Over the past three years, I have watched the liberal media push the narrative of Trump being a racist. There is no question that in certain instances Trump has fed that narrative by his poor choice of words. I don’t agree with everything Trump says or does nor do I look at him as a role model but I don’t believe Trump is a racist and here is why. During Trumps time in office he has signed legislation that has directly improved the lives of minorities. Wether it was helping create more Opportunity Zones in places like Atlanta, passing the First Step Act, the Housing Finance Reform Plan, or increasing the Overall Black household income via increasing the minimum wage and reducing taxes. These pieces of legislature have been amazing in regards to directly improving the lives of millions of minorities. If Trump was so racist, why would he pass these reforms? Especially the First Step act? (Please leave the Politics and personal attacks out and just debate the issues)
Racist Narrative About Trump
- Thread starter shon46
- Start date
If you live in Tulsa, I suggest you visit the Woody Guthrie museum and read about his experience with Trump and his father Fred, and their racism practiced in their housing decades ago. That racism is ingrained in Trump today. There are plenty of examples of it almost daily. Tone deaf to Juneteenth as an event and then saying that “no one had ever heard of it before I mentioned it”. He seems to have dementia in addition to his narcissism, so I guess we’re supposed to excuse that?
The other ‘draw’ for Trump is his loyal base of neonazi and white supremacists. After all, there are “plenty of good people on both sides”, right?
The other ‘draw’ for Trump is his loyal base of neonazi and white supremacists. After all, there are “plenty of good people on both sides”, right?
Last edited:
I have not been to the Woodie Guthrie museum so thank you for educating me on that. I will check it out next time I’m home. To your second point, having grown up in Tulsa, I never heard about any other city celebrating Juneteenth like Tulsa. The Jazz Festival was the premier event in the country. There very well could have been a Nation wide celebration but as a child and teenager, I didn’t see it happening. Fast forward to adulthood and until now, organized consistent nation wide celebrations have not occurred like they have been celebrated this year. The Proof of that is represented by how much effort the media has taken to educate the public on this celebration.
One could deduce that until Trump stated he would speak on Juneteenth in Tulsa, most Americans were ignorant to this celebration and it’s importance. I find it ridiculous and outrageous that there is this uproar of people complaining about the Trump speaking on this day. Nobody complains when he speaks during MLK day or at any other event he has spoken at in solidarity with the black community over the past 3 yrs. Perhaps the November election could have something to do with this?
Finally, you state that The other ‘draw’ for Trump is his loyal base of neonazi and white supremacists. After all, there are “plenty of good people on both sides”, right? Words have power so I looked up the word base. According to Webster’s Dictionary, the definition of base is; the bottom of something considered as its support. While we agree that these groups represent the bottom of our society, you purpose that the majority of Trump supporters are parts of these groups. I do not agree with that so I went to Southern Poverty Law Center. According to them, while there has been an increase in the total number of white hate groups across the US., they still only represent a small percentage of the total population. Even if you look at the total number of votes Trump received in 2016 compared to the total number of estimated white supremacist, it is still less that 1%.
A post 2016 election analysis conducted by pewresearch.org, shows the biggest difference in the statistics from previous elections was the wide gap in presidential preferences between those with and without a college degree. College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%.
These statistics suggest that the Real „base“ of Trump supporters were people without college degrees not White Supremacy Groups.
One could deduce that until Trump stated he would speak on Juneteenth in Tulsa, most Americans were ignorant to this celebration and it’s importance. I find it ridiculous and outrageous that there is this uproar of people complaining about the Trump speaking on this day. Nobody complains when he speaks during MLK day or at any other event he has spoken at in solidarity with the black community over the past 3 yrs. Perhaps the November election could have something to do with this?
Finally, you state that The other ‘draw’ for Trump is his loyal base of neonazi and white supremacists. After all, there are “plenty of good people on both sides”, right? Words have power so I looked up the word base. According to Webster’s Dictionary, the definition of base is; the bottom of something considered as its support. While we agree that these groups represent the bottom of our society, you purpose that the majority of Trump supporters are parts of these groups. I do not agree with that so I went to Southern Poverty Law Center. According to them, while there has been an increase in the total number of white hate groups across the US., they still only represent a small percentage of the total population. Even if you look at the total number of votes Trump received in 2016 compared to the total number of estimated white supremacist, it is still less that 1%.
A post 2016 election analysis conducted by pewresearch.org, shows the biggest difference in the statistics from previous elections was the wide gap in presidential preferences between those with and without a college degree. College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%.
These statistics suggest that the Real „base“ of Trump supporters were people without college degrees not White Supremacy Groups.
Last edited:
Thank you for a well-reasoned post with links.
I would argue that supporting various legislation that ends up helping minorities, even if helping minorities is the overt intent, does not necessarily preclude racism. As for whether or not Trump actively and knowingly harbors racist ideology? I'm not sure. He might not think that he is a racist. He might even think he is very non-racist. But he sure does use the language a lot and appears to openly court the racist vote. As an example, he refused to disavow support from David Duke in 2016. A reporter asked him about it and he played dumb. The reporter then explained that Duke was a white supremacist and he still just played dumb. I don't buy for one second that he didn't know who Duke was, but even if he didn't, he could easily say to a reporters, "Listen, I've never heard David Duke. I don't want to besmirch his character unfairly. But if he is, as you say, a self-avowed white supremacist, I want absolutely nothing to do with him and I don't need or want his vote." How hard is that? The only conclusion I can come to is that he still wants racist voters, and doesn't want to push back on them too hard. Even if he doesn't actually share their beliefs, catering to them in any way is ultimately indistinguishable from tacit approval and support.
Besides things like that, there is also his constant usage of so-called 'dog-whistles'. Things that as a one-off might be dismissed, but he has a clear pattern of behavior on these things. Things like calling protestors animals. I don't want this to devolve into an argument over whether BLM protests are justified, or whether they are all well-behaved (obviously they aren't). But dehumanizing people that you disagree with, especially people predominantly of a different race then yourself, has been a tried and true racist tactic for decades. Calling people 'animals' is pretty dehumanizing, even if they are vandalizing things.
And then there is that NYTimes ad where he took out a full page to rant about how the Central Park five needed to be executed. Four black men and one Latino who happened to be innocent. Again, in a vacuum that could be considered a coincidence as they were not proven to be innocent at the time, and it was a heinous crime and the prime suspects just happened to be black. But point me to one time where he ever called for a specific white person's execution? And I should also point out that Trump is not a prosecutor with the DA, did not have access to all the evidence that they did, and still took out a full page ad to argue authoritatively for execution, which speaks, if nothing else, to his hubris. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion and often people do form loud and uninformed opinions. People spouting about Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman come to mind. But most people don't take out full page newspaper ads to shout them, and would acknowledge being wrong if conclusive evidence came out one way or the other. And to that point.... The central park five were eventually exonerated by DNA evidence, and the true criminal has been found. And yet Trump to this day refuses to acknowledge that they might be innocent and refuses to apologize to the innocent men whose lives he called to end. He could be forgiven for believing them guilty based on public evidence in 1989, but not in 2020 with what we know now.
At some point, a pattern of behavior is established and you have to call a spade a spade. I could go on and on and on and on. And he doesn't tend to do this kind of thing when it is white people involved. Again, he may not even be aware of a bias, it could be unconscious. But his behavior is on full display for everyone to analyze and come to their own conclusions. My conclusion is that even if Trump himself is unaware of it, he is deeply biased against people of color. Yours may differ. You could also believe he is an equal opportunity world-class jerk. It's possible, but I personally find that to be unlikely.
I could be wrong, of course. I am not generally in the habit of judging people that I don't actually know personally. But when asked to vote for leaders, that is exactly what everyone has to do to the best of their ability with often limited information. And both sides will try to convince you that their side is great and the other guy is a total jerk, and will often present information out of context to do so. The average voter has to become an expert at sifting through this stuff and making sound judgements. It's a tall order and most people don't do it well. I have gotten it wrong myself plenty of times. Example: I voted for Bob Filner (D) for mayor when I was still living in San Diego. I don't know why, but Carl DeMaio (his opponent) had just always rubbed me the wrong way and seemed like an opportunist. The warning signs about Filner were there, but I dismissed them as likely overblown partisan attacks. It became very clear very quickly after the election that there was a lot more to it than that. So I also signed a petition to recall him as soon as one came out. I supported elevating Kevin Falconer (R) to the position after that fiasco. And in retrospect, Carl DeMaio was an excellent candidate. I actually met him a couple of times through a friend that knew him shortly after the election. I had a few beers with him and he really seems like a decent man with a good head on his shoulders. I completely misjudged both candidates that year. That's what happens when you have to make these decisions with poor information.
I think Carl is running for Congress now somewhere in SoCal, and I wish him the best of luck. I think he would probably be a good congressman.
My favorite memory of that craziness was when Filner initially refused to step down, and so the city council changed the locks on all of the city offices and didn't give him a new key.
Last edited:
Further comment:
This happened in Santa Fe the other day. I doubt it is an insurance job as the owners called the FBI, and they had a police documented encounter with some counter-protestor maniac that pulled a gun over a parking spot and swore he'd be back just a couple of days before this happened. Swastikas, racial slurs, and "Trump 2020" were spray painted about the restaurant.
I know that an isolated maniac is not a fair representation of the GOP nor even all Trump supporters. But whomever did this explicitly brought Trump into the picture and associated their support with white power imagery and slogans. Trump didn't do it, obviously, and I would never blame him for that. But there are already calls for Trump to disavow this violence and repudiate the people who did this. So let me ask you this: What do you think the odds are that Trump actually disavows this event or one like it? Why wouldn't he want to disavow something like this? It's a political gimme if there ever was one, unless you are counting on guys like the ones who did this to vote for him. My bet? He claims it was all antifa and a false flag, if he even acknowledges it at all.
Now think of the opposite; Perhaps the Wendy's that was burned down in Atlanta. Suppose the woman who did it spray painted Biden campaign slogans in and around the crime scene along with "F*ck the police" and "Kill whitey!". Not completely outside the realm of imagination, is it? There are nuts of all stripes, and they are all pretty wound up right now. Do you think Biden would hem and haw over it or just ignore it? Or try to blame counter-protestors as a false flag? Or do you think he would forcefully and unequivocally disavow any such violence done in his name?
Not trying to say you should vote for Biden or that Biden is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I just want you to compare/contrast their expected responses to cast some light on your original question of "Why do people think Trump is racist?" Because for whatever else Biden might be, he is pretty quintessentially "not a racist".
This happened in Santa Fe the other day. I doubt it is an insurance job as the owners called the FBI, and they had a police documented encounter with some counter-protestor maniac that pulled a gun over a parking spot and swore he'd be back just a couple of days before this happened. Swastikas, racial slurs, and "Trump 2020" were spray painted about the restaurant.
I know that an isolated maniac is not a fair representation of the GOP nor even all Trump supporters. But whomever did this explicitly brought Trump into the picture and associated their support with white power imagery and slogans. Trump didn't do it, obviously, and I would never blame him for that. But there are already calls for Trump to disavow this violence and repudiate the people who did this. So let me ask you this: What do you think the odds are that Trump actually disavows this event or one like it? Why wouldn't he want to disavow something like this? It's a political gimme if there ever was one, unless you are counting on guys like the ones who did this to vote for him. My bet? He claims it was all antifa and a false flag, if he even acknowledges it at all.
Now think of the opposite; Perhaps the Wendy's that was burned down in Atlanta. Suppose the woman who did it spray painted Biden campaign slogans in and around the crime scene along with "F*ck the police" and "Kill whitey!". Not completely outside the realm of imagination, is it? There are nuts of all stripes, and they are all pretty wound up right now. Do you think Biden would hem and haw over it or just ignore it? Or try to blame counter-protestors as a false flag? Or do you think he would forcefully and unequivocally disavow any such violence done in his name?
Not trying to say you should vote for Biden or that Biden is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I just want you to compare/contrast their expected responses to cast some light on your original question of "Why do people think Trump is racist?" Because for whatever else Biden might be, he is pretty quintessentially "not a racist".
biden is going to pander to blm and pick a person of color for veep.
Pence should step aside and let Trump one up him.
Pence should step aside and let Trump one up him.
I find it interesting that he's pledged to pick a woman more than I find it interesting that he might pick an African American. Women as VP's have yet to break through.
