DONALD TRUMP DICTATOR OF THE WORLD

[deleted_user0]

Don't see a reason to stop speculation tbh, but its up to everyone for themselves. However, it's not an emotional objection at all, its in fact very rational. Putting ideas such as these into practice erode the foundation of democracy, and to me, electing a person who even considers such ideas, whether he considers them only to win votes doesnt really matter imo, because it means that his voter base doesnt mind such talk, erodes it almost as much as putting these ideas into practice.

Obviously im dramatizing a bit here when talking about genocide, given the info we have atm. Nonetheless, it's not like it has no basis in reality.

[benj89]

I think many of his voters do mind such talk, but they consider as much more important and relevant to the current situation his views on immigration and trade for example. They also probably understood as I did that he used all his cards to get elected, including playing with some fears. He wouldn't be president without these talks, so I tend think he was smart about it (the ethical argument is invalid for me, as Clinton is probably worse than him) and the way he governs will be very different from his campaigns. Always stay positive

*I didn't really follow this election, but when I read the medias saying he is racist and all that, while watching a video of him saying how proud he is to have a mike tyson belt and shaquille o'neal shoe in his office - it reinforces my feeling that there is more substance to this guy than how he is depicted. In the end all I care about is what he will do, not what he said the past 2 years, and that we will know very soon

[Dolan]

For me, ever since the FBI came out with that announcement that they were opening a new investigation on a candidate it was clear they were influencing the outcome of elections. It made the USA look like an African state or like Russian "democracy". Right now, I don't consider the USA to have a functioning democracy anymore, if the biggest law enforcement agency in the country intervened in the elections process.

They shouldn't have made any announcement at all, either in favour or against a candidate. They should have just conducted their investigation in secret and waited until the elections were over. They could have still initiated the steps to prosecuting one candidate even if he/she had just won the elections.

But it seems they had a clear plan which explains why they broke the rule of non-intervention. They knew that if they waited until after the elections, even if Clinton got prosecuted for wrongdoings, at worst her VP would become president, but Democrats would still keep the Potus. So the FBI simply decided they had to influence the elections to make sure the next president wouldn't be a Democrat.

So, at this moment, I think the US has a major problem with neutrality in law enforcement institutions. If the FBI head was pressured into acting like he did, then he couldn't control his own institution and he should have resigned. But he preferred to keep his position and play political games.

[deleted_user0]

*I didn't really follow this election, but when I read the medias saying he is racist and all that, while watching a video of him saying how proud he is to have a mike tyson belt and shaquille o'neal shoe in his office - it reinforces my feeling that there is more substance to this guy than how he is depicted. In the end all I care about is what he will do, not what he said the past 2 years, and that we will know very soon

Racism isnt necessarily between black and white. I haven't really heard of that kind of racism being associated with him. However, he has been acting in such fashion towards muslims (in this context as much as a religion, as as a group of ethnicities) and mexicans. Racism is probably not the most accurate term, but does best convey the meaning.

And if his voters are bothered by it, i have heard remarkably little protest about it. Having seen the little bit of trump that I have, i would be inclined to say the opposite, I doubt trump is racist by heart, but rather because quite a big portion of his voter base does harbour these feelings, he has played into that and abused it to the max.

[benj89]

*I didn't really follow this election, but when I read the medias saying he is racist and all that, while watching a video of him saying how proud he is to have a mike tyson belt and shaquille o'neal shoe in his office - it reinforces my feeling that there is more substance to this guy than how he is depicted. In the end all I care about is what he will do, not what he said the past 2 years, and that we will know very soon

Racism isnt necessarily between black and white. I haven't really heard of that kind of racism being associated with him. However, he has been acting in such fashion towards muslims (in this context as much as a religion, as as a group of ethnicities) and mexicans. Racism is probably not the most accurate term, but does best convey the meaning.

And if his voters are bothered by it, i have heard remarkably little protest about it. Having seen the little bit of trump that I have, i would be inclined to say the opposite, I doubt trump is racist by heart, but rather because quite a big portion of his voter base does harbour these feelings, he has played into that and abused it to the max.

I've also seen a video about his previous executive assistant who was part mexican and telling great stuff about him. The muslim thing he just surfed on the terrorist wave to get more votes, that's cheap and not ethical but people are geniunely concerned about how islam does fit in a secular state.
See that's the thing, instead of labelling people as racist or misogynist (like a brain shortcut to shut down debates but also because it's trendy nowadays), I'd rather have people trying to understand where these fears come from. I lived in the US for a few years now, been to several states, including the deep conservative south, and I have yet to meet racist people (I only have one in mind, his IQ might be below 80, he lives in nyc). I've never seen an lgbtq person being persecuted, ever. To me, if there is one country where minorities are supported, that's usa. I saw people tired of modern feminism, tired of illegal immigration, trade agreements that make them lose jobs, tired of the excesses of race movements, people feeling insecure and not well represented.
I also saw american scared of what they saw in the news in Europe, which is partly true. Even though I feel like the situation in France is exagerrated in the medias, come in Paris and you will see how some interpretation of islam can change a city and isolate it from the state. I'm not blaming islam, I'm saying these are genuine concerns that need to be addressed, and labelling them with shortcuts won't solve anything. It reminds me of gibson accusing me of being "a white protestant who can't understand minorities concerns" the other day in twitch, see that's the true issue, I'm also surprised he didn't accuse me of "mansplaining". People are tired of all these tension and want someone who will address them, not someone who'll stay politically correct by all means while name calling those who disagree.
What you see as someone who played with human's lower instincts, I see someone who intrumentalized genuine concerns in order to win. He was just more blunt than the rest about it and had nothing to lose (keep in mind I barely followed this election). I also know that the loudest are often the most retarded in each movements, but that's what people remember when they see a parade in the street.
I think this guy is far from retarded, will surround himself by talented people, and won't do as bad as democrats are predicting.

[deleted_user0]

See that's the thing, instead of labelling people as racist or misogynist (like a brain shortcut to shut down debates but also because it's trendy nowadays), I'd rather have people trying to understand where these fears come from.

I agree with you on that, but I see no reason to call him out for the things he's said. He promotes himself as non-pc, so he should be able to take what he dishes out. To deny that what he says is simply discriminating, would be the PC way of dealing with it. Obviously just throwing the label racist at it, doesnt invalidade everything thats being said. And while its correct that there are fears at the root of their behaviour which are very valid reason for concern, the point is that their corresponding behaviour doesn't do anything to take away that fear or fix the problems that cause their fear. Which is why it's so irrational and why it's so damaging for any society which rests on the pillars of democracy. Yes their fears must be taken seriously and understood, but they too must do the opposite. And the problem is that often racist people don't want to or arent able to see that the opposite side is actually not that different and that many of their struggles are just the same mundane struggles you will find anywhere on this planet. And Imo any good leader should, while keeping in mind the fears of both sides of the argument, always show that there is room for a fair solution within the rules of the law. Instead trump has picked a side, and the stronger one to boot, while the democracy is actually modelled around the idea that the minority should represented and protected.


hite protestant who can't understand minorities concerns" the other day in twitch, see that's the true issue, I'm also surprised he didn't accuse me of "mansplaining".

People are tired of all these tension and want someone who will address them, not someone who'll stay politically correct by all means.

Yes, but the people are tired on both sides. You critizise those who talk about mansplaining, black lives matter and other such "pc" shortcuts to shut down debate, but they are not worse (and are most likely less worse) than shutting down debates with all x are murderers and thiefs, every muslim is a terrorist and inset any racist/xenophobic/discriminating comment. In order to have a dialogue, both sides must be willing to listen, but both sides must also have an equal seat at the table. And there are many groups of people who feel like they don't have that right now, and they rightly believe that.

What you see as someone who played with human's lower instincts, I see someone who intrumentalized genuine concerns in order to win. He was just more blunt than the rest about it and had nothing to lose (keep in mind I barely followed this election). I also know that the loudest are often the most retarded in each movements, but that's what people remember when they see a parade in the street.
I think this guy is far from retarded, will surround himself by talented people, and won't do as bad as democrats are predicting.

I dont care about the instincts, nor do i deny that there are genuine concerns, im saying that the way he has been acting does nothing to fix the problems that exist and in fact, it only adds fuel to the fire.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[benj89]

I agree with you on that, but I see no reason to call him out for the things he's said. He promotes himself as non-pc, so he should be able to take what he dishes out. To deny that what he says is simply discriminating, would be the PC way of dealing with it. Obviously just throwing the label racist at it, doesnt invalidade everything thats being said. And while its correct that there are fears at the root of their behaviour which are very valid reason for concern, the point is that their corresponding behaviour doesn't do anything to take away that fear or fix the problems that cause their fear. Which is why it's so irrational and why it's so damaging for any society which rests on the pillars of democracy. Yes their fears must be taken seriously and understood, but they too must do the opposite. And the problem is that often racist people don't want to or arent able to see that the opposite side is actually not that different and that many of their struggles are just the same mundane struggles you will find anywhere on this planet. And Imo any good leader should, while keeping in mind the fears of both sides of the argument, always show that there is room for a fair solution within the rules of the law. Instead trump has picked a side, and the stronger one to boot, while the democracy is actually modelled around the idea that the minority should represented and protected.

I see no reason to call him out for the things he said because that was his strategy to get elected, and I’m expecting that his actions will be much wiser than his campaign speeches. Not because I’ve done research about him - I would never consider voting unless doing a decent amount of research on the candidate’s program and its impact – but because that seems evident to me. Again, campaigning and governing are two different things, especially in the US.
Corresponding behavior of who, Trump supporters? Reinforcing the frontier and regulate immigration/trade agreements/tax system doesn’t sounds like solutions to regulate their fears? If you are talking about the small minority of uneducated/actually racist people, is that relevant? It’s like if I mentioned the Hillary supporters that believes in the wage gap and rape culture in the USA, stupid people shouldn’t be brought in this discussion. And if you are relating fear = racism, that’s my point. The majority of these people have fears but aren’t racist, just normal middle class people who want some changes in their everyday life.
As to what you describe as a good leader, I’d guess that If you keep to the actual program and what he will do, he isn’t against minorities. Turns out, these leaders who always want a fair solution end up not doing much, at least that’s how I think Trump supporters and lots of democrats saw Obama. That’s also why lot’s of people were behind Sanders. I actually just checked Hillary/Trump websites, and it confirms what I thought. Trump seems to answer the need for change more than her (she seems to have a lot to say about wall street reforms, her campaign was funded by bulge brackets. haha.)

Yes, but the people are tired on both sides. You critizise those who talk about mansplaining, black lives matter and other such "pc" shortcuts to shut down debate, but they are not worse (and are most likely less worse) than shutting down debates with all x are murderers and thiefs, every muslim is a terrorist and inset any racist/xenophobic/discriminating comment. In order to have a dialogue, both sides must be willing to listen, but both sides must also have an equal seat at the table. And there are many groups of people who feel like they don't have that right now, and they rightly believe that

I don’t think it’s fair to compare the modern movements (fueled by medias) which crossed the line between wanting to be represented (for legit reasons) and being self centered with the very few who would actually say “all x are murderers/thiefs”. Point is, the equal seat at the table allegory explains why Trump got elected, instead of Clinton don’t you think? To me, people felt like the loud and non representative minority of minorities had more means of expression through medias than the majority (which I find true as well) and trump addresses this majority.

I dont care about the instincts, nor do i deny that there are genuine concerns, im saying that the way he has been acting does nothing to fix the problems that exist and in fact, it only adds fuel to the fire.

Imo better adds fuel to the fire for a few month and make the cause of this fire at the center of the debates, than continuing this political correctness and let the fire slowly grow until there is no coming back/civil war starts, which I’d say we aren’t that far from with what happened the past 12 month (in western Europe and the USA). Also, who is stupid enough to vote based on what he sees on TV? Again, If I had to vote I wouldn’t care about how he triggers people to get attention from the medias. I would spend hours on the programs; weigh the pros and cons because that’s what matters and that’s what he/she should be held accountable for. About the whole show and sale process that is campaigning in the US (very different form France, where it's much more formal), I’d only judge the retort and charisma during speeches, not the actual content. Campaigning in the US to me is similar to these weigh ins in UFC fights, what matters is what happens in the octagone, rest is mostly entertainment (get hype mcgregor’s fight tonight!)

[deleted_user0]

I see no reason to call him out for the things he said because that was his strategy to get elected, and I’m expecting that his actions will be much wiser than his campaign speeches. Not because I’ve done research about him - I would never consider voting unless doing a decent amount of research on the candidate’s program and its impact – but because that seems evident to me. Again, campaigning and governing are two different things, especially in the US.
Corresponding behavior of who, Trump supporters? Reinforcing the frontier and regulate immigration/trade agreements/tax system doesn’t sounds like solutions to regulate their fears? If you are talking about the small minority of uneducated/actually racist people, is that relevant? It’s like if I mentioned the Hillary supporters that believes in the wage gap and rape culture in the USA, stupid people shouldn’t be brought in this discussion. And if you are relating fear = racism, that’s my point. The majority of these people have fears but aren’t racist, just normal middle class people who want some changes in their everyday life.
As to what you describe as a good leader, I’d guess that If you keep to the actual program and what he will do, he isn’t against minorities. Turns out, these leaders who always want a fair solution end up not doing much, at least that’s how I think Trump supporters and lots of democrats saw Obama. That’s also why lot’s of people were behind Sanders. I actually just checked Hillary/Trump websites, and it confirms what I thought. Trump seems to answer the need for change more than her (she seems to have a lot to say about wall street reforms, her campaign was funded by bulge brackets. haha.)

We will have to disagree on that then. Because I believe that way you act when you are campaigning ought to correspond with what you want to do when you govern. If you are making promises you know beforehand that you cant keep them and have no intention to keep them, which is basically what trump did when its true what you say, that he won't be as rigid when he is president as how he presented himself when he was campainging. It's just lying to the voters, and so he won't be any different than the other candidates, while people voted for him because they believed that he would be different. It's just naive. Half Trumps ideas are either illegal or impossible and the other half of his ideas, while they may appease the unease in one group of the country, it will stir the unease in the other, so net result is that nothing really changed. Instead of the conservatives feeling like they arent represented and are being badly treated, it will be the democrats.

I don’t think it’s fair to compare the modern movements (fueled by medias) which crossed the line between wanting to be represented (for legit reasons) and being self centered with the very few who would actually say “all x are murderers/thiefs”. Point is, the equal seat at the table allegory explains why Trump got elected, instead of Clinton don’t you think? To me, people felt like the loud and non representative minority of minorities had more means of expression through medias than the majority (which I find true as well) and trump addresses this majority.

Apparantly they werent even the majority though, because clinton won the popular vote.

And these minorities are in many cases claiming something back that was unjustly denied to them in the first place, and many people feel unsettled by this for no rational reason. The rights you have, you have because others have them too. And yet in the USA many people are denied their rights, or are hampered in excercising their rights in unjust ways. This law, which didn't pass btw, is an example of that
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... 8/its-duck
But there are similar functioning laws in place in many other states. I really don't mind that these people demand representation, but I do mind some of the motives as well as some of the means they have employed to achieve it. Because the sort of society you end up with is determined greatly by the interactions between people. And there are ways to talk about immigration etc in a way thats not toxic and racist, other republicans have done it, so i dont see why trump shouldnt have been able to do it too. But the fact that he didnt, and that exactly his type of highly toxic and racist approach did succeed, imo shows that there are still alot of people who hold dangerous beliefs.

And yes, the equal seat at the table allegory does explain better why trump won, because clinton was reaching out to minorities to give them their seat, and to many people who have privilige, they see this as losing something, even though they are losing something they didnt have a right to have in the first place. And the other poor white people who arent priviliged are lashing out either out of fear/racism or out of jealousy, because they feel like they are left behind and ignored over other groups who they believe have less right or atleast not more right to it than them. And the feeling of this latter group is totally justified, but instead of turning against the people who actually have the privilige, they turn against the people who do not have it but are simply trying to get a better deal as well.

Imo better adds fuel to the fire for a few month and make the cause of this fire at the center of the debates, than continuing this political correctness and let the fire slowly grow until there is no coming back/civil war starts, which I’d say we aren’t that far from with what happened the past 12 month (in western Europe and the USA). Also, who is stupid enough to vote based on what he sees on TV? Again, If I had to vote I wouldn’t care about how he triggers people to get attention from the medias. I would spend hours on the programs; weigh the pros and cons because that’s what matters and that’s what he/she should be held accountable for. About the whole show and sale process that is campaigning in the US (very different form France, where it's much more formal), I’d only judge the retort and charisma during speeches, not the actual content. Campaigning in the US to me is similar to these weigh ins in UFC fights, what matters is what happens in the octagone, rest is mostly entertainment (get hype mcgregor’s fight tonight!)

Again I don't see why adressing the problems, even in a non-pc way, would require racism. Because if what you say is true, that trump isnt racist and neither is the majority of his voting group, then why did his entire campaign hinge on xenophobic hatespeech, most of which he cant even deliver on.

And you are undoubtedly right that thats how it works in the usa, which is why i would never want to live there. It's such a hollowed out farce of a democracy you can barely even call it that.

[Jam]

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqEddipbpkw[/video]

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[Gendarme]

Brilliance indeed.

[godzillaking]

Don't see a reason to stop speculation tbh, but its up to everyone for themselves. However, it's not an emotional objection at all, its in fact very rational. Putting ideas such as these into practice erode the foundation of democracy, and to me, electing a person who even considers such ideas, whether he considers them only to win votes doesnt really matter imo, because it means that his voter base doesnt mind such talk, erodes it almost as much as putting these ideas into practice.

Obviously im dramatizing a bit here when talking about genocide, given the info we have atm. Nonetheless, it's not like it has no basis in reality.

Erodes the foundation of democracy? Stop thinking in terms of slippery slope. Hillary and Obama said that trump deserves a chance to succeed.

[deleted_user0]

he erodes it, i didnt say he destroyed it. Yes he deserves a chance, he aslo deserves scrutiny

[benj89]

We will have to disagree on that then. Because I believe that way you act when you are campaigning ought to correspond with what you want to do when you govern. If you are making promises you know beforehand that you cant keep them and have no intention to keep them, which is basically what trump did when its true what you say, that he won't be as rigid when he is president as how he presented himself when he was campainging. It's just lying to the voters, and so he won't be any different than the other candidates, while people voted for him because they believed that he would be different. It's just naive. Half Trumps ideas are either illegal or impossible and the other half of his ideas, while they may appease the unease in one group of the country, it will stir the unease in the other, so net result is that nothing really changed. Instead of the conservatives feeling like they arent represented and are being badly treated, it will be the democrats.

Indeed any candidate lies during the campaign, in USA and France. Difference is some do more than others. Here it was Trump vs Hillary, not Trump vs “an ideal candidate”, and I don’t think it’s that obvious to tell the one who lies the least, but then again I didn’t follow all that crap. I think he played the game he had to play in order to get elected, ie making a show, telling people what they want to hear, he simply did it better than Clinton. That’s a dangerous game, but at this point as I said I’m just waiting to see what his actions will be because that’s what matters. Whether it’s ethical or not, idc, this whole campaign was full of shots under the belts. So I guess you consider that I am too lenient about this, then be it. The fact that half trump’s program ideas are illegal/impossible, I think that could very well be argued, I'm just not the one who will do that. I don't care enough/lack the time to do all the research. He was smart enough to win with no political background, wouldn’t surprise if he’d be smart enough to govern properly. I would’ve been curious to see him vs Sanders tho

Apparantly they werent even the majority though, because clinton won the popular vote.

And these minorities are in many cases claiming something back that was unjustly denied to them in the first place, and many people feel unsettled by this for no rational reason. The rights you have, you have because others have them too. And yet in the USA many people are denied their rights, or are hampered in excercising their rights in unjust ways. This law, which didn't pass btw, is an example of that
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... 8/its-duck
But there are similar functioning laws in place in many other states. I really don't mind that these people demand representation, but I do mind some of the motives as well as some of the means they have employed to achieve it. Because the sort of society you end up with is determined greatly by the interactions between people. And there are ways to talk about immigration etc in a way thats not toxic and racist, other republicans have done it, so i dont see why trump shouldnt have been able to do it too. But the fact that he didnt, and that exactly his type of highly toxic and racist approach did succeed, imo shows that there are still alot of people who hold dangerous beliefs.

And yes, the equal seat at the table allegory does explain better why trump won, because clinton was reaching out to minorities to give them their seat, and to many people who have privilige, they see this as losing something, even though they are losing something they didnt have a right to have in the first place. And the other poor white people who arent priviliged are lashing out either out of fear/racism or out of jealousy, because they feel like they are left behind and ignored over other groups who they believe have less right or atleast not more right to it than them. And the feeling of this latter group is totally justified, but instead of turning against the people who actually have the privilige, they turn against the people who do not have it but are simply trying to get a better deal as well.

True, technically he lost, yet I consider that much more people voted for Hillary by default than the opposite (with all the medias being against him).
I quickly looked over your article: the judge cited went to the most liberal college in the US, was appointed by Clinton (3 judge were chosen out of 63% of democrat in this fourth circuit) and similar laws seem to apply in 30 other US states. Supreme court was 4 / 4 on appeal. You know, it’s one of these article I’d be careful with, and that’s why I don’t like getting my information from the medias.
It’s obvious that minorities have justified claims (as long as they are treated as equal to the claims of the majority), and these claims aren’t really the ones I was referring to. I talked about the excess that the loud movements representing these minorities that are being overrepresented in the medias, two different things.
Other republicans surely have done it, but none of them had his background, it was Trump’s strategy to win and it worked. I agree it was not ethical and I’m not a Trump supporter anyway as you understood, I’m just saying it worked, now I wait and see, let’s not make Hitler comparisons nor a tantrum in the streets. I also figured that toxic stuff during a presidential elections happens whether it’s behind the scene or not, so I don’t really put a huge emphasis on that neither. I think Trump wouldn’t have been able to win the way you would like it because media hates him and I guess just watch the video posted above. Correlating that with people being racist still sounds wrong to me.

by the way, genuine question (to all the buzzfeed subscribers who might read this), do you have a link of a trump racist moment in a non edited video? Just no articles, nothing media related, if you do consider trump as devil, I do consider most journalists as worse. I’ve seen what any medias is capable to make up when I did some research for other stuff.
I’m sure there are many, I just haven’t seen it in a simple google search and tbh can’t watch all his speech, especially today I’ll already miss the ESOC games which would come in priority before anything politically related.
Again I didn’t follow the campaign, but I wouldn’t be surprised If trump addresses the minorities more than Clinton would’ve. We will see. I consider your last assumptions wrongs, but I guess that’s where we disagree, same issue as before: you still believe that people are jealous or racist, while these people want what seems for them to be a fair life, it doesn’t have to include any sense of superiority. They also felt cheated by all the claims the president made the last few years. I see these people turn against illegal immigrants or questioning Islam's interpretations, not against a race in particular. I think again you only take into account the loud minority of stupid people. That is a pretty big assumption to assume that half of the voter mass thinks that way, and as we saw during the election, Trump has a fair amount of black/Hispanic supporters, which might show that people get over what’s depicted as a devil in the medias. Speaking about minorities, I’m still waiting for the president who will actually do something for Native Americans.

Again I don't see why adressing the problems, even in a non-pc way, would require racism. Because if what you say is true, that trump isnt racist and neither is the majority of his voting group, then why did his entire campaign hinge on xenophobic hatespeech, most of which he cant even deliver on.

And you are undoubtedly right that thats how it works in the usa, which is why i would never want to live there. It's such a hollowed out farce of a democracy you can barely even call it that.

Yea, I don’t think Trump is racist (although I did very few research about him) but most importantly I certainly don’t think that the majority of his voting group is. I’ll trust you when you say that his entire campaign was xenophobic/hate speech, even though so far I assumed he was a blunt guy who wanted to be heard by saying stuff that would be reported x10 by the medias, and that was his strategy to get elected. So yea, I won’t review his entire campaign.
Hey don’t be so pessimistic, USA is a great country for many reasons . You should spend more time there, visit many states, talk with people, and maybe see that I was right or that the reality is not as bad as what could be depicted in the medias you read.

[deleted_user0]

Again I didn’t follow the campaign, but I wouldn’t be surprised If trump addresses the minorities more than Clinton would’ve. We will see. I consider your last assumptions wrongs, but I guess that’s where we disagree, same issue as before: you still believe that people are jealous or racist, while these people want what seems for them to be a fair life, it doesn’t have to include any sense of superiority. They also felt cheated by all the claims the president made the last few years. I see these people turn against illegal immigrants or questioning Islam's interpretations, not against a race in particular. I think again you only take into account the loud minority of stupid people. That is a pretty big assumption to assume that half of the voter mass thinks that way, and as we saw during the election, Trump has a fair amount of black/Hispanic supporters, which might show that people get over what’s depicted as a devil in the medias. Speaking about minorities, I’m still waiting for the president who will actually do something for Native Americans.

Well, let me rephrase my point here, like there is a difference between someone who is a diehard neo-nazi or kkk member and someone who is, as Incog would call it, casually racist. The first group is just flat out unreasonable and no real discussion can be had with them because they will not allow their views to be questioned and arent really interested in a discussion. They are simply driven by irrational hatred. The other group is different, they arent driven by this hatred, instead as you rightly point out, they are driven my valid concerns that everyone has about the security of their lives, be it economic, social or physical. I do not deny that these are valid concerns and I dont deny that they ought to be taken seriously. However, the way they deal with these concerns is, atleast in alot of cases (we see the same here in holland too), in a racist/ressentimental way. And their anger drives them to make statements that are maybe unnuanced and unjust, and its understandable, but that doesnt make it less wrong. And I'm pointing this out because imo, their attitude is harming them as well as others and isnt leading to the solution they want in the end. These trump supporters arent the only way to react in such fashion, many clinton supporters have done it and do it too. It's a quite common way for people to react, again, thats understandable, but again its not the right way imo. So i'm not saying these people are just racist etc etc, I see the nuance and the difficulties, but the question is, do they see it too? And I many do, but just as many don't and those who do have to call the others out on it to make sure a peaceful and open solution can be found.

Does that make me idealistic, maybe.

Yea, I don’t think Trump is racist (although I did very few research about him) but most importantly I certainly don’t think that the majority of his voting group is. I’ll trust you when you say that his entire campaign was xenophobic/hate speech, even though so far I assumed he was a blunt guy who wanted to be heard by saying stuff that would be reported x10 by the medias, and that was his strategy to get elected. So yea, I won’t review his entire campaign.

I didnt say, or mean to say, that his entire campaign was hatespeech, but it did hinge on it in big fashion. Even when talking about economy and such, he can't do it without kicking at china or mexican immigrants etc. That just makes it very hard to have a serious conversation with him. Now you are probably right that this is just the nature of the usa election circus, which I dont doubt or deny, but I'm looking at to what could be and ought to be, while you are looking at it how it is now. Which is where our different opinions come in i guess. I just feel like if things like these are being accepted (which they arent everywhere btw, though the world is becoming more and more americanised in that way) we end up in a vicious circle.

[Metis]

I lived in the US for a few years now, been to several states, including the deep conservative south, and I have yet to meet racist people (I only have one in mind, his IQ might be below 80, he lives in nyc). I've never seen an lgbtq person being persecuted, ever.

Although I've read about such instances and seen news reports about them, I've never encountered this either, in 60 years. It's not like I've led an isolated life either. I've lived and worked in ten states and three countries and have traveled to every state of the contiguous US.

I had a gay cousin (he unfortunately died of AIDS) and he never really felt persecuted anywhere, though he was happier in cities where there was a large gay community (birds of a feather and all that). My friends and I spent lots of time around him and his gay friends and nobody had any issues about anyone's sexual preferences. We had a gay soldier in the Army too and he had no qualms about showing it, in fact he was almost a "queen." Nobody gave a rat's ass what he did during his personal time as long as he was professional at his job. I've only seen one "tranny," he/she was a patient of mine in the ER and though I was a bit confused as what to write down under "sex" in the chart, he/she got treated like any other patient.

Nor have I seen any overt prejudice against any so-called minorities. Sure, you will hear the occasional "N-word" spoken but you are about a hundred times as likely to hear this from a black man than a white man. I lived for three years in a barracks where the black population outnumbered the whites five to one. This was also in a fort in the deep south. Although there was occasional race-related jibing (e.g., "what are those stupid niggers/crackers over there doing?"), when it came to knowing who had one's back everyone of every race were professional soldiers.

I've never encountered overt prejudice in civilian life either. Even if you hear someone complaining in private, their actions bey their words. Most every small town around here in "redneck land" has a black family and nobody pays the color of their skin any mind. In fact, when a new bacl family moves into town they are considered unique and pretty much overwhelmed with kindness.

What people are a bit upset about is illegal immigration. This is not racism against Hispanics because they have always been a significant part of the population here (about 25%). This area was even once part of Mexico until the Texas Revolution. Legal immigrants are not problem. What people are opposed to are eaves of illegal immigrants pouring over the borders uncontrolled and bringing the social problems (namely drugs and gangs) that they have in their own countries with them.

[deleted_user0]

Although I've read about such instances and seen news reports about them, I've never encountered this either, in 60 years. It's not like I've led an isolated life either. I've lived and worked in ten states and three countries and have traveled to every state of the contiguous US.

maybe because its something people arent that comfortable anymore to share such thoughts with a random stranger, which is a good thing in a way i suppose. But let's not forget people were blatantly racist in the south up into the 70's in big quantities. And the KKK is having a bit of a renaisance lately as well. So lets not pretend its all hearsay and "the media" making this up.

I've never encountered overt prejudice in civilian life either. Even if you hear someone complaining in private, their actions bey their words. Most every small town around here in "redneck land" has a black family and nobody pays the color of their skin any mind. In fact, when a new bacl family moves into town they are considered unique and pretty much overwhelmed with kindness.

obviously because metis hasnt encountered it, its just all in the heads of these minorities, they just make it up right?! This is just so typical.

What people are a bit upset about is illegal immigration. This is not racism against Hispanics because they have always been a significant part of the population here (about 25%). This area was even once part of Mexico until the Texas Revolution. Legal immigrants are not problem. What people are opposed to are eaves of illegal immigrants pouring over the borders uncontrolled and bringing the social problems (namely drugs and gangs) that they have in their own countries with them.

Being upset about illegal immigration isnt racism no. Saying that all mexican are rapists and thiefs, thats racism. Saying all muslims have to get out of the country thats racism.

But because you have never had it heard it being said in your vicinity... well it must not exist!

[Metis]

When you hear of racial incidents in the media the information is usually second or third hand. Some "incidents" that were widely reported on, such as those that supposedly occurred at the University of Missouri have be found to be totally fabricated, others are real. As someone who has traveled extensively and has worked with thousands of people of all races all over the US, including the deep south (where I lived for several years) should be listened to as a source of original data. I know that there are racial incidents from time to time in the US; however, these incidents are only a small percentage of the billions of human interactions that go on daily.

Interestingly enough, many of the recent racial incidents reported by the media have been perpetrated by blacks and SJWs. For instance, the crowd of blacks who blocked white students and professors from crossing a bridge in Berkeley or the beating of a white man by blacks because he had a Trump sticker on his car, while black bystanders egged them on. If a group of whites had dragged a black man from his car and beaten him there would have been media reports out the wazoo and rioters demanding that they be executed for hate crimes.

Trump didn't say that all Muslims should be expelled from the country or even that Muslim immigration be banned permanently. What he said is that perhaps we should hold off on any mass immigration of Muslim refugees until we figure out if any have terrorist leanings.

“It’s a temporary ban. It hasn’t been called for yet, nobody’s done it.” “This is just a suggestion until we find out what’s going on.” DJT

[JakeyBoyTH]

I wish more people shared your views Metis. You make me put more faith into American society :)

[Laurence Drake]

Trump has already admitted that his border wall will in fact be a border fence. What other promises will he go back on?

[Metis]

Trump has already admitted that his border wall will in fact be a border fence. What other promises will he go back on?

You can't place a wall right at the border in Texas because the border is the middle of the Rio Grande River. Also, you can't place a wall in the floodplain because a treaty between the US and Mexico forbids it. Therefore, you would have to build the wall miles back on private land. The Texas ranchers who voted for Trump are going to make it clear to him that they are not going to give up their land for a wall. Nor is a wall needed across the entire border, just in key places. Many places along the US-Mexico border are too far removed from the nearest town and highway route to have many people cross there, not to mention there are places along the border that have little or no water for a hundred miles or so.

Many of you from other countries have not been near the US-Mexican border but the inland checkpoints there are a big hassle for US citizens. The inland border checkpoints, that can be a hundred miles from the actual border, were supposed to be checks for for illegal immigrants but they have become police-state thug fests where US citizens are routinely harassed in violation of their Constitutional rights.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwFWrkKpfMc[/video]

[91]

When you hear of racial incidents in the media the information is usually second or third hand. Some "incidents" that were widely reported on, such as those that supposedly occurred at the University of Missouri have be found to be totally fabricated, others are real. As someone who has traveled extensively and has worked with thousands of people of all races all over the US, including the deep south (where I lived for several years) should be listened to as a source of original data. I know that there are racial incidents from time to time in the US; however, these incidents are only a small percentage of the billions of human interactions that go on daily.

Interestingly enough, many of the recent racial incidents reported by the media have been perpetrated by blacks and SJWs. For instance, the crowd of blacks who blocked white students and professors from crossing a bridge in Berkeley or the beating of a white man by blacks because he had a Trump sticker on his car, while black bystanders egged them on. If a group of whites had dragged a black man from his car and beaten him there would have been media reports out the wazoo and rioters demanding that they be executed for hate crimes.

Trump didn't say that all Muslims should be expelled from the country or even that Muslim immigration be banned permanently. What he said is that perhaps we should hold off on any mass immigration of Muslim refugees until we figure out if any have terrorist leanings.

“It’s a temporary ban. It hasn’t been called for yet, nobody’s done it.” “This is just a suggestion until we find out what’s going on.” DJT

Just because it's temporary it doesn't mean it's ok to treat people as if they're suspects of crime for no other reason than religion (that has nothing to do with crime in the first place).

Before anyone brings up that ISIS are muslims just consider 1 600 000 000 muslims. maybe 100 000 ISIS members. Thats 1 out of every 16000. What's that, less than 0,01%. which is not a strange percentage of violent psychos of any western country. Now don't quote me on this, I just googled it quickly, but feel free to prove that any muslim is so much more likely to commit violent crime than any US citizen, that it's worth discriminating them.

Also note that this just targets people with certain clothing and appearance because it's different enough from western ways. Clothing is more connected to culture than religion. There are just not any good examples to show how dumb this whole idea is because you'd just laugh it off if I compare it with stopping everyone with visibly combed hair and suits in muslim-majority countries. That's basically what it looks like in their eyes.

Also, if you aim to disprove me, remember that this is a muslim question - not a muslims in a war zone question (where the majority just wants to get away from the psychos, leaving their lives behind). This means all muslims, including those from peaceful areas.

[deleted_user0]

When you hear of racial incidents in the media the information is usually second or third hand. Some "incidents" that were widely reported on, such as those that supposedly occurred at the University of Missouri have be found to be totally fabricated, others are real. As someone who has traveled extensively and has worked with thousands of people of all races all over the US, including the deep south (where I lived for several years) should be listened to as a source of original data. I know that there are racial incidents from time to time in the US; however, these incidents are only a small percentage of the billions of human interactions that go on daily.

Interestingly enough, many of the recent racial incidents reported by the media have been perpetrated by blacks and SJWs. For instance, the crowd of blacks who blocked white students and professors from crossing a bridge in Berkeley or the beating of a white man by blacks because he had a Trump sticker on his car, while black bystanders egged them on. If a group of whites had dragged a black man from his car and beaten him there would have been media reports out the wazoo and rioters demanding that they be executed for hate crimes.

Trump didn't say that all Muslims should be expelled from the country or even that Muslim immigration be banned permanently. What he said is that perhaps we should hold off on any mass immigration of Muslim refugees until we figure out if any have terrorist leanings.

“It’s a temporary ban. It hasn’t been called for yet, nobody’s done it.” “This is just a suggestion until we find out what’s going on.” DJT

I dont have to hear it in the media, i have experienced it first hand. I have heard it first hand from my mo and grandmother who have lived through a war of independence vs imperial rule. There is footage in the media that shows the racism directly out of the mouth of the source. If you look at the usa, there is still original footage of civil rights movement. The fact that you are trying to trivialise this because you have not been affected by it, shows the lack of perspective due to dominant group privilige. You have no actual idea of what you are talking about atm. So the fact that you present yourself as an original source and some sort of expert is fucking laughable. Its beyond absurd.
What will you say next? Because you havent been raped or seen sexual abuse happen, it doesnt exist?

And you are right that the examples you give are wrong behavour. And those people should be punished. However, they did it too, is not a proper argument of any kind, not to mention an argument to defend racist behaviour.

Hes targeting muslims for their religion, by proposing a mandatory database for them to register in. Thats targeting all of them, and its pure discrimination.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --