[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016

vayanui8 · Jul 29, 2016

Accusing Trump of being racist drives me crazy because the people who say it can't actually back it up. It's nothing but people parroting each other without actually looking up the facts themselves. The worst part is that Trump's plans aren't even hard to find problems with. How is Trump actually going to build his wall? How can he guarantee it will even work when people could still get in via air and sea travel. He claims he will let people in who have converted from Islam, but how can he actually check this? These are all huge issues with Trump's plans, but people are too busy circlejerk and accusing him of being racist instead of pointing out his glaring flaws.

Foxi4 · Jul 29, 2016

vayanui8 said:
Accusing Trump of being racist drives me crazy because the people who say it can't actually back it up. It's nothing but people parroting each other without actually looking up the facts themselves. The worst part is that Trump's plans aren't even hard to find problems with. How is Trump actually going to build his wall? How can he guarantee it will even work when people could still get in via air and sea travel. He claims he will let people in who have converted from Islam, but how can he actually check this? These are all huge issues with Trump's plans, but people are too busy circlejerk and accusing him of being racist instead of pointing out his glaring flaws.

There isn't going to be a wall - I said it before and I'll say it again, it's political bait that's supposed to get numbnuts to vote for him. As for air and sea travel, it's practically impossible to be an illegal immigrant and enter the country by air - not with the TSA around. As for sea, it'd be easier, but the coast is more closely monitored than land - even a shitty raft pops up on a radar like a big glaring christmas light.

Lacius · Jul 29, 2016

RevPokemon said:
A good point when you consider many of the polls are from media groups which of course have their own political bias.

Biases and leanings definitely exist. A good aggregate number factors in historical biases compared to historical results when weighing polls.

RevPokemon said:
And they probably will be the only ones not in the debate (although i think Johnson could get the 15%).

I'd like to see him in the debate, but that doesn't look likely. I haven't seen Governor Johnson top 13% in the polls, and that's an outlier. His aggregate number is closer to 8.3%, and it was roughly the same number in early June (i.e. there's no upward trend). One might also argue that we're entering a stage in the general election after the conventions when hesitant voters begin to gravitate towards one of the major party candidates or the other. Johnson's numbers could be likely to go down as people who generally vote Democratic or Republican stop using him as a protest vote. I read an article not long ago that described a significant number of #BernieOrBust people using Johnson as a protest vote in three-person and sometimes four-person match-ups rather than saying they're voting for Clinton, and that's arguably likely to change as we see Clinton's support among Bernie supporters trend upwards.

Of course, a million things could happen between now and the debates that cause Johnson's numbers to go up, so who knows?

vayanui8 said:
I think one of the issue with polls is that while they can give you a decent general idea, things are often too close to give a definitive consensus. Even if the poll is taken from a truly random sample, there is still plenty of chances for a random error to occur. This wouldn't be an issue with a poll where a drastic difference is present, but with hoe close the top 2 candidates often are it's really not an effective way to predict who will win. That's not to say I dislike polls, they're very interesting, but there's always a handful of people who take them as the word of God and overestimate their accuracy.

Polls acknowledge the chance for random error by giving the margin of error (typically the range that's >95% likely to be true), but the odds of random error become vanishingly small with increased sample sizes and better methodology.

Foxi4 said:
Boy, oh boy - everyone's on the PC train and I'm just sitting here and waiting for Trump to actually say something racist. His platform so far refers to illegal immigrants and muslims, neither of which is a race. To be fair though, his plan to temporarily ban muslim immigration does go against freedom of religion which is a U.S. staple and pretty much the whole point the country was established for in the first place, but I'm afraid that's a bed radical muslims made themselves. They need to sort out their internal problems, and although I'm against the ban, I can understand the sentiment. inb4 #NotAllMuslims, we all know that, however Trump's mindset is "it only takes one", which is fair enough, he has the right to hold that opinion, even if it's discriminatory.

It's not hopping aboard the PC train to acknowledge Donald Trump's blatant bigotry and, yes, racism. From a Washington Post article:

The things Trump is doing now — disparaging the “Mexican” judge, disqualifying Muslim judges, calling somebody claiming Native American blood “Pocahontas” and singling out “my African American” — is very much in line with what he has been doing for the past year, and before.

More than six months ago, I began a column by proposing, “Let’s not mince words: Donald Trump is a bigot and a racist.” His bigotry went back decades, to the Central Park jogger case, and came to include: his leadership of the “birther” movement suggesting President Obama was a foreign-born Muslim, his vulgar expressions for women, his talk of Mexico sending rapists into America, his call for mass deportation, his spats with Latino news outlets, his mocking Asian accent, his tacit acceptance of the claim that Muslims are a “problem” in America, his agreement that American Muslims should be forced to register themselves, his call to ban Muslim immigration, his false claim about American Muslims celebrating 9/11, his tweeting of statistics from white supremacists, his condoning of violence against black demonstrators, and his mocking of a journalist with a physical disability.

To say Donald Trump isn't racist because Mexican and Muslim aren't races is to engage in mental gymnastics with a flawed understanding of the word racism in an attempt to defend bigotry and prejudice as not racist. In reality, the word racism has been used to refer to bigotry and prejudice against people who look or act differently from you, and in the English language, the word in our lexicon for prejudice against an ethnicity is the word racism. The Wikipedia page on racism does a good job explaining how the word is used:

While race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race": the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior).

Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to a United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. The UN convention further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.

If you want to argue that Donald Trump is not technically racist, and he's just a bigot with prejudices, I guess that's fine, but that also means you're not using the word racism like the rest of us. If you want to narrowly define racism as only applying to a sanctioned list of five groups of people, I'm not going to stop you. I'm not sure what it says about a person's alleged racism if, in order to show he's not racist, you have to narrowly define racism to do it; it's probably not good.

Edit: There are arguably instances described above that fit your definition of racism too, but that probably doesn't matter.

vayanui8 said:
Accusing Trump of being racist drives me crazy because the people who say it can't actually back it up. It's nothing but people parroting each other without actually looking up the facts themselves. The worst part is that Trump's plans aren't even hard to find problems with. How is Trump actually going to build his wall? How can he guarantee it will even work when people could still get in via air and sea travel. He claims he will let people in who have converted from Islam, but how can he actually check this? These are all huge issues with Trump's plans, but people are too busy circlejerk and accusing him of being racist instead of pointing out his glaring flaws.

Once we define racism, it's easy to see if someone is objectively racist or not. For the reasons described above, Donald Trump is a racist. At the very least, the things he says and proposes are racist. One could argue it's all an act, but I typically assume that if someone walks like a racist and talks like a racist, then that person is probably a racist.

Foxi4 · Jul 29, 2016

Lacius said:
It's not hopping aboard the PC train to acknowledge Donald Trump's blatant bigotry and, yes, racism. From a Washington Post article:

To say Donald Trump isn't racist because Mexican and Muslim aren't races is to engage in mental gymnastics with a flawed understanding of the word racism in an attempt to defend bigotry and prejudice as not racist. In reality, the word racism has been used to refer to bigotry and prejudice against people who look or act differently from you, and in the English language, the word in our lexicon for prejudice against an ethnicity is the word racism. The Wikipedia page on racism does a good job explaining how the word is used:

If you want to argue that Donald Trump is not technically racist, and he's just a bigot with prejudices, I guess that's fine, but that also means you're not using the word racism like the rest of us. If you want to narrowly define racism as only applying to a sanctioned list of five groups of people, I'm not going to stop you. I'm not sure what it says about a person's alleged racism if, in order to show he's not racist, you have to narrowly define racism to do it; it's probably not good.

Edit: There are arguably instances described above that fit your definition of racism too, but that probably doesn't matter.

Once we define racism, it's easy to see if someone is objectively racist or not. For the reasons described above, Donald Trump is a racist. At the very least, the things he says and proposes are racist. One could argue it's all an act, but I typically assume that if someone walks like a racist and talks like a racist, then that person is probably a racist.

He's never said anything specifically against "Mexicans", he always refers to "illegal immigrants", which is a whole different matter. A mexican (or if you prefer more ethnic terms a hispanic and/or latin american) can legally enter the U.S. after going through all the hoops, he's never opposed that.

"Muslim" is factually not a race - muslims come from all over the world. There are middle eastern muslims, african muslims, muslims of arabic decent etc. - muslims vary greatly due to the religion's large sphere of influence, it's not an ethnicity for the same reasons why "christian" isn't. Believing in the Islamic god doesn't mean that you've entered some special racial club, it's a religion, not a race. As such, you can't reasonably call him a racist.

The word "racist" explicitly refers to race or ethnicity, much like "sexist" refers to sex. Call him a xenophobe if you must, but calling him a racist is a stretch. You're the one using the word "racist" improperly, namely too broadly, not me. Once again, "illegal immigrant" and "muslim" are neither an ethnicity nor a race, thus the term "racist" doesn't apply to them. You can juggle articles on Wikipedia written by random anons or tired Washington Post blog posts all you want, we still don't need to "define" the word "racist", that's what dictionaries are for:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist

Trump doesn't state that one race is inherently better than another nor does he mistreat people based on race, ergo he's not a racist.

RevPokemon · Jul 29, 2016

@Lacius
Currently regarding Johnson I believe he has roughly a 33% chance of making it to the debates. One question that also has to be ask is if Romney or Jen Bush endorse him would that help his numbers with the Never Trump crowd? Personally I feel he probably has more to appeal to them then too the Bernie or Bust people.

Lacius · Jul 29, 2016

Foxi4 said:
He's never said anything specifically against "Mexicans", he always refers to "illegal immigrants", which is a whole different matter. A mexican can legally enter the states after going through all the hoops, he's never opposed that.

You should reread my post. He's disparaged more than just illegal immigrants. And regardless, vilifying illegal immigrants from Mexico is itself racist demagoguery by definition. He's exhibiting demagoguery against a very specific ethnicity of illegal immigrant but not others.

Foxi4 said:
Muslim is factually not a race - muslims come from all over the world. There are middle eastern muslims, african muslims, muslims of arabic decent etc. - believing in the Islamic god doesn't mean that you've entered some special racial club, it's a religion, not a race.

Ignoring the inherent immorality of Islamophobia, regardless of what word we call it, the vilifying of foreign Muslims is a prejudice against ethnicity as well as against religion.

Foxi4 said:
The word "racist" explicitly refers to race or ethnicity, much like "sexist" refers to sex. Call him a xenophobe if you must, but calling him a racist is a stretch. You're the one using the word "racist" improperly, namely too broadly, not me. Once again, "illegal immigrant" and "muslim" are neither an ethnicity nor a race, thus the term "racist" doesn't apply to them.

If we agree that racism refers to prejudice against ethnicity as well as against race, then he's objectively a racist when he vilifies the above ethnicities. Even if I were to concede that he gets a pass on vilifying Muslims and Mexicans, which I don't, there's still plenty more listed above that makes him a racist.

RevPokemon said:
@Lacius
Currently regarding Johnson I believe he has roughly a 33% chance of making it to the debates. One question that also has to be ask is if Romney or Jen Bush endorse him would that help his numbers with the Never Trump crowd? Personally I feel he probably has more to appeal to them then too the Bernie or Bust people.

I think as purely subjective odds, 33% sounds about right. I also think, in principle, Gary Johnson should have an easier time appealing to the Never Trump crowd rather than the Bernie or Bust group. However, in some polling, Bernie supporters are picking Johnson because a.) They see him as a more viable protest candidate, and/or b.) Some polling only asks about a three-way race, excluding Jill Stein.

I also really doubt that Bush and/or Romney will endorse Johnson. Merely neglecting to endorse Trump will be seen by many Republicans as a lot less of a betrayal than endorsing Johnson or Clinton.

Foxi4 said:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist

Trump doesn't state that one race is inherently better than another nor does he mistreat people based on race, ergo he's not a racist.

Even your source defines racism as racial prejudice or discrimination, and even you agree that racism can include prejudice against one's ethnicity.

RevPokemon · Jul 29, 2016

Lacius said:
I also really doubt that Bush and/or Romney will endorse Johnson. Merely neglecting to endorse Trump will be seen by many Republicans as a lot less of a betrayal than endorsing Johnson or Clinton.

Romney I think it is still pretty decent chances of an endorsement as he and Weld are close friends (I believe he said if Weld was the top ticket then he would have already endorsed him). But oh well.

But at least he is polling pretty well and is either at 10% or around it. So hopefully at least he can be Anderson's amount he got back in 80. But who knows what will happen until October as there is alot more to come.

Foxi4 · Jul 29, 2016

What you're saying is ridiculous. He's refering to mexican illegal immigrants because they're your only neighbor besides Canada - it's a matter of geography, not ethnicity. Being islamophobic, by definition, refers to vilifying and/or fearing muslims, not a specific race, as we've already established that "muslim" isn't a race. I understand that you like painting with broad strokes, but the terms you're using have very specific meanings - they're "exactly what it says on the tin", so to speak. That's neither here nor there though, it's not like either of us is changing our minds, so what's the point in the exchange? I'm merely pointing out what's wrong with your statement, you can take it or leave it.

Lacius · Jul 29, 2016

Foxi4 said:
What you're saying is ridiculous. He's refering to mexican illegal immigrants because they're your only neighbor besides Canada - it's a matter of geography, not ethnicity.

It's arbitrary demagoguery based on ethnicity when illegal immigration from Mexico is about as big a problem as illegal immigration from other countries. He's also a.) Disparaging a specific ethnicity of illegal immigrant by, among other things, stating falsehoods that vilify those immigrants, and b.) He's disparaging Mexican immigrants broadly when he vilifies illegal immigration without advocating for reform to legal immigration.

Let's be clear: Donald Trump has exhibited an anti-Mexican immigrant sentiment, with or without the illegal part. You should reread my post on Trump's disparagement of judges on the sole basis of their Mexican heritage, and I haven't even mentioned his comments at CPAC where he condemned a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants from Mexico while advocating in nearly the same sentence for more legal immigration from Europe because they're "tremendous... hard-working people."

Edit: "Trump's a racist" may be a meme, but it's not a false one.

Foxi4 said:
Being islamophobic, by definition, refers to vilifying and/or fearing muslims, not a specific race, as we've already established that "muslim" isn't a race. I understand that you like painting with broad strokes, but the terms you're using have very specific meanings - they're "exactly what it says on the tin", so to speak. That's neither here nor there though, it's not like either of us is changing our minds, so what's the point in the exchange? I'm merely pointing out what's wrong with your statement, you can take it or leave it.

As I previously stated, to vilify foreign Muslims is to vilify ethnicity as well as a religion.

RevPokemon · Jul 29, 2016

Lacius said:
I haven't even mentioned his comments at CPAC where he condemned a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants from Mexico while advocating in nearly the same sentence for more legal immigration from Europe because they're "tremendous... hard-working people

And that is also pretty much all of the other Republican candidates from 2016.

vayanui8 · Jul 29, 2016

Foxi4 said:
There isn't going to be a wall - I said it before and I'll say it again, it's political bait that's supposed to get numbnuts to vote for him. As for air and sea travel, it's practically impossible to be an illegal immigrant and enter the country by air - not with the TSA around. As for sea, it'd be easier, but the coast is more closely monitored than land - even a shitty raft pops up on a radar like a big glaring christmas light.

While the wall may not actually happen, a lot of people seem to think it actually will. Besides, if Trump is going to try and argue for it, I think it's perfectly fair for people to argue against it. He is saying he will do it whether that's true or not

Foxi4 · Jul 29, 2016

Lacius said:
It's arbitrary demagoguery based on ethnicity when illegal immigration from Mexico is about as big a problem as illegal immigration from other countries. He's also a.) Disparaging a specific ethnicity of illegal immigrant by, among other things, stating falsehoods that vilify those immigrants, and b.) He's disparaging Mexican immigrants broadly when he vilifies illegal immigration without advocating for reform to legal immigration.

Let's be clear: Donald Trump has exhibited an anti-Mexican immigrant sentiment, with or without the illegal part. You should reread my post on Trump's disparagement of judges on the sole basis of their Mexican heritage, and I haven't even mentioned his comments at CPAC where he condemned a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants from Mexico while advocating in nearly the same sentence for more legal immigration from Europe because they're "tremendous... hard-working people."

Edit: "Trump's a racist" may be a meme, but it's not a false one.

As I previously stated, to vilify foreign Muslims is to vilify ethnicity as well as a religion.

Well, what can I say - it's okay to be wrong. Richard Dawkins seems to be on board with what I'm saying as he too doesn't treat "muslim" as a race or as an ethnicity since it encompasses far too many ethnic groups from all across the world, from Africa to East Asia, which includes many races of many colours and even more ethnicities - you could stand on your head and do a twirl and you still won't prove that there's an ethnic component to being a muslim since even muslims disagree with that notion. I won't even get back to the Mexican point since once again, I'm yet to see a statement that can be considered racist, meaning "person or group X is worse than people Y specifically because they're X". Just because race can be used as a descriptor, i.e. "we have a problem with mexican immigrants" doesn't mean that the context or intent are racist, far from in. Unfortunately, in today's pussified PC world you can no longer make such statements without being called a bigot immediately, it's the race and religion baiting olympics. It's shutting down conversations just because they're problematic by putting someone in a neat little drawer with a dismissive label to pretend that a given problem doesn't exist.

Futurdreamz · Jul 30, 2016

Honestly? I'd vote Trump. Both your options are horrible, but all Trump has done is talk while Clinton is involved with scandal after scandal.

Everyone hates Trump because what he claims he will do, but everyone hates Clinton for what she did.

I sincerely believe that Trump genuinely has a somewhat intelligent plan to Make America Great Again, but he realizes he has to exploit the loopholes in your broken system to do so. What he is doing pretty much cannot be done in any other country. With the things he said, elsewhere he'd be laughed out of the election and asked to step down from even the smallest role in the government. But here the news and people eat it all up, and he knows it.

I think that if anyone wanted to get enough clout to make positive changes in the country, they would either have to take the Bernie route or the Trump route. And the Bernie route lost.

Lacius · Jul 31, 2016

Foxi4 said:
Well, what can I say - it's okay to be wrong. Richard Dawkins seems to be on board with what I'm saying as he too doesn't treat "muslim" as a race or as an ethnicity since it encompasses far too many ethnic groups from all across the world, from Africa to East Asia, which includes many races of many colours and even more ethnicities

Who says Trump is only offending one ethnicity? History's disparaging of the other often extends to a broad range of ethnicities under a single umbrella term.

Foxi4 said:
I won't even get back to the Mexican point since once again, I'm yet to see a statement that can be considered racist, meaning "person or group X is worse than people Y specifically because they're X".

To keep with your equation, "Person of group Mexican are worse than people White at being a judge specifically because they are Mexican." There are numerous more examples, and I suggest you reread my previous posts on his history of racist comments, by your definition.

Foxi4 said:
Just because race can be used as a descriptor, i.e. "we have a problem with mexican immigrants" doesn't mean that the context or intent are racist, far from in. Unfortunately, in today's pussified PC world you can no longer make such statements without being called a bigot immediately, it's the race and religion baiting olympics. It's shutting down conversations just because they're problematic by putting someone in a neat little drawer with a dismissive label to pretend that a given problem doesn't exist.

No, but it doesn't mean it's not racist, and there has been a lot more to it than that.

Foxi4 · Jul 31, 2016

Lacius said:
Who says Trump is only offending one ethnicity? History's disparaging of the other often extends to a broad range of ethnicities under a single umbrella term.

That's circumstancial - you're adding this to the narrative yourself. The core of the issue here is an anti-muslim, or rather an anti-radical muslim stance, not an anti-race stance - he's proposing a temporary ban on muslim immigration regardless of the skin colour of the muslim in question. The entire argument is religion-based, you're the one adding race into the equation. QED, argument made.

To keep with your equation, "Person of group Mexican are worse than people White at being a judge specifically because they are Mexican." There are numerous more examples, and I suggest you reread my previous posts on his history of racist comments, by your definition.

Do you even know what he actually said? He wasn't criticizing the judge because he's of Mexican descent, he was criticizing him because he found his decisions so-far unfair and he suspects that his Mexican herritage and pro-Mexican stance might be a source of bias and a conflict of interest. He wasn't claiming racial superiority or inferiority of either party, he was questioning whether the judge was impartial. Moreover, he was purposefuly baited into this "trap" throughout the interview.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...-trumps-racial-comments-about-judge-trump-un/

No, but it doesn't mean it's not racist, and there has been a lot more to it than that.

The opposite is true. The fact that we don't have evidence to prove that there isn't a giant space hampster orbiting our galaxy doesn't mean that one exists. You're making the claim that he's a racist, so the burden if proof is on you, you have to prove your allegation, not me his innocence, buddy.

Lacius · Jul 31, 2016

Foxi4 said:
That's circumstancial - you're adding this to the narrative yourself. The core of the issue here is an anti-muslim, or rather an anti-radical muslim stance, not an anti-race stance - he's proposing a temporary ban on muslim immigration regardless of the skin colour of the muslim in question. The entire argument is religion-based, you're the one adding race into the equation. QED, argument made.

Donald Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric goes far beyond merely wanting to place a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. I've also already explained how Islamophobia alone can be racist. It's disingenuous to frame the argument this way when I've given other examples of his Islamophobia other than the Muslim ban, regardless of whether or not you think it should be called a form of racism.

Foxi4 said:
Do you even know what he actually said? He wasn't criticizing the judge because he's of Mexican descent, he was criticizing him because he found his decisions so-far unfair and he suspects that his Mexican herritage and pro-Mexican stance might be a source of bias and a conflict of interest. He wasn't claiming racial superiority or inferiority of either party, he was questioning whether the judge was impartial.

I'll let the contradiction of the bold parts speak for itself. Also, saying one kind of judge is fine but the other is disqualified because of an immutable characteristic meets the definition of superior. As for his claim of bias, I'm well aware of it. I don't care why he's racist.

Foxi4 said:
The opposite is true. The fact that we don't have evidence to prove that there isn't a giant space hampster orbiting our galaxy doesn't mean that one exists. You're making the claim that he's a racist, so the burden if proof is on you, you have to prove your allegation, not me his innocence, buddy.

You seem to misunderstand my argument if you think I'm committing an argument from ignorance fallacy. I'm not saying Trump is racist because it hasn't been demonstrated that he's not. I'm saying that he's a racist because he has been demonstrated to be one. What you responded to was a direct criticism of something specific you said, not my argument.

This conversation is getting circular, so it might be fair to end it. I understand your point of view that, regardless of how bad Trump's bigotry is, it may or may not be fair to technically call it racist. I disagree for the reasons I've given above, including how racism is defined in part by the UN's International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (see my post on how Wikipedia describes the word racism's popular usage). At the very least, you can acknowledge that he's arguably racist, whether or not you exclude some of the things I've listed, and people can come to the conclusion that he's racist through critical assessment of the facts and not just jumping onto some thoughtless PC bandwagon.

I also think a lot of our disagreement is just a matter of semantics. I said long ago that it was fine if you wanted to use the word racism the way you're using it. You also seem to be selectively picking apart the examples of Trump's racism you consider arguable while ignoring other things on that list.

Foxi4 · Jul 31, 2016

Lacius said:
Donald Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric goes far beyond merely wanting to place a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. I've also already explained how Islamophobia alone can be racist. It's disingenuous to frame the argument this way when I've given other examples of his Islamophobia other than the Muslim ban, regardless of whether or not you think it should be called a form of racism.

I'll let the contradiction of the bold parts speak for itself. Also, saying one kind of judge is fine but the other is disqualified because of an immutable characteristic meets the definition of superior. As for his claim of bias, I'm well aware of it. I don't care why he's racist.

You seem to misunderstand my argument if you think I'm committing an argument from ignorance fallacy. I'm not saying Trump is racist because it hasn't been demonstrated that he's not. I'm saying that he's a racist because he has been demonstrated to be one. What you responded to was a direct criticism of something specific you said, not my argument.

This conversation is getting circular, so it might be fair to end it. I understand your point of view that, regardless of how bad Trump's bigotry is, it may or may not be fair to technically call it racist. I disagree for the reasons I've given above, including how racism is defined in part by the UN's International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (see my post on how Wikipedia describes the word racism's popular usage). At the very least, you can acknowledge that he's arguably racist, whether or not you exclude some of the things I've listed, and people can come to the conclusion that he's racist through critical assessment of the facts and not just jumping onto some thoughtless PC bandwagon.

I also think a lot of our disagreement is just a matter of semantics. I said long ago that it was fine if you wanted to use the word racism the way you're using it. You also seem to be selectively picking apart the examples of Trump's racism you consider arguable while ignoring other things on that list.

You haven't demonstrated how Islamophobia can be racist because it's impossible to do so, reason being that Islam is a religion, not a race, and you consistently try to equate the term with some form of ethnic background when in reality it's just a system of beliefs. Similarly you cannot prove thst the sun orbits the Earth - that's because it doesn't, even though it might seem like it does for an observer on Earth.

The bolded parts of my statement are not contradictory, you're just having a hard time reading in context - Trump claims that the judge is incompetent not specifically because he's a Mexican and thus his racial and ethnic background somehow disqualify him as a judge, making him an "inferior human". The reason is that being Mexican presiding over this one particular case pertaining Trump who is vocal about his policy regarding sanctions against Mexico introduces reasonable doubt concerning the judge's ability to accurately assess the case and arrive at a fair an unbiased verdict, at least according to Trump. This isn't about the judge's race or ethnic background, it's about the judge possibly having a horse in the race, however unlikely it may be. One is a matter of race, the other is a matter of association - two completely different matters. You're conflating this with racism when it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a very particular set of circumstances. You don't want a judge or jury composed of people against whom you're supposedly committing a perceived wrong - that's not how an unbiased court works. In fact, both are supposed to be unaffiliated and in no way connected to the subject matter at hand.

You haven't "demonstrated" that Trump is a racist - you're just saying that he is, and you probably honestly do believe that he is, but there's a difference between the two which often escapes you. I also think it's fair to end the conversation since we're both just repeating ourselves without getting through to one another. All I'm going to say is that I am diametrically opposed to everything you've said so far, but I'd gladly defend your right to make a complete ass out of yourself on the Internet to the death because it's incredibly entertaining to talk to you - each time I just feel like I'm talking to an alien.

mashers · Jul 31, 2016

Although the members of this site are clearly not a representative sample of the US population, is still scares me that Trump is in the lead here. I have never cared who wins the US presidential election, but I genuinely fear what could happen if an extremist like Trump becomes president. It will affect not just the US but the whole world, and I can honestly see Trump dragging us all into another major conflict.

barronwaffles · Jul 31, 2016

Lacius said:
Ignoring the inherent immorality of Islamophobia

Hahahaha.

Foxi4 · Jul 31, 2016

mashers said:
Although the members of this site are clearly not a representative sample of the US population, is still scares me that Trump is in the lead here. I have never cared who wins the US presidential election, but I genuinely fear what could happen if an extremist like Trump becomes president. It will affect not just the US but the whole world, and I can honestly see Trump dragging us all into another major conflict.

I like how myopic comments like this are. Trump, a businessman who has no reason to wage wars, will drag you into a major conflict, not Hillary who proposes attacking Assad's government in Syria as one of her first tasks should she become president.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...l-reset-syria-policy-against-murderous-assad/

The first item on her list of agendas is to oust a foreign government. Sounds peaceful and non-intrusive.

[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Whom will/would you vote for?

Hillary Clinton (Democratic Party)

Donald Trump (Republican Party)

Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party)

Jill Stein (Green Party)

Other

Darrell Castle (Constitution Party)

Evan McMullin (Independent)

Rocky De La Fuente (Reform Party)

Laurence Kotlikoff (Independent)

Tom Hoefling (America's Party)

Mike Maturen (American Solidarity Party)

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl

Well-Known Member

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Stubborn ape

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum