this is not a similar case. This terrorist did not target people of any specific class/identity. The woman he wound up killing appears to be Caucasian to me. This was an act of political violence, targeting people for their political associations.

He continues to position himself as someone who will be as much of a friend to white supremacy groups as he can get away with as president.

Or perhaps he thinks it unwise to fixate on a lunatic fringe, as the Left insists on doing? If so, I'd agree with him.

Who actually believes that he is interested in befriending them? Other than the loony Left? Pretty much no one in any sector of the Right that I've seen believes that. I haven't seen many Centrists suggest it either.

 

[TexanStar]

What goes with it beyond that? If one simply believes the White race is superior (as in qualitatively better) and there's nothing more to it, how does that qualify the term "supremacy"?



"Social structure"? Lol, no, I don't have any patience for sociological revisionist BS. That's where you get the sort of nonsense about all White people being racists.



The US Census uses a very broad definition of "White" that is actually just a placeholder for Caucasoid. That's not what White supremacists mean by White.



Yes, because of the shifting mainstream usage. But the usage of White supremacists is not the usage of the mainstream.



I acknowledged that it's correct to say that Jews are White in the contemporary mainstream usage. Being White in that sense and "being racist against non-Whites" does not qualify White supremacism though. To suggest such is to assume that the cause of racial prejudice is necessarily an ideology of superiority and drive to dominate, which is totally off base.



Certainly not just Neo-Nazis. Especially in the current situation, most who are advocating for White identity and who view the Jews as a harmful force are not National Socialists. National Socialism is a very specific ideology that most of these people do not believe in. Of course buffoons like Industrialsize, b.c., and sargon20 don't care about that and just go around calling everyone Nazis.



I've tried to do some research on his background and haven't found anything yet. You're saying you have? Or you're just assuming his ideology given the context?



He has not made particularly elaborate statements, but that is not particularly unusual. Especially with only one person killed. Typically Presidents only make elaborate addresses at times of mass tragedies.

What I would not concede to is in his being unclear in calling it out:

"We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!" (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/896420822780444672)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/896467135391596544

"We must remember this truth: No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are ALL AMERICANS FIRST." (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/896481262776360960)


The 2nd link includes the "on many sides" bit. That is only part that's not crystal clear, and it's up to interpretation. For one thing, it's sandwiched within many clear statements. The phrase itself was part of a statement condemning the violence.

Now, I don't think too many people are actually stupid enough to think that one man killing a young woman and injuring many by driving into a crowd specifically could be blamed on more than one party. So it seems paranoid to me to think the POTUS would be manipulating an idea that is so obviously false. Rather, I think it's more reasonable to suspect that he is using this incident to make a broader comment on the growing climate of violence from radicalized segments of our society. You're welcome to think that's inappropriate, but especially given how political this case was, I'd say it's fair.



I don't recall Presidents ever making a point on remarking on every "hate crime". Nor on every burning of a mosque or synagogue. You actually expect that to be a duty of the POTUS? If you're talking about something more remarkable, where past Presidents have made statements in similar situations, I'd be curious for you to name the cases.

But this is not a similar case. This terrorist did not target people of any specific class/identity. The woman he wound up killing appears to be Caucasian to me. This was an act of political violence, targeting people for their political associations.



Or perhaps he thinks it unwise to fixate on a lunatic fringe, as the Left insists on doing? If so, I'd agree with him.

Who actually believes that he is interested in befriending them? Other than the loony Left? Pretty much no one in any sector of the Right that I've seen believes that. I haven't seen many Centrists suggest it either.

1) The whole concept of race is a social structure. It's a bunch of arbitrary divisions as much as if we were dividing people up by hair or eye color. Let's not pretend like we're not working with a social structure from the outset. At the end of the day, the truth is that humans are humans.

2) I know what white supremacists mean by white differs from what people on the street mean when they say it. That was my point.

3) James Fields, the guy who drove the car, was attending the rally as part of a hate group: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ld-hate-group-shield-attack-article-1.3407245 (this is their website: https://bloodandsoil.org/manifesto/). Are you making the argument that maybe he was eating taco bell in his car and accidentally dropped his mountain dew causing him to inadvertently drive into several counter protesters? Yes, I suppose that is in the realm of possibility if you want to hold off on any condemnation until an investigation explores this possibility. Maybe he got attacked by a bee.

4) It's not about every attack. There is messaging generated by the choice of incidents which provoke a reaction from Trump, and the type of reaction, and those that don't. He is quick to decry anything he even thinks is muslim terror (even if it's just a casino robbery), but is frequently quiet when muslim americans are the victims of such terror attacks.

 

[ozwestcoastboy]

 

[chrisrobin]

On Memorial Day 1927, brawls erupted in New York led by sympathizers of the Italian fascist movement and the Ku Klux Klan. In the fascist brawl, which took place in the Bronx, two Italian men were killed by anti-fascists. In Queens, 1,000 white-robed Klansmen marched through the Jamaica neighborhood, eventually spurring an all-out brawl in which seven men were arrested.
One of those arrested was Fred Trump of 175-24 Devonshire Rd. in Jamaica
This is Donald Trump's father.
The predication for the Klan to march, according to a flier passed around Jamaica beforehand, was that "Native-born Protestant Americans" were being "assaulted by Roman Catholic police of New York City." "Liberty and Democracy have been trampled upon," it continued, "when native-born Protestant Americans dare to organize to protect one flag, the American flag; one school, the public school; and one language, the English language."
When news of the old report surfaced last year, Donald Trump vehemently denied his father's arrest. "He was never arrested. He has nothing to do with this. This never happened. This is nonsense and it never happened," he said to the Daily Mail. "This never happened. Never took place. He was never arrested, never convicted, never even charged. It's a completely false, ridiculous story. He was never there! It never happened. Never took place."
It's worth noting that Trump's comments came one day after another Klan brawl, this time in Anaheim, Calif. Thirteen people were arrested and three were stabbed after a Klan rally turned violent. And it's worth noting, too, as did Jonathan Chait that Trump's claim to "know nothing" about white supremacists echoes the language of the 19th-century "Know Nothing" party — a nativist group that supported only Protestants for public office.
When he was asked on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday whether he would condemn the praise of former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, Donald Trump said. "I don’t know anything about David Duke, okay," Trump said. "I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. I don't know, did he endorse me? Or what's going on. Because I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists."
During appearances on network television Feb. 28, Republican presidential candidate
Donald Trump repeatedly declined to refuse the endorsement of David Duke, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
While Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz both took aim at Trump. (The Washington Post)

 

[malakos]

Oh FFS, do your research instead of just throwing around the convenient pieces of the story.

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-father-kkk-1927/

Of the 7 men who were arrested, Fred Trump was the only one who was discharged. Why would he be the only one who was let go without being charged if he were a participant on the same level?

 

[Industrialsize]

GOP is more likely to vent ‘personal disgust’ for Trump after Charlottesville

• Accusations that Trump is racist have never made Republican politicians abandon him in large numbers
• The killing of a protester at the University of Virginia has generated rage toward white nationalists
• Republicans who are calculating the possible political costs are finding it harder to stay silent

Ninety years ago, President Donald Trump's father was arrested at a Ku Klux Klan march in New York City.

Forty-four years ago, the Trump family's real estate company was accused by a Republican-run U.S. Justice Department of discriminating against blacks. The company settled.
Twenty-eight years ago, Trump publicly called for capital punishment after five black youths were charged with a crime of which they were later cleared. "Maybe hate is what we need if we're going to get something done," he told a television interviewer.

Six years ago, Trump sought to discredit the legitimacy of America's first black president. He spread the fabricated suggestion that President Barack Obama was born abroad and not, in fact, American.

Two years ago, Trump opened his own campaign for the White House by denouncing Mexican immigrants. "They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists," he said.

Last year, Trump equivocated about the endorsement of a former KKK leader, saying "I know nothing about David Duke" or white supremacists. He said a federal judge couldn't fairly oversee claims against him because "he's Mexican." He made a champion of the "alt-right" — a term for white nationalist extremists — his campaign chairman.

'Least racist person ... you've ever seen'
'Disgust for Trump within the Senate'
But the shield has grown thinner. The causes include revelations from multiple investigations involving Trump and Russia, chaos and incompetence in the White House, and public attacks on Republicans including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

"The personal disgust for Trump within the Senate is really remarkable," a top GOP strategist told me last week.


Now the president's refusal to condemn the "Unite the Right" gathering in Charlottesville, Virginia, which included the former Klan leader Duke, has begun pulling private disdain into the open.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/13/charlottesville-gop-disgust-for-trump-more-likely-to-come-out.html

 

[Industrialsize]

 

[Industrialsize]

TIKI Torch Brand Just Issued An Official Response To Charlottesville White Supremacy Rally

TIKI Brand Products
on Saturday
TIKI Brand is not associated in any way with the events that took place in Charlottesville and are deeply saddened and disappointed. We do not support their message or the use of our products in this way. Our products are designed to enhance backyard gatherings and to help family and friends connect with each other at home in their yard.

http://washingtonjournal.com/2017/0...sponse-charlottesville-white-supremacy-rally/

 

[BigAndBlack]

Well now, here's actually something worth discussing.



Researching this person is new to me, so perhaps you know more than I do. I saw nothing about association with David Duke, but I haven't read very much yet. Where did you read about that?



I can only assume you're referring to Richard Spencer. In his case people have a right to suspect he's pushing for things that go deeper than his words. However, all we have for sure are his words. Richard Spencer is someone I've actually spent time watching. I've never noticed him saying, specifically, that Whites are superior to other races, let alone advocate for dominating other races. Those are the key point of White supremacism. As I said, people are free to be suspicious of him. What he has actually advocated for, rather, is ethno(racial)nationalism. At that, for all races, not just his own.

That being said, Mr. Miller's supposed relationship to Mr. Spencer is based off of the story of the latter. Mr. Miller has rejected this story, saying he has no relationship with Mr. Spencer, and that he completely repudiates his views.



And I'm not going to take issue with your having problems with Mr. Duke or Mr. Spencer. However, while keeping in mind that Mr. Miller's relationship to the other two is questionable, why do you have a problem with that? Do you think it's not worth getting to know people we have stark disagreements with?

There's simply no way you can possibly say that you've spent time watching Richard Spencer, then follow that up by saying that you've never seen him advocating for the idea that Whites are superior. And in what way is getting to know someone who's ideology is genocide of an entire people worthwhile? Extermination of an entire people on the basis of race isn't a legitimate viewpoint, and asking people to acknowledge it by getting to know these people is ridiculous.

 

[Industrialsize]

A woman was killed by a white nationalist in an act the AG says meets definition of domestic terrorism. Here are Trump's first tweets today

 

[chicagosam]

 

[Industrialsize]

CEO of Merck Pharamceuticals resigns from Trump Council

Mr Frazier:

Trump's response:
Now that Ken Frazier of Merck Pharma has resigned from President's Manufacturing Council,he will have more time to LOWER RIPOFF DRUG PRICES!

 

[rbkwp]

couple of minutes into it i get the picture, thabks huh


chicagosam,14 minutes ago

 

[Max_Polo]

What happened to just being decent folk, promoting civilized behavior and not intentionally becoming a stain on society.

Precisely.

And why must everything be about race?

The fucking Neo-nazis demonstrating don't get any sympathy or support from me. They are a disgrace and a stain on our society.

And I don't think that the Black Lives Matter movement helps anyone. It makes white people who are being screamed at nervous and less likely to see black people in a favorable light, not more. And it tells (primarily young) black men and women that they are considered inferior in our society and have to fight that by screaming about the color of their skin. And that's wrong, they fight that by ignoring the morons who still think skin color is relevant and hang out with those of us who know better and value them as friends and colleagues.

But, both these groups are guaranteed free speech in our country, albeit with some limits.

I'm white, I get it that there are advantages to that even in what should be a color-blind society. But my skin color is what it is, all I can do is try to move society forward, primarily by setting an example for people around me and for my children.

Our daughter went to a French speaking summer school when she was three. When we picked her up after the first day, we asked about her teacher and she replied, "she has the whitest eyes I've ever seen." That teacher was from St. Martin and was black. But my daughter did not see skin color, she saw very white eyes. And that is success in parenting.

And if we all focused more on people's eyes and less on skin color the world would be better for it.