'Trump is racist' - Endorsement fallacy?Posted 5 years Ago

At 1/3/2017 7:53:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/3/2017 7:03:42 PM, Daltonian wrote:
http://www.politifact.com...

That's pretty objectively racist; context aside, implying someone is less capable of effectively being a judge because of their race fits the textbook definition of racism.

In regards to his comments about Mexican immigrants being mostly rapists and criminals, I will concede that they differ from his comments about the judge because he is speaking about these people in terms of their status as Mexican *immigrants* as a group, not inherently of people of hispanic ethnicity as a group. The reason that many people hear these comments and interpret them as racist, though, is because it comes off as thinly veiled, disguised racism: put simply, it is something that a racist politician would say. That's obviously not proof in and of itself of his being racist, but it works to support the idea.

Though it's subjective, there's a perceived implication that Mr. Trump views American hispanics, who are mostly immigrants or descendants thereof, as being much more likely to be murders, rapists, and etc.

So, though the comments about American Hispanics and Mexican Immigrants are not directly racist due to their avoiding generalizing about any singular race in its entirety... it is easy to understand how the comments still constitute xenophobia, if that is a better word.

He wasn't saying that the judge was incompetent to rule because of his Mexican heritage alone, but rather that his Mexican heritage might make him biased with respect to cases in which Mexicans are involved, particularly now that it's such a hot-button issue after Trump's comments.
EVERY judge is going to have personal biases on account of their race, heritage, and etcetera

The whole point of being a judge, though, is that the judge is capable of ruling in terms of the law and not in terms of their biases. By saying that a Mexican American judge would be incapable of doing that with respect to his case, he is essentially saying that Mexicans as a group are too hot-heated/biased/whatever to be a judge.
Maybe the judge would be fair - maybe he even voted for Trump! - but the probability that he will be biased is higher (you can try to argue otherwise, but claiming that it's obviously not the case says more about your own inability to think straight than it does about Trump).
The probability that he will be biased being higher does not matter. I never denied that, but it's a red herring.

Part of a judge's mandate is to recuse himself if he believes his biases impede him from making a fair judgement. This judge did not do that. If Trump, therefore, does not believe the judge is capable of ruling fairly on his case than a judge of another race, he is saying Mexicans are less capable of being judges and less capable of having the self-awareness to recuse themselves. That is racism.

Since there are other judges available why use that judge other than for political reasons? Why didn't you mention these facts? Because you know it would be counterproductive to your goal. The omission was not random, just as it's not random when the New York Times does it.
"Wrong"
Forums Home > Politics

'Trump is racist' - Endorsement fallacy?Posted 5 years Ago

At 1/3/2017 7:37:45 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/3/2017 7:03:42 PM, Daltonian wrote:
http://www.politifact.com...

That's pretty objectively racist; context aside, implying someone is less capable of effectively being a judge because of their race fits the textbook definition of racism.

from your link "Trump has been roundly denounced, by the left and right, for saying U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel may be biased against him because of his Mexican heritage." He didn't say all mexican judges, please explain how it was racist?
He said he would be biased against him because he was Mexican and was thus unfit to work the case.

That implies that any judge who is Mexican would be biased against him, or, in other words, that Mexicans are less capable than other races of being a judge since the job implies taking a neutral stance in circumstances like this. Though not as clear cut as the racism that comes from say, David Duke, it is still racist.

Though it's subjective, there's a perceived implication that Mr. Trump views American hispanics, who are mostly immigrants or descendants thereof, as being much more likely to be murders, rapists, and etc.

yeah people assume lots of things, he said that about American Hispanics? source?
He didn't say that about American hispanics directly. He said that about hispanic (Mexican) immigrants. Most Hispanic Americans are either Mexican immigrants or descendants of Mexican immigrants, though, so that's why the perceived implication is there.

So, though the comments about American Hispanics and Mexican Immigrants are not directly racist due to their avoiding generalizing about any singular race in its entirety... it is easy to understand how the comments still constitute xenophobia, if that is a better word.

Xenophobia intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries. Maybe there's a Mexiphobia since he doesn't include people from all countries?
You don't have to dislike people from *every* country to be xenophobic. That's sort of a ridiculous semantical stretch. And no, Mexiphobia would not be accurate either... contrary to what the Donald might think, the "Mexican Government" is not actually sending its 'worst people' and significant portions of the people who are immigrating actually come from further south (i.e Ecuador, Honduras, etc).
Forums Home > Politics

Whites becoming a minorityPosted 5 years Ago

At 1/3/2017 7:03:32 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/3/2017 6:49:12 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 1/3/2017 6:35:26 PM, thett3 wrote:
With the exception of 1964, California voted GOP in every election from 1952 to 1988.

Now whites aren't even a plurality and it's a one party state. But don't worry conservative white people, hispanics are "natural conservatives" who will finally start voting GOP next go around!
I don't understand what you're implying here, though. Whites in California still voted 55-40 for Mrs. Clinton.

Wrong. They voted for her by 5 points (http://edition.cnn.com...) and this was the first election in a long time where white Californians didn't vote GOP. It's true that whites in California are a lot more liberal than whites as a whole (caused partly by a massive exodus of middle whites from California in the 80s and 90s) but if California had the same demographics that it had in 1980 it would be a swing state today.
My bad, I was mistakenly looking at the results from the USC Dornsife/L.A. Times postelection poll and not the actual data.

Those numbers amongst white voters tend to look like that in most of the other, more racially diverse blue states across the country, too

This is incorrect. If you browse the exit polls, almost every state outside of the Northeast and the West coast that Trump lost, whites voted for Trump. Colorado? Trump by 2 points. Illinois? Trump by 11 points. Minnesota? Trump by 7 points. Nevada? Trump by 18 points. New Jersey? Trump by 12 points. New Mexico? Trump by 5. New York? Trump by 6. Virginia? Trump by 24.
That's not what I was trying to allege, though. How did whites who live in Chicago, in Denver, in New York, in Minneapolis, vote? What I was questioning you about, though I am admittedly uncertain, was the possibility that white voters in the more rural, exclusively white counties and areas within Illinois, NY, and etcetera constituted the bastion of Trump's support in those states, whereas the whites with the most exposure to diversity tended to vote Democrat.

I'm also not blind to facts, though, and admittedly not as knowledgeable on this subject as you.

I guess as a white person who lives in a very racially diverse city (Montreal) and grew up living outside Chicago, it is just extremely foreign to me that white people living in demographically similar cities would have such a vastly different experience living with diversity than I have.

Out of curiosity, how would you explain that? Are white Canadians more liberal because Canada's immigration system and situation is better?

- that would suggest that whites who actually live with, and more regularly interact on a daily basis with, these "immigrants" and minorities are okay with the status quo, whereas whites who live in less racially diverse "red" areas, are not.

Trump, the candidate of white identity politics, did better in diverse states in the GOP primary than he did in homogenous states: http://www.debate.org...

The cultural divisions among white Americans is an incredibly interesting and huge topic, but judging by voting behavior and where whites choose to live I don't think most of them like diversity.
Alright, conceded.

How do you explain the least educated white Americans voting Trump and the most educated white Americans voting Clinton?


If there is such a racial divide between whites and non-whites, and diversity and immigration is the problem that you make it out to be, then why are white people who live in cities and are more exposed to immigrants on a daily basis, more likely to vote Democrat? And why are white people who live in rural areas and/or in states with very little racial diversity, the ones who vote for Republican candidates?

Cities are always more liberal and the countryside is always more conservative. I wouldn't argue for a moment that there aren't huge cultural divisions between different groups of white Americans, and a desire for city living would definitely correlate with cosmopolitanism. But I would also point out to you that conservative white people fled inner city America in droves over the past several decades.

If you want real data on how whites feel about diversity, look at rural and suburban places that recently became extremely diverse. These are where Trump made the most gains: http://www.wsj.com...
That makes perfect sense to me. People have a natural aversion to change; that's reflected in everything from sudden exposure to racial diversity to undecided voters being largely more likely to keep the status quo in a referendum.

What would surprise me, more so, is if you were to prove that whites living in regions that have been ethnically diverse for a long time were still voting overwhelmingly for Trump.


As far as I can tell, what you just said about California is proof that the influxes of immigration actually have a relatively unifying effect, not a divisive one. Not saying that I necessarily disagree with other aspects of what you've posted here, just pointing that out.

This is true to a point. The 19th century immigration waves certainly changed American culture and the divisions eventually more or less faded...but the culture changed into something that the original inhabitants wouldn't have liked. American culture doesn't need to become more like the middle east.
Why does it matter, in today's vastly different world and society, what the original inhabitants would have thought? I've never understood the conservative obsession with "the founding fathers" and maintaining unequivocally their principles. Were their beliefs not relative to the vastly different time they lived in?

And with regards to the Middle East, aside from the situation in parts of the Levant (namely, Israel), where is the connection to the situation in the USA? The problems with radical Islamism and the barbaric practices that tend to occur there are hardly attributable to an excess of racial and religious diversity imo... probably actually the exact opposite. No other group to serve as a check on power to Muslim radicals who seize control.

And in countries where there were problems with conflict between ethnic groups (i.e, Afghanistan), one could argue that that ethnic conflict came about only due to Western interventionism in the region. There was an extremely stable diverse society in many Middle Eastern countries for a very long time. Is that not evidence that, given the correct social context, social diversity is feasible?
Forums Home > Politics

'Trump is racist' - Endorsement fallacy?Posted 5 years Ago

http://www.politifact.com...

That's pretty objectively racist; context aside, implying someone is less capable of effectively being a judge because of their race fits the textbook definition of racism.

In regards to his comments about Mexican immigrants being mostly rapists and criminals, I will concede that they differ from his comments about the judge because he is speaking about these people in terms of their status as Mexican *immigrants* as a group, not inherently of people of hispanic ethnicity as a group. The reason that many people hear these comments and interpret them as racist, though, is because it comes off as thinly veiled, disguised racism: put simply, it is something that a racist politician would say. That's obviously not proof in and of itself of his being racist, but it works to support the idea.

Though it's subjective, there's a perceived implication that Mr. Trump views American hispanics, who are mostly immigrants or descendants thereof, as being much more likely to be murders, rapists, and etc.

So, though the comments about American Hispanics and Mexican Immigrants are not directly racist due to their avoiding generalizing about any singular race in its entirety... it is easy to understand how the comments still constitute xenophobia, if that is a better word.
Forums Home > Politics

NC not a full democracyPosted 5 years Ago

At 1/3/2017 6:41:41 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/3/2017 6:25:48 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/1/2017 11:45:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
http://www.vox.com...
http://www.newsobserver.com...

Can you explain one reason besides gerrymandering that makes NC not a full democracy?

gerrymandering is done and has been done by both parties, it's irrelevant.
Gerrymandering constitutes rigging an election to have a certain outcome by manipulating how the lines are drawn, and regardless of which party is doing it, it is certainly relevant.

How can you not have a problem with a political party in your state manipulating the electoral system to make it always favour them?

I will concede that you are correct that Republicans are not the only ones who do this, though, but NC and states like it are some of the worst cases. Both parties should be held accountable.
Forums Home > Politics

FBI and Comey Agree: Russia Wanted TrumpPosted 5 years Ago

At 1/3/2017 6:45:24 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 1/3/2017 6:35:49 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 1/3/2017 6:27:22 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 1/3/2017 6:20:31 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 1/3/2017 6:18:00 PM, Heterodox wrote:
The American people also wanted Trump, so I guess we're all getting what we wanted.
Actually, they didn't.

No only does Trump has the lowest approval rating ever recorded for any incoming president, ever, he did not win the popular vote. Of those who voted, millions more cast their votes for Mrs. Clinton.

I don't know how, given those facts, anyone could come to the conclusion that the American people wanted Trump.

Suppose you are right. If a few million people moved out of california and moved to some of the other states, we might have Hitlary as president right now. But they didn't and that was their choice.

At least if we ignore the millions of illegal votes for Hitlary.
Where is the evidence that these millions of illegal votes even exist?

You can believe that anyone who was born on US soil to illegal parents should not have a right to vote, but per current laws, they do. Those votes are therefore not illegal... and there's an absence of any evidence whatsoever that can back up the claim that foreign-born immigrants without citizenship somehow managed to vote, just baseless tweets and allegations. Where's the report, the data, the evidence? Put frankly, there is none... as per usual...

I mean, think logically about it, why do these illegal immigrants even have incentive to vote? It was widely forecasted that Clinton was expected to win by most mainstream and hispanic media outlets; why would someone here illegally go through the risk of committing voter fraud just to cast a single vote for a candidate? They are here to work for good pay and make money, and if they can't do that, then most of them would, naturally, leave. It doesn't make any sense behaviourally, because it isn't a worthwhile endeavour for an illegal immigrant to commit the voter fraud. The effort and risk it would take vs the perceived benefit to the immigrant makes no sense (one additional vote cast, probably in an already solidly blue or red state, as that is where most immigrants live, is not sufficient incentive). Unless you're alleging millions of illegals conspired secretly to all vote together... which is ridiculous lol.

I think you missed the "ignore" part there.
So you admit that there are no illegal votes to ignore, because they don't exist?

Because that is what I was alleging.
Forums Home > Politics

Whites becoming a minorityPosted 5 years Ago

At 1/3/2017 6:35:26 PM, thett3 wrote:
With the exception of 1964, California voted GOP in every election from 1952 to 1988.

Now whites aren't even a plurality and it's a one party state. But don't worry conservative white people, hispanics are "natural conservatives" who will finally start voting GOP next go around!
I don't understand what you're implying here, though. Whites in California still voted 55-40 for Mrs. Clinton. Those numbers amongst white voters tend to look like that in most of the other, more racially diverse blue states across the country, too - that would suggest that whites who actually live with, and more regularly interact on a daily basis with, these "immigrants" and minorities are okay with the status quo, whereas whites who live in less racially diverse "red" areas, are not.

If there is such a racial divide between whites and non-whites, and diversity and immigration is the problem that you make it out to be, then why are white people who live in cities and are more exposed to immigrants on a daily basis, more likely to vote Democrat? And why are white people who live in rural areas and/or in states with very little racial diversity, the ones who vote for Republican candidates?

As far as I can tell, what you just said about California is proof that the influxes of immigration actually have a relatively unifying effect, not a divisive one. Not saying that I necessarily disagree with other aspects of what you've posted here, just pointing that out.
Forums Home > Politics

FBI and Comey Agree: Russia Wanted TrumpPosted 5 years Ago

At 1/3/2017 6:27:22 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 1/3/2017 6:20:31 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 1/3/2017 6:18:00 PM, Heterodox wrote:
The American people also wanted Trump, so I guess we're all getting what we wanted.
Actually, they didn't.

No only does Trump has the lowest approval rating ever recorded for any incoming president, ever, he did not win the popular vote. Of those who voted, millions more cast their votes for Mrs. Clinton.

I don't know how, given those facts, anyone could come to the conclusion that the American people wanted Trump.

Suppose you are right. If a few million people moved out of california and moved to some of the other states, we might have Hitlary as president right now. But they didn't and that was their choice.

At least if we ignore the millions of illegal votes for Hitlary.
Where is the evidence that these millions of illegal votes even exist?

You can believe that anyone who was born on US soil to illegal parents should not have a right to vote, but per current laws, they do. Those votes are therefore not illegal... and there's an absence of any evidence whatsoever that can back up the claim that foreign-born immigrants without citizenship somehow managed to vote, just baseless tweets and allegations. Where's the report, the data, the evidence? Put frankly, there is none... as per usual...

I mean, think logically about it, why do these illegal immigrants even have incentive to vote? It was widely forecasted that Clinton was expected to win by most mainstream and hispanic media outlets; why would someone here illegally go through the risk of committing voter fraud just to cast a single vote for a candidate? They are here to work for good pay and make money, and if they can't do that, then most of them would, naturally, leave. It doesn't make any sense behaviourally, because it isn't a worthwhile endeavour for an illegal immigrant to commit the voter fraud. The effort and risk it would take vs the perceived benefit to the immigrant makes no sense (one additional vote cast, probably in an already solidly blue or red state, as that is where most immigrants live, is not sufficient incentive). Unless you're alleging millions of illegals conspired secretly to all vote together... which is ridiculous lol.
Forums Home > Politics

FBI and Comey Agree: Russia Wanted TrumpPosted 5 years Ago

At 1/3/2017 6:20:31 PM, Daltonian wrote:
Not only does Trump have the lowest approval rating ever recorded for any incoming president, ever, he did not win the popular vote. Of those who voted, millions more cast their votes for Mrs. Clinton.

I don't know how, given those facts, anyone could come to the conclusion that the American people wanted Trump.
fixed
Forums Home > Politics

FBI and Comey Agree: Russia Wanted TrumpPosted 5 years Ago

At 1/3/2017 6:18:00 PM, Heterodox wrote:
The American people also wanted Trump, so I guess we're all getting what we wanted.
Actually, they didn't.

No only does Trump has the lowest approval rating ever recorded for any incoming president, ever, he did not win the popular vote. Of those who voted, millions more cast their votes for Mrs. Clinton.

I don't know how, given those facts, anyone could come to the conclusion that the American people wanted Trump.
Forums Home > Politics

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.