What would it take for Donald Trump to be a racist?

Author: Barney

Posts

Total: 91
#31
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@Greyparrot

By Andrew Stein, opinion contributor — 08/07/19 10:50 AM EDT
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill



Andrew Stein is the former Democratic president of the New York City Council and founder and chairman of “Democrats for Trump.” He is the brother of The Hill’s chairman.

Edit - Here's some more about Andrew Stein:

STEIN is first charged with making false statements on
a form he submitted to the IRS in April 2008 in connection with
his efforts to receive IRS approval of a plan to pay off his tax
debts. In the form, STEIN made a number of material false
statements. Among other things, in response to questions that
called for such information, STEIN failed to disclose the
existence of Wind River LLC and his use of Wind River LLC bank
accounts -- which STEIN used to deposit and then withdraw
approximately $1.6 million in order to cover what appear to be
STEIN’s personal expenses. STEIN also failed to disclose the
fact that he was using the credit cards of third parties in order
to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars of personal expenses,
including travel, hotel stays, and restaurants. Finally, in
response to a question that required STEIN to list all rental or
real property, STEIN listed only his personal residence in New
York, New York. In fact, both before and after STEIN signed the
2008 Form 433-A, he made at least $150,000 in payments for an
additional luxury rental property in Bridgehampton, New York.
According to the Complaint, STEIN used proceeds of the investment
fraud perpetrated by STARR to make these payments to rent the
Bridgehampton property.
STEIN is also charged with making false statements to
federal officers who attempted to interview him. In November
2009, after a special agent with the IRS advised STEIN that a
grand jury was investigating him, Wind River LLC, and individuals
whose credit cards STEIN had used, STEIN falsely denied knowing
Wind River LLC or the individuals whose credit cards he had used.
When the special agent tried to serve STEIN with a grand jury
subpoena issued to Wind River LLC, STEIN falsely denied being an
officer of Wind River LLC and refused to accept service of the
grand jury subpoena, even though STEIN had repeatedly indicated
on documents that he was a manager or member of Wind River LLC
and he had used Wind River LLC primarily for his personal
benefit.

Your source sounds like a Trump-supporting liar to me. Why should I believe him?
#32
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Death23
Your source sounds like a Trump-supporting liar to me. Why should I believe him?

Well, you are still back to the conundrum of believing a person's arbitrary interpretations of one's actions and the actual intent.
Topic's author
#33
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, you are disagreeing with an opinion, like that has never happened before.
An opinion that is counter to the available facts. I can of course put it into tests, such as if he's advocated in favor of racist ideals like eugenics.


Being racist should be like being pregnant, you can't be a little pregnant.
You can be a little pregnant. At the start of pregnancy it is not obvious to any outsider, requiring a hormone test to verify. Later when majorly pregnant, it usually is obvious at a glance due to clear physical symptoms. Of course misdiagnosis is possible.

Similarly you could say it should be like murder in that you've killed someone or you haven't... Yet we have different degrees of murder, from premeditated all the way down to involuntary manslaughter.

A racist cop might habitually let one group of people off with a warning for speeding, and insist on another group having the maximum fine every time (from the perspective of either group, nothing implies racism. It's not highly visible, so you would need to do some data mining to find the trend pattern). Whereas a Neo-Nazi or a Black Panther is majorly racist, and presents it openly with tattoos and calling for people to die and such. Major vs minor clearly exists for racism.
#34
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, you are still back to the conundrum of believing a person's arbitrary interpretations of one's actions and the actual intent.
The evidence speaks for itself. There is no need to rely on another person's interpretation.

#35
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
saying something racist is an action. 
Actions speak louder than words. All he does is pander to minorities.
saying something is, by definition, an action. So your sentence is basically, actions speak louder than actions. When trump spews racism out to his millions of cult followers, that is a racist action. 

This is a question about Trump as president. You are referencing a 1973 lawsuit that was settled out of court. Are we assuming that everyone is static and that nobody can change opinions or attitudes after almost 50 years?
This is a question about Trump as a person. He didn't come into existence the moment he became president. He was racist before he was president and he still is. I am referring to actions trump took that are undeniably racist. 
#36
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
saying something is, by definition, an action. So your sentence is basically, actions speak louder than actions. When trump spews racism out to his millions of cult followers, that is a racist action. 

If you want to play a semantic game instead of engaging with what you know I am arguing, then that's cool and all. Not very productive, though.

And if by "racist" you mean "things I disagree with because I like having wrong opinions" then yes, he says a ton of racist stuff.

This is a question about Trump as a person. He didn't come into existence the moment he became president. He was racist before he was president and he still is. I am referring to actions trump took that are undeniably racist. 

He is asking about Trump supporters, which is implying Trump as president. If you could pinpoint some overtly racist policies and not "muh disproportionately affects" types of policies, I'd be happy to hear them.
#37
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
If you want to play a semantic game instead of engaging with what you know I am arguing, then that's cool and all. Not very productive, though.
you are the one playing semantics. You are trying to separate out some racist actions from other racist actions. I am being quite clear. Any racist action is racist. Saying racist things is a racist action. There is no semantics about it. 

And if by "racist" you mean "things I disagree with because I like having wrong opinions" then yes, he says a ton of racist stuff.
no. By racist I mean comments that are intended to spread hate or be disparaging to an entire group of people. And trump does that stuff all the time. 

He is asking about Trump supporters, which is implying Trump as president. If you could pinpoint some overtly racist policies and not "muh disproportionately affects" types of policies, I'd be happy to hear them.
Again, you are engaging in semantics in order to undermine the point. If trump had murdered children right up to the point he was elected, would you say "well that was before he was elected so who cares he's a child murderer?" No, obviously who has been his entire life is relevant to who he is now. So trying to cut out the decades of racism is silly. He has been a racist his entire life. He is still a racist now. 
Topic's author
#38
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
"muh disproportionately affects" types of policies
I think those are fair game, with logical caveats such as no playing Captain Hindsight. 

As an example, a literacy test for voting sounds positive, but has a history of misuse that would likely repeat (plus the irony of our current president). So a law like that should not be renewed due to disproportionately affecting certain populations.

Whereas switching to the metric system, shouldn't be avoided even if it might prove harder for some groups to adapt.
Topic's author
#39
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
obviously who has been his entire life is relevant to who he is now
IMO it would be fair to decrease the magnitude of any offenses the longer ago something was (with some exceptions, like murder doesn't have a statute of limitations).

James Gunn made bad jokes before Disney hired him. His actions since have shown that he has grown as a person (particularly the whole apologizing thing). However, if he made those same jokes five minutes ago, gave no apologies, and acted like it was ancient history, that would be be a laughable defense.
#40
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Barney
I don't think that disproportionately affecting some groups should be in consideration assuming that the actual law is logical.

Like a literacy test. I'm assuming in this context that means that you should see if people are literate before they can vote. I think that is a good idea. Now, it would be problematic if the government then took active steps to reduce literacy among certain groups.

But more men get arrested for crimes, and I don't think we should legalize crimes as a result. In the same spirit as I outlined above, I don't believe in legalizing drugs because black people get arrested for drug law violations more since I believe drugs are objectively harmful. However, if the law is unequally applied, then it becomes problematic, but I find combatting the unequal application to be the correct measure and not legalizing the crime.

So, I don't think this should be fair game for consideration of racism unless it was a) a law that was objectively bad in nature created to cause racist disparities or b) a good law in which clear, active steps were taken to create racist disparities.
#41
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Barney
On a side note, I think this clearly outlines one of the downfalls of living in a "diverse society" full of different racial, ethnic, and cultural groups.

Even if a law, like literacy tests, is a perfectly good idea, you can't implement it. For instance, let's say it disproportionately keeps African Americans from voting. Then the law gets repealed because of that.

My question is: WHY? It didn't suddenly become virtuous to be an illiterate voter. It is still bad to have illiterate people voting, but because a racial, cultural, or ethnic group is impacted more, we have to disregard a good, logical law.

I don't think we should choose laws that way. I think they should be passed purely on merit.
#42
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
#43
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
He is a racist, there is zero question in my mind.
#44
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Barney
IMO it would be fair to decrease the magnitude of any offenses the longer ago something was (with some exceptions, like murder doesn't have a statute of limitations).

James Gunn made bad jokes before Disney hired him. His actions since have shown that he has grown as a person (particularly the whole apologizing thing). However, if he made those same jokes five minutes ago, gave no apologies, and acted like it was ancient history, that would be be a laughable defense.
Absolutely. People are certainly capable of change. And if Trump had acknowledged his racism and was working to change that would be a totally different story. But he hasn't. He still consistently says and does racist stuff. He is just a touch less direct in his racism now that he is a politician. 

#45
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
My question is: WHY? It didn't suddenly become virtuous to be an illiterate voter. It is still bad to have illiterate people voting, but because a racial, cultural, or ethnic group is impacted more, we have to disregard a good, logical law.
in what way is that a good law? You are talking about disenfranchising people because the system has failed them. If the system worked properly, there wouldn't be any illiterate people. How does removing what little voice those people have in society benefit anyone except those that want to completely ignore them?

Topic's author
#46
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't think that disproportionately affecting some groups should be in consideration assuming that the actual law is logical.
I'm hoping you meant to say dealbreaker, as opposed to even a consideration.



My question is: WHY? It didn't suddenly become virtuous to be an illiterate voter.
The literacy laws were passed back when there were clear racial divides in access to education. To me that is an obvious case of needing to do Step A before Step D (ensure fair chance to learn, before adding extra systemic penalties for not learning).

I would have a lot less problems with such a law now (even while I use it as a historical example of a law designed with ill intent towards people). However, I openly admit to being elitist scum.
#47
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
He is a racist, there is zero question in my mind.
If you’re think Trump is racist then Joe Biden is 100% racist
#48
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
Please stop typing and save us all time.
#49
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
in what way is that a good law? You are talking about disenfranchising people because the system has failed them. If the system worked properly, there wouldn't be any illiterate people. How does removing what little voice those people have in society benefit anyone except those that want to completely ignore them?

I don't know about the system failing them or ignoring them. African Americans receive more funding per pupil than White students.

Some groups may value education less than others. However, education is important to making an informed voting choice, so I see little problem with telling every citizen that we have some bare minimum requirements for being able to substantially impact how the country is run.
#50
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Barney
I'm hoping you meant to say dealbreaker, as opposed to even a consideration.
I’m a little confused. Could you provide an example of this being a dealbreaker vs not?

I would have a lot less problems with such a low now
Yeah, 80 years ago, when you still had Plessy v Ferguson, it was very obvious what the law’s intent was. They were actively trying to “keep a brother down”, so it was a racist law. Now, not so much
#51
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
However, education is important to making an informed voting choice, so I see little problem with telling every citizen that we have some bare minimum requirements for being able to substantially impact how the country is run.
so your argument is that you want to make an underclass who have no representation because you don't think they are worthy of having a voice. I think America fought a revolution to put a stop to that. 


#52
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I agree, fix education first before making it a requirement.

CNN shouldn't be daycare for the stupid.
#53
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree, fix education first before making it a requirement.
totally agree on fixing education. Totally disagree on making it a requirement. It is just creating an underclass that has zero representation. America fought a revolution to guarantee that citizens would get representation in their government. So advocating for stealing that right is deeply unamerican in my view. 

CNN shouldn't be daycare for the stupid.
that would be fox news, as highlighted by the fact that people with lower education tend to be trump supporters. 
Topic's author
#54
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Could you provide an example of this being a dealbreaker vs not?
If a new law would disproportionately affect any group, doesn't mean that it necessarily a horrible law that shouldn't be passed, potential harm to said group should be considered especially if said harm to them is identified.

Virginia insisted that anyone who commits premarital sex is a criminal. This might be good for... Um, priests maybe? But it clearly seeks to harm something like 99% of the population. Thankfully the Virginia Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 2005... And they kept punishing people for it up until 2015 apparently, even knowing it was unconstitutional to do so. They only just got rid of it in 2020, having rejected prior attempts because fuck the constitution.

I guess that is not the best example, even while showing how stupid or/or vile some lawmakers are. However, it shows a clear problem of laws against victimless crimes.

Marijuana laws disproportionately affect a couple minority groups. I don't think that it affects them more is a dealbreaker in itself, but should be worthy of consideration both when the laws are passed and when they are upheld (the harm weighted against the benefit). The lack of benefit from said law, to me that is the dealbreaker. Further, in the standards of fairness, we repealed prohibition; so why then make something less harmful illegal in the same spirit? (pun intended)

Men are more likely to be reported for committing rape than women. While that can be considered, the actual harm of the crime makes it still a good law. 

Sorry for muddling through this. Any likely harms of a law should be considered, but they themselves do not guarantee it's a deal breaker unless the harms outweigh the benefits.
Topic's author
#55
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I agree, fix education first before making it a requirement.
totally agree on fixing education. Totally disagree on making it a requirement. It is just creating an underclass that has zero representation. America fought a revolution to guarantee that citizens would get representation in their government. So advocating for stealing that right is deeply unamerican in my view. 
Now that women serve, I think a standard of having fought in our military sounds good... While mostly joking, this is to point out other standards of earning a right (a right, not a privilege... it shouldn't have to be earned). Each might have some benefit, but would probably be unfair. If you're born blind, you could never read or join the military. Heck if you're a man, you cannot ever give birth, so a voting standard of being a mother wouldn't be good either. Even the age one is tricky.


CNN shouldn't be daycare for the stupid.
that would be fox news, as highlighted by the fact that people with lower education tend to be trump supporters. 
It's a free market, they can both be daycares!

Admittedly, Fox News employing Chris Wallace (third hobo in that dumpster fire of a presidential debate last week) has made me dislike them even more.
#56
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Daily mantra on CNN is that your life will be better exponentially as your hatred toward the Orangeman increases.

CNN makes traditional televangelists blush.
#57
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Barney
same spirit? (pun intended)
I always appreciate a good pun, lol

Marijuana laws disproportionately affect a couple minority groups. I don't think that it affects them more is a dealbreaker in itself, but should be worthy of consideration both when the laws are passed and when they are upheld (the harm weighted against the benefit). The lack of benefit from said law, to me that is the dealbreaker. Further, in the standards of fairness, we repealed prohibition; so why then make something less harmful illegal in the same spirit? (pun intended)

Well, this isn't a court. I don't think we should use precedent in our decisions for a supposed fairness. Either legalizing marijuana is a good idea or it isn't. They both have their dangers. Both are bad for the mind, but marijuana really messes up the brain of people below 25 by weakening their memory.

But "ending the drug war" is an increasingly common position from more leftward types and they commonly cite that some minority groups are incarcerated more. This isn't a victimless crime, and I am saying that if certain minority groups are committing more harm by contributing to overdoses, then I have very little consideration that people causing harm are locked up. I look exclusively at the harm and ignore the perpetrators.

So it seems that we are more or less in agreement, just that I think that prosecuting drugs is something important enough to ignore the disparity in imprisonment.

I just think we should look exclusively at the harm committed and ignore whatever the demographics of the perpetrators happen to be. As I pointed out earlier, it seems like a big barrier to improving the country would be rejecting good policies just because we don't want to lock up or bar more of one group of people from doing something. 
#58
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
so your argument is that you want to make an underclass who have no representation because you don't think they are worthy of having a voice. I think America fought a revolution to put a stop to that. 
Lmao, I thought you were a history buff. Didn't you know that only White landowners could vote when the country was founded?

I plan on barring stupid people from voting. If you can't even do something as simple as read, why should you impact highly complex issues by voting? I am not against the government funding education. In fact, I support school choice, so my policies would result in better literacy than whatever you would propose.

But if you reject that opportunity, drop out, and cannot read, then I definitely believe that you shouldn't vote.
Topic's author
#59
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
"ending the drug war"
I likewise disagree with ending it, due to drugs which do such clear harm as killing people with a single overdose (heroine, cocaine, etc.). I merely criticize certain choices within it, such as if they made chocolate or sugary drinks illegal. To follow up this food analogy: white people put that disgusting mayonnaise on everything (needs hot sauce to even be edible!), no matter our disgust at their revolting food decisions, they themselves are the victims of their poor taste, so don't need further punishment inflicted by the courts. An anti-mayonnaise law would clearly disproportionately affect them, and have a lack of quantifiable benefit for anyone else.


marijuana really messes up the brain of people below 25 by weakening their memory
If true, that would be a good reason to have it be restricted until age 25. Even then, short on dealing, that sounds like at most misdemeanor territory.

However, sources seem to be in agreement that it was made illegal specifically to target minority groups (in this case Mexican Immigrants... which is a clear case of why not just target them for existing laws?). That the desired benefit is oppressing a group, as opposed to stopping some actual harm by the action in it of itself, should in itself be a dealbreaker (somewhat comparable to Germany banning Jazz).
#60
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Barney
Now that women serve, I think a standard of having fought in our military sounds good... While mostly joking, this is to point out other standards of earning a right (a right, not a privilege... it shouldn't have to be earned). Each might have some benefit, but would probably be unfair. If you're born blind, you could never read or join the military. Heck if you're a man, you cannot ever give birth, so a voting standard of being a mother wouldn't be good either. Even the age one is tricky.
Assuming I understood your point correctly, I agree. I don't think we should have any undue restrictions on voting. I think not allowing minors to vote is reasonable. They are not legally allowed to make most decisions about themselves or their own wellbeing, so it is reasonable for them not to be able to vote. However, I think virtually any other restriction should be unacceptable. 

It's a free market, they can both be daycares!
that's fair. the are both complete shills for their chosen political side. 

Admittedly, Fox News employing Chris Wallace (third hobo in that dumpster fire of a presidential debate last week) has made me dislike them even more.
ironically, Chris Wallace is one of the Fox employees I despise the least. He is one of the very few people working for fox who will ever, under any circumstances, even lightly criticize trump or the republicans. Virtually everyone else employed there are non-stop republican sycophants who do nothing but ass kiss. Wallace isn't alot better, he ass kisses about 95% of the time. But that's better than almost everyone else on fox.