Trump’s racist attacks are creating chaos — and even his own campaign is sick of it

a reply to: xuenchen

I wonder what else gets edited.

Interesting find.

a reply to: neo96

No one is calling the right wing racist honey. Were just calling Donald racist . He's not the right wing. Or any part of the bird . He's just a racist .

a reply to: damwel

Are you people serious? Enforcing immigration laws has nothing to do with saying Mexicans are rapists. He said it, the cats out of the bag and that is a racist statement. He is a racist, period. No backing out now folks. If he's your guy then live with it. It has nothing to do with Hillary, it has to do with Trump

Gee I wonder where that Idea came from ?



Not like there aren't FACTS to back it up.

From the GAO by the by.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: paperdoll

How is it that what seems to be rude, sometimes abusive, half-truths is understood as "non-pandering" or "speaking one's mind"?

But, that is not what I'm saying makes him non-pandering, though. I find him non-pandering because he is not like the democrats who, in my opinion, spend a huge amount of their time and campaign, well, pandering to certain minorities. For instance, Sanders gives the impression that it is not the fault of African-Americans that they are the majority incarnated or over 50% unemployed. If this is the case, what is the plan? What is he going to do that will change those numbers? Whose fault is it? Is it society's fault? How so? This is pandering, imo. Trump doesn't do this. Therefore, I think he is non-pandering.

It's like the only way that politicians can talk about AA issues is if they constantly remind everyone that it's always someone else's fault. How will that ever work?

Women, racial and ethnic minorities, LGBT, college graduates, etc. make up most of the Democrat's political base.

They're not supposed to be interested or have a conversation with their base constituencies?

Trump has courted (rather ridiculously in my opinion ... remember "Two Corinthians" LOL) the Religious Right, White males, blue-collar workers etc.

Thanks for your answer, but I can't see your point.

I have no dog in this fight but what you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that Trump should ignore the biggest demographic in the country to pay lip service to the groups you personally think deserve it.

How exactly does that kind of political strategy work?

a reply to: neo96

Is that deliberate conflation or the result of ignorance of American history and political science?

LBJ was smart and he did the right thing regardless of whether or not he harbored racist views, he ended up on the right side of history.

Are you denying that Barry Goldwater, five term Republican Senator, "Mr. Conservative" and the 1964 Republican candidate for President of the United States of America was opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? That he lost by a landslide? That the GOP realized that their miscalculation ensured they would lose the black vote for the foreseeable future and embraced the Southern Strategy to use white Southerners fears of newly enfranchised blacks to bring white Southern, former Democratic voters into their base?

Have you never heard of the Dixiecrats or the Rockefeller Republicans? You want to know what really blows your garbage out of the water?

WaPo - RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong." Mehlman, a Baltimore native who managed President Bush's reelection campaign, goes on to discuss current overtures to minorities, calling it "not healthy for the country for our political parties to be so racially polarized."

NY Times - Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant

Listen to the late Lee Atwater in a 1981 interview explaining the evolution of the G.O.P.'s Southern strategy: ''You start out in 1954 by saying, 'N-----, n-----, n-----.' By 1968 you can't say 'n-----' -- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

New Yorker - The Fall of Conservatism

“What we talked about, basically, was shearing off huge segments of F.D.R.’s New Deal coalition, which L.B.J. had held together: Northern Catholic ethnics and Southern Protestant conservatives—what we called the Daley-Rizzo Democrats in the North and, frankly, the Wallace Democrats in the South.”

nominate for the Supreme Court a Southern strict constructionist who would divide Democrats regionally; use abortion and parochial-school aid to deepen the split between Catholics and social liberals; elicit white working-class support with tax relief and denunciations of welfare. Finally, the memo recommended exploiting racial tensions among Democrats. “Bumper stickers calling for black Presidential and especially Vice-Presidential candidates should be spread out in the ghettoes of the country,” Buchanan wrote. “We should do what is within our power to have a black nominated for Number Two, at least at the Democratic National Convention.”

Funny that the people who were actually there — making the decisions, developing the strategies — all seem to disagree with your BS attempt at rewriting history.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: neo96

Calm down, I think you've been triggered.

How about some people start READING.

Instead of what the TV and the 'internets' tells them?

I know it's asking too much from yall.

1882 Chinese Exclusion Act Restricted immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years. Prohibited Chinese naturalization. Provided deportation procedures for illegal Chinese. Marked the birth of illegal immigration (in America).[1] The Act was "a response to racism [in America] and to anxiety about threats from cheap labor [from China]."

1891 Immigration Act of 1891 First comprehensive immigration laws for the US. Bureau of Immigration set up in the Treasury Dept.[3] Immigration Bureau directed to deport unlawful aliens. Empowered "the superintendent of immigration to enforce immigration laws"

1917 Immigration Act of 1917 (Barred Zone Act) Restricted immigration from Asia by creating an "Asiatic Barred Zone" and introduced a reading test for all immigrants over fourteen years of age, with certain exceptions for children, wives, and elderly family members.

1921 Emergency Quota Act Limited the number of immigrants from any country to 3% of those already in the US from that country as per the 1910 census. "An unintended consequence of the 1920s legislation was an increase in illegal immigration. Many Europeans who did not fall under the quotas migrated to Canada or Mexico, which [as Western Hemisphere nations] were not subject to national-origin quotas; [and] subsequently they slipped into the United States illegally."

en.wikipedia.org...

But really now people ?

OVer 200 years of immigration laws are meaningless today.

After all just because Trump critics think people from South of the Border are so special.

US laws don't apply to them.

And anyone who thinks those LAWS be enforced, and they get treated like my ancestors, other peoples ancestors.

Is apparently asking too much.

After all the job of the potus is to faithfully execute, and defend those laws.

Why people that makes Trump a 'racist'!

a reply to: theantediluvian

Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero. But also a racist.

Nothing about it was conflated.

DEAL.

a reply to: neo96

How about some people start READING. Instead of what the TV and the 'internets' tells them? I know it's asking too much from yall.

Good grief. This is like trying to debate a crazy person with a learning disability. I guarantee I am more well read on the subject than you unless you're counting garbage dredged up by the Drudge report?

And anyone who thinks those LAWS be enforced, and they get treated like my ancestors, other peoples ancestors. Is apparently asking too much.

Why don't you try sticking to one failed argument at a time or is your whole strategy to paste unrelated excerpts and hope that nobody notices as you flip flop around pasting text walls that prove nothing but how weak your arguments are?

The first immigration laws were enacted because of "Yellow Peril." "Yellow Peril" was the Asian version of the same GARBAGE that Trump is promoting now. There were no restrictions on European immigrants until 1921.

Your argument seems to be that because xenophobes did something in the past that xenophobes today should do the same thing.

That is a FAIL.

You know, two wrongs don't make a right and all that? Trying to reframe it as an issue of "fairness" is frankly stupid and desperate. It's like saying that FDR put Japanese people in camps so every ethnic group should be put into camps. Are you that incapable of learning from the mistakes of history or are you saying that "Yellow Peril" was justified?

That hatred of Italian immigrants was correct? How about the demonizing of Irish immigrants, was that good too? How about the long history of anti-Catholicism (which is intimately connected to both)? All of those were such defensible positions that we need more of that?

That's your defense of Trump?

Pathetic. Disgusting. Regressive.

a reply to: neo96

How is that a response to this:

LBJ was smart and he did the right thing regardless of whether or not he harbored racist views, he ended up on the right side of history.

You're literally telling me something I already now and pretending like there was some argument about it. Why not instead of this weak attempt at a straw man, you try answering the questions I posed? Or do you have nothing to say about any of that?

a reply to: xuenchen

Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like in the span of 60 seconds, the page was edited, you excerpted it with the edit, and a bot automatically identified and undid the edit? The only edit of the day?

That's one hell of a coincidence.

Like I said before. If Trump is to blame for violent protestors, then are women in short skirts to blame for violent rapists? Are Jews to blame for the holocaust?

originally posted by: olaru12
www.rawstory.com...

“There’s growing internal dissent,” said NBC reporter Katy Tur on Morning Joe this morning. “Absolutely. And for the first time, I’m hearing inside the campaign, the same things that I’ve been hearing outside the campaign… I’m hearing aides say that this is extraordinarily frustrating to them, that they believe these are the sort of things that will end up sinking this campaign. The biggest hurdle right now is the candidate himself, because he says what he wants, no matter what they do behind the scenes.”

A cohesive, intelligent, committed and unified campaign staff is mandatory to a successful run for political office.
Is Trump so unaware of this fact, or is their another agenda in the works. Trump isn't stupid but he continues to alienate people that he needs to get elected.

Lots of Republicans teed off against their own presumptive presidential nominee over the weekend after Donald Trump claimed that Judge Gonzalo Curiel had an inherent conflict of interest in overseeing the Trump University case because of his Mexican heritage. And now it turns out that even members of Trump’s own campaign staff are reportedly fed up with Trump’s constant race-baiting on the campaign trail.

I acknowledge Trumps racism is attractive to a large segment of the population. From my perspective...Trump would have a much better chance at winning the WH with a message of strength in Unity.

If his staff bails; he can hire more people, but will there be enough cohesiveness to mount an effective campaign? Or at this point, does it even matter?

I've agreed that Trump has said STUPID sh**t. But just so we can clarify, I would like you to name or link or quote to ONE "Racist" thing Trump has said.

This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation.

Within the limits of the term "RACISM", I need you to provide proof of your assertion.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Good grief. This is like trying to debate a crazy person with a learning disability. I guarantee I am more well read on the subject than you unless you're counting garbage dredged up by the Drudge report?

Wouldn't count on it.

Careful now your acting Trumpesque with an overinflated sense of self worth.

Why don't you try sticking to one failed argument at a time or is your whole strategy to paste unrelated excerpts and hope that nobody notices as you flip flop around pasting text walls that prove nothing but how weak your arguments are?

Been working so well for Trump critics.

For months going on about how 'racist' he is, and fail to see they have gained absolutely NOTHING out of it.

Your argument seems to be that because xenophobes did something in the past that xenophobes today should do the same thing.

The FAIL here has been by the Trumphobes.

That's your defense of Trump? Pathetic. Disgusting. Regressive.

That might have meant something.

IF I determined my self worth by what Trump Critics say.

Too bad I don't.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: paperdoll

How is it that what seems to be rude, sometimes abusive, half-truths is understood as "non-pandering" or "speaking one's mind"?

But, that is not what I'm saying makes him non-pandering, though. I find him non-pandering because he is not like the democrats who, in my opinion, spend a huge amount of their time and campaign, well, pandering to certain minorities. For instance, Sanders gives the impression that it is not the fault of African-Americans that they are the majority incarnated or over 50% unemployed. If this is the case, what is the plan? What is he going to do that will change those numbers? Whose fault is it? Is it society's fault? How so? This is pandering, imo. Trump doesn't do this. Therefore, I think he is non-pandering.

It's like the only way that politicians can talk about AA issues is if they constantly remind everyone that it's always someone else's fault. How will that ever work?

Women, racial and ethnic minorities, LGBT, college graduates, etc. make up most of the Democrat's political base.

They're not supposed to be interested or have a conversation with their base constituencies?

Trump has courted (rather ridiculously in my opinion ... remember "Two Corinthians" LOL) the Religious Right, White males, blue-collar workers etc.

Thanks for your answer, but I can't see your point.

I have no dog in this fight but what you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that Trump should ignore the biggest demographic in the country to pay lip service to the groups you personally think deserve it.

How exactly does that kind of political strategy work?

You do NOT understand me correctly in any shape, form, fashion, means or scope.

I made a statement about the Democrats' political base. I mentioned a few specific groups that Donald J. Trump has "pandered" to. Indeed, I care not who Donald J. Trump caters to ... I merely pointed out that he does so in ludicrous and embarrassing ways.

a reply to: olaru12

You know what I find really funny, all this race stuff. You know why they call it race, because that's what it is, a f#ing race, to see who comes out on top, who will be the rulers. People are people, we are all humans, just like dogs are dogs. There are not races of dogs or any other animal, of which humans are another animal. We call those different types of dogs, as an example, breeds. So there are no races in humans other than the false construct and manipulation of words, there are only breeds of humans.

Like dogs, you have your real purebreds, they are limited in numbers and of course the more purebred they are, the closer to higher amounts of money they seem to have, monarchies and interbreeding between monarchies of the same breed group is a good example. Connectivity, genetically, between monarchies and our alleged leaders also comes into play. We have large numbers of generally purebreds in all breed groups and like dogs, we have mutts. Sometimes the mutts are smarter/more attractive than the purebreds, just look at the royal family in England, that is a bunch of butt ugly purebreds lol.

Of all the handlers and ruling families, the ones that actually control the politicians and leaders, do they reproduce across other human breeds? Do their mixed offspring achieve any kind of leadership position. Obama is the ONLY one I know off and I'm really not sure what the hell he is, seems more like an experiment than anything else.

But regardless, we're still just human animals. We have to stop buying into their "race" garbage and look at each other in real terms. There shouldn't be a "race" to position whatever purebred humans are going to rule over us.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

SO you want to replace the word "race" with "breeding"?

Amazing ... one really can't make stuff like this up.

#aghastandagape

originally posted by: Gryphon66


Either that, or he really isn't serious about becoming President of the United States.

Having the support of between 10-35% of the population is just not going to accomplish that for him.

.

You bring up an interesting thought about his 'seriousness' of being POTUS. Two observations/comments:
1.) These latest gaffes by Trump on his criticism of the NM female latino governor and this latest outburst regarding the American Judge who just happens to have Mexican parents who became legal American citizens (Bravo), BUT....

o I just have a strange feeling that maybe he has just become disenchanted with the whole process, actually has realized the POTUS is more of a figure-head with a pen and a phone. That he is 69yo, his real love is real estate, living a life bigger than life as a private citizen, he basically has it all. MAYBE, just maybe he has already accomplished more than he could have imagined, never really believing he would be the GOP nominee and now.....sees the huge mess waiting for him or whoever the next POTUS will be, and has now in Trump fashion, created a situation that will make it necessary to just step out. Bottom line on this one point regarding the legal/Judge issue, he has a bunch of attorney's, why not let them do the talking??? Because, he wants this to be one of the intolerable issues voters and more importantly, the INSIDERS won't support, hence, the Gingrich criticism.

2.) The MSNBC reporter, Katie Tur. I am not here to bash her, but point would be that as O'bama's NSA adviser, Ben Rhodes recently admitted to the NYTimes, he fed all of these young, unagressive, reporters misinfo on the Iran deal, and they all ate it up.

o Point being, my observations are that ALL of the pundits, all of these new young guns who have hit the networks have no clue, no desire to do the research, to go dig and find the story......somebody??? tells them something, they never seem to have multiple sources, but go ahead and report an erroneous story full of holes, or just plain lacking details......not just this one about Trumps campaign having possible internal problems, but for more than a year of being fed, drinking the kool-aide and doing no serious investigative and follow-up reporting.

It just seems that one thing is true that Trump says: The Political Media is scum and liars. I have yet the hear one reporter ask Hillary a follow-up not on using personal emails, but no other SOSUS, used a personal server nor did they send classified documents using their devices.

Anyway, good thread, and at this point, nothing would surprise me.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

SO you want to replace the word "race" with "breeding"?

Amazing ... one really can't make stuff like this up.

#aghastandagape

Call it what it is. There are only breeds of humans. I guess you can't make that stuff up either eh? I guess breedism didn't sound sexy enough for the original PR people?

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: olaru12

According to Trump supporters Trump has never said a single racist thing and absolutely does not cause chaos so these aides must be lying!

Yeah well there religion has nothing to do with RACE, and choosing to enforce immigration LAWS doesn't make one a 'racist' either.

It really would be nice if Trump critics actually bothered to look up the meaning of the word 'race'.

As it stands right now there is only one RACE on the planet called earth.

HUMAN RACE.

According to Trump critics concerning other political issues.

What a person is born as doesn't matter. Only what's in their heads.

Ip so facto.

Trump isn't a 'racist'.

Only idiots believe that.

There is many races.


There is only one Species of Homosapien.


Get your facts right before you talk nonsense.

Look who I'm talking to, silly me.

So youre calling those scientist who have proven there is but one race liars right? the research was done its a fact. there are different ETHNIC GROUPS but not different races. A race would not be able to cross breed with another due to incompatiability if its a true race.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

SO you want to replace the word "race" with "breeding"?

Amazing ... one really can't make stuff like this up.

#aghastandagape

Call it what it is. There are only breeds of humans. I guess you can't make that stuff up either eh? I guess breedism didn't sound sexy enough for the original PR people?

Cheers - Dave

So, you take exception to the term race because of the baggage it carries ... but prefer the term "breeds."

I would guess that it probably was rejected (except in say Eugenics Classrooms and Nazi Press Rooms) because it refers to animals (stock and pets) rather than humans.

But good on you for your honesty and bravery in speaking your mind!

#holysmokes