You cannot treat people like monoliths...

[TOKenBoiler]

sayeth the left (think Muslims, for example...you can't lump all Muslims in with the terrorist sociopath element)...except for white people who voted for Trump. They are all racists...no exceptions.

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/17/dea...n-letter-to-donald-trumps-supporters-on-race/

 

[32zone]

Intellectual laziness by the left.

 

[prophit44]

If we are being intellectually rigorous (and not lazy), there is a very fine line between "being a racist" and voting for a demagogue who clearly, loudly, and repeatedly said racist things in his campaign. It's usually accepted to presume that someone's vote reflects their views.

Almost no one wants to be called a racist. So I understand the resistance to the label. If you are now arguing that it's lazy to assume one's vote = their views, then you will need to clarify how you are redrawing those lines.

For many, Trump's overtly racist and xenophobic positions were absolutely disqualifying.

 

[32zone]

If we are being intellectually rigorous (and not lazy), there is a very fine line between "being a racist" and voting for a demagogue who clearly, loudly, and repeatedly said racist things in his campaign. It's usually accepted to presume that someone's vote reflects their views.

Almost no one wants to be called a racist. So I understand the resistance to the label. If you are now arguing that it's lazy to assume one's vote = their views, then you will need to clarify how you are redrawing those lines.

For many, Trump's overtly racist and xenophobic positions were absolutely disqualifying.

It is absolute laziness. As one of your own Jon Stewart said, "But there is now this idea that anyone who voted for him (Trump) is -- has to be defined by the worst of his rhetoric,” Stewart said. “Like, there are guys in my neighborhood that I love, that I respect, that I think have incredible qualities who are not afraid of Mexicans, and not afraid of Muslims, and not afraid of blacks. They’re afraid of their insurance premiums. In the liberal community, you hate this idea of creating people as a monolith. Don’t look as Muslims as a monolith. They are the individuals and it would be ignorance. But everybody who voted for Trump is a monolith, is a racist. That hypocrisy is also real in our country.”

 

[prophit44]

It is absolute laziness. As one of your own Jon Stewart said, "But there is now this idea that anyone who voted for him (Trump) is -- has to be defined by the worst of his rhetoric,” Stewart said. “Like, there are guys in my neighborhood that I love, that I respect, that I think have incredible qualities who are not afraid of Mexicans, and not afraid of Muslims, and not afraid of blacks. They’re afraid of their insurance premiums. In the liberal community, you hate this idea of creating people as a monolith. Don’t look as Muslims as a monolith. They are the individuals and it would be ignorance. But everybody who voted for Trump is a monolith, is a racist. That hypocrisy is also real in our country.”

I am not saying I disagree with your assertion on laziness. It's also intellectually lazy to just want to ignore the questions of Trump voters' motivation and (at least) tacitly being complicit to his racist positions. You really haven't explained how we should intellectually decouple one's vote from one's views.

Set the issue of race aside. If a person running for president were to repeatedly say something outrageous like "let's euthanize everyone over 80", wouldn't you presume that people voting for him were in agreement? Or, at the very least, willing to let it happen?

 

[32zone]

I am not saying I disagree with your assertion on laziness. It's also intellectually lazy to just want to ignore the questions of Trump voters' motivation and (at least) tacitly being complicit to his racist positions. You really haven't explained how we should intellectually decouple one's vote from one's views.

Set the issue of race aside. If a person running for president were to repeatedly say something outrageous like "let's euthanize everyone over 80", wouldn't you presume that people voting for him were in agreement? Or, at the very least, willing to let it happen?

Perhaps I wasn't paying attention but what did Trump say repeatedly that was outrageously racist?

And I mentioned this before but I didn't vote for him but I know a lot of people who did. Good people. People who aren't sexist, racist, homophobes, and etc. Most of them just flat out couldn't stand to look at Hillary the next four years - I know a lot of women who voted this way. I was amazed at how many women hate HRC. Some of the Trump voters want real economic change in their lives and didn't think Hillary was the person who was going to bring that to them. Some want jobs to stay here in this country and not be moved overseas. Some want a President who supports our police instead of constantly taking the side of the criminals. Some want something done about our borders and all of the illegal immigrants in this country. Some are Republicans who are going to vote Republican regardless of who they put up.

You would literally have to ask every single Trump voter why they voted they way they did to have your curiosity answered. There isn't one single answer.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Jon Stewart said, "But there is now this idea that anyone who voted for him (Trump) is -- has to be defined by the worst of his rhetoric,” Stewart said. “Like, there are guys in my neighborhood that I love, that I respect, that I think have incredible qualities who are not afraid of Mexicans, and not afraid of Muslims, and not afraid of blacks. They’re afraid of their insurance premiums. In the liberal community, you hate this idea of creating people as a monolith. Don’t look as Muslims as a monolith. They are the individuals and it would be ignorance. But everybody who voted for Trump is a monolith, is a racist. That hypocrisy is also real in our country.”

First off, this is a brilliant statement by Jon Stewart. I just wish more people felt like he does because this is not hypocritical, and I'm tired of said hypocrisies that I've discussed here from the right, and I'm sick of the labeling hypocrisy by the left.

Second, I don't think it's intellectual laziness that leads to this. I think it's emotion and I think that there are many on the left who are still stuck in the cycle of blame, and are resorting to the tactics that have been thrust upon them by the media, and which have been effective in the past. That is, anyone who doesn't agree with me is a ___________. That doesn't make them lazy; I think it makes them irrational.

 

[terminalg92]

First off, this is a brilliant statement by Jon Stewart. I just wish more people felt like he does because this is not hypocritical, and I'm tired of said hypocrisies that I've discussed here from the right, and I'm sick of the labeling hypocrisy by the left.

Second, I don't think it's intellectual laziness that leads to this. I think it's emotion and I think that there are many on the left who are still stuck in the cycle of blame, and are resorting to the tactics that have been thrust upon them by the media, and which have been effective in the past. That is, anyone who doesn't agree with me is a ___________. That doesn't make them lazy; I think it makes them irrational.

Yeah in what is basically a 2-party system, it would be silly to assume that a vote for a particular candidate implies acceptance of even MOST of what that candidate stands for.

Look at the math across many decades. Who had the lowest percentage of votes and who had the highest? That's basically your range. I'm simplifying but the D and R candidates each basically have 40% of the popular vote in the bag just by winning the nomination. Then the fight is on for (a) those last few percentage points and (b) increasing turnout from your pool of likely voters.

Assigning certain characteristics onto someone because of who they voted for is a fool's game, in general, but even moreso in a 2-party system.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Yeah in what is basically a 2-party system, it would be silly to assume that a vote for a particular candidate implies acceptance of even MOST of what that candidate stands for.

I will almost always vote for a Republican, but Trump was such an outsider and such a wild card, and so much of his rhetoric I found deplorable I couldn't bring myself to do it. It's why I was surprised he won... he lost so many generally Republican voters, I figured he couldn't overcome Hillary, but he did well enough with the voters who Obama appealed to in 2008 that he was able to pull it off.

I'm behind him now in the sense that his success is our success, but I am wildly skeptical.

 

[BoilerJS]

If we are being intellectually rigorous (and not lazy), there is a very fine line between "being a racist" and voting for a demagogue who clearly, loudly, and repeatedly said racist things in his campaign. It's usually accepted to presume that someone's vote reflects their views.

Almost no one wants to be called a racist. So I understand the resistance to the label. If you are now arguing that it's lazy to assume one's vote = their views, then you will need to clarify how you are redrawing those lines.

For many, Trump's overtly racist and xenophobic positions were absolutely disqualifying.

Racist views like vetting people coming into our Country from countries that have people that want to kill us. Racist remarks about not honoring a commitment by Obama to give our enemy Billions of dollars to kill our men and women in service. Racist remarks to deport illegals in this country. People who snuck into our country illegally under cover of darkness, commit crimes and are protected by sanctuary cities.
I guess my definition of a racist differ froms yours.

 

[32zone]

Racist views like vetting people coming into our Country from countries that have people that want to kill us. Racist remarks about not honoring a commitment by Obama to give our enemy Billions of dollars to kill our men and women in service. Racist remarks to deport illegals in this country. People who snuck into our country illegally under cover of darkness, commit crimes and are protected by sanctuary cities.
I guess my definition of a racist differ froms yours.

Yup - I asked prophit44 for a list of the outrageous racist comments Trump made on the campaign trail. It's been over a week and still no reply. Perhaps he's still doing a google search for the comments?

 

[prophit44]

Yup - I asked prophit44 for a list of the outrageous racist comments Trump made on the campaign trail. It's been over a week and still no reply. Perhaps he's still doing a google search for the comments?

No research necessary, other then to get the quotes captured accurately rather than paraphrase. Anyone could go much deeper in just 10 minutes, but I will stick with the low-lights:

Trump the Birther
Trump was the most vocal and publicized proponent of the clearly racist birther movement. Actively trying to deny the legitimacy of the first African American President.
"I have people that have been studying [Obama's birth certificate] and they cannot believe what they're finding ... I would like to have him show his birth certificate, and can I be honest with you, I hope he can. Because if he can't, if he can't, if he wasn't born in this country, which is a real possibility ... then he has pulled one of the great cons in the history of politics." March 30, 2011

Start with the launch of the campaign: Mexican Rapists...
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people."

Then the call to keep an entire religion from entering the US.... based upon the racist/xenophobic thinking that an entire religion is good or bad - instead of individual people.
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on"

A mean Mexican-American Judge wouldn't be able to rule fairly - because: the wall
"He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is going to give us very unfair rulings -- rulings that people can't even believe."

Then Trump's feelings were hurt by Muslim Gold Star Parents
"If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me" You get this one right? Because if you've never actually met a Muslim, its funny to joke about how Muslim women aren't allowed to speak.

Me taking 5 minutes to reply to you - this certainly isn't the first time you have seen or heard these. It isn't that we have different definitions of racism. It is that some of you see these obviously racist/xenophobic things and choose to ignore them, or you try to concoct some wild context that makes them okay - there isn't a context, and they aren't okay.

The OP seemed to be challenging the presumption that all Trump voters are racist. That is an interesting debate. These racist and xenophobic things Trump has said and done, those aren't really debatable.

 

[terminalg92]

Trump the Birther
Trump was the most vocal and publicized proponent of the clearly racist birther movement. Actively trying to deny the legitimacy of the first African American President.
"I have people that have been studying [Obama's birth certificate] and they cannot believe what they're finding ... I would like to have him show his birth certificate, and can I be honest with you, I hope he can. Because if he can't, if he can't, if he wasn't born in this country, which is a real possibility ... then he has pulled one of the great cons in the history of politics." March 30, 2011

What is your case that the birther movement is "clearly racist"?

 

[prophit44]

What is your case that the birther movement is "clearly racist"?

You seem like a reasonable person, so before addressing your question I have to clarify: are you trolling me with that question, or do you actually want to debate the racial component of birtherism?

 

[32zone]

What is your case that the birther movement is "clearly racist"?

You obviously didn't get the memo - if anyone questioned the President in the past 8 years there were clearly racial overtones to it. Didn't Hillary hitch her wagon to the birth certificate issue during the '08 campaign? And I'm willing to bet prophit voted for that racist. None of Trump's quotes are racists - he's reaching in an attempt prove his theory that America is a racist country that just voted in a racist President.

 

[prophit44]

None of Trump's quotes are racists -

I said terminal seemed like a reasonable person; I never made that assumption about you. You say a lot about yourself with your quote above. To be faced with those examples (a few out of many more) and say that they arent examples of racism demonstates remarkable ignorance.

 

[32zone]

I said terminal seemed like a reasonable person; I never made that assumption about you. You say a lot about yourself with your quote above. To be faced with those examples (a few out of many more) and say that they arent examples of racism demonstates remarkable ignorance.

There it is! The left mantra of "If I say someone is a racist, and you disagree with me well then you're a racist or ignorant or both."

Good luck to you!

 

[terminalg92]

You seem like a reasonable person, so before addressing your question I have to clarify: are you trolling me with that question, or do you actually want to debate the racial component of birtherism?

Not trying to troll, just wondering why birther claims are necessarily racist? I get how they could be racist, but I don't get how we know they are racist.

Let me give you an example. I'm white. Several years back a black man walked by me on a downtown street and spit in my face while yelling something at me (I don't remember what exactly). Was that racist of him?

IMO there isn't nowhere near enough information to definitively answer this question--maybe a few blocks down the road he spit on a black guy's face too, which would make me think he's just someone who likes to spit on people. Or in the opposite scenario maybe he spit on the next 20 white people he came across while walking past several black people without spitting--in which case I think we can reasonably infer he's got some racist tendencies!

So my question is simply what makes birther claims necessarily racist?

I will say I haven't really researched the birther issue (so feel free to point out anything obvious I'm missing), but on the surface it seems to me that Trump has a long track record of vilifying people of many races, genders, creeds and nationalities...so for example we know for a fact if John McCain were black then Trump's "you're not a hero because you got caught" attack wouldn't be racist, because he levied that attack even though McCain is actually white. Same with attacks on Hillary/Bill, et al. That's the crux of my question.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

Not trying to troll, just wondering why birther claims are necessarily racist? I get how they could be racist, but I don't get how we know they are racist.

Let me give you an example. I'm white. Several years back a black man walked by me on a downtown street and spit in my face while yelling something at me (I don't remember what exactly). Was that racist of him?

IMO there isn't nowhere near enough information to definitively answer this question--maybe a few blocks down the road he spit on a black guy's face too, which would make me think he's just someone who likes to spit on people. Or in the opposite scenario maybe he spit on the next 20 white people he came across while walking past several black people without spitting--in which case I think we can reasonably infer he's got some racist tendencies!

So my question is simply what makes birther claims necessarily racist?

I will say I haven't really researched the birther issue (so feel free to point out anything obvious I'm missing), but on the surface it seems to me that Trump has a long track record of vilifying people of many races, genders, creeds and nationalities...so for example we know for a fact if John McCain were black then Trump's "you're not a hero because you got caught" attack wouldn't be racist, because he levied that attack even though McCain is actually white. Same with attacks on Hillary/Bill, et al. That's the crux of my question.

You cannot convince anyone on the left that Trump isn't racist. It's an established fact. It wouldn't matter how many mounds of evidence you could produce on the other side of the scale. Bob Johson, the founder of BET, could say Trump isn't a racist, and it wouldn't matter...wait...he did.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/29/bet-...-stocks-are-right-to-rally-post-election.html

Personally, I think the guy says a lot of ignorant sh*t because he speaks without a filter, but I don't believe he's racist. And, just to be clear...I did not vote for him.

 

[prophit44]

[ ]

So my question is simply what makes birther claims necessarily racist?

[ ] That's the crux of my question.

Okay. we can set aside the other examples (Mexican rapists, banning a religion Judge Curiel, Khan Family) and just focus on the birther issue exclusively.

The root issue behind the birther position is making Obama illegitimate. It isn't enough to argue against his ideas - he must be silenced entirely by making him disqualified for office. It started with some fringe crackpots who were, shall we say, more overt in their positions. Remember this with McCain?


For some, it's not enough to disagree with Obama. He isn't allowed to be a worthy person with a different position; he must be categorized as completely unfit, unqualified, illegitimate, even dangerous! Now McCain is, at his core, a man of honor. To his credit, his instinct was to shut that batsh!t crazy stuff down. But notice the boos and angst when he says there's nothing to fear from Obama. What is at the root of that fear and hatred? Do you really think its policy difference? It certainly looks and sounds like irrational fear of the "different" guy running for POTUS?

While McCain took an honorable path, others saw opportunity in capitalizing on that irrational fear. Soon a cottage industry popped up to stoke those fears and make those nutters feel like they had a public advocate to help protect them. Remember, the root issue isn't citizenship - its fear of this one "different" man who would be President. The subject of the birth certificate is just a tool selected to take an existing fear/hatred and mask it with something that could seem like a legitimate concern. So instead of coming out and just saying "we are angry about the scary black man with the different sounding name", instead the spin is "we simply want to make sure he isn't defrauding all of us." The loudest and most public of the opportunists to take up this birther argument was: Trump.

Think back to all the previous Presidents who had an organized opposition question their very citizenship. How many did you recall? Zero? Think of relatively recent examples of unpopular Presidents: people from different sides HATED Carter and GW Bush. Their positions were vilified, their character was vilified, but their fundamental right to legally be President wasn't questioned. No, that level of hatred was reserved for Obama.

Obama, the first African American President, is also the first President in the modern history to have an active campaign to question his citizenship. All as a tool to stoke the fires of an irrational fear of this "different" man. One could argue that is just a coincidence (IE: your spitting analogy) - but that would seem like an astounding coincidence - wouldn't it?

Now you might say that this doesn't absolutely prove that 100% of the motivations for birtherism were racism. If you're looking for absolute clarity - most issues couldn't meet the standard of 100% iron-clad proof. However, the preponderance of the evidence is pretty clear. The only real arguments that this isn't racism are (a) People - like some fellow posters - who want to pretend racism and xenophobia don't exist unless they personally see an actual cross burning or lynching, and (b) an academic/semantic argument - like you made.

As for Trump - he is a classic demagogue. I have no idea what he believes - about this or anything else - who could? However, he says racist things, and he has included white nationalists within his strategic inner circle. What is the value in debating whether he actually believes these racist things he says/does, or if he is just using these actions to manipulate the support of people who are racists. Aren't they both pretty negative things?

 

[terminalg92]

Okay. we can set aside the other examples (Mexican rapists, banning a religion Judge Curiel, Khan Family) and just focus on the birther issue exclusively.

The root issue behind the birther position is making Obama illegitimate. It isn't enough to argue against his ideas - he must be silenced entirely by making him disqualified for office. It started with some fringe crackpots who were, shall we say, more overt in their positions. Remember this with McCain?

View embedded media

For some, it's not enough to disagree with Obama. He isn't allowed to be a worthy person with a different position; he must be categorized as completely unfit, unqualified, illegitimate, even dangerous! Now McCain is, at his core, a man of honor. To his credit, his instinct was to shut that batsh!t crazy stuff down. But notice the boos and angst when he says there's nothing to fear from Obama. What is at the root of that fear and hatred? Do you really think its policy difference? It certainly looks and sounds like irrational fear of the "different" guy running for POTUS?

While McCain took an honorable path, others saw opportunity in capitalizing on that irrational fear. Soon a cottage industry popped up to stoke those fears and make those nutters feel like they had a public advocate to help protect them. Remember, the root issue isn't citizenship - its fear of this one "different" man who would be President. The subject of the birth certificate is just a tool selected to take an existing fear/hatred and mask it with something that could seem like a legitimate concern. So instead of coming out and just saying "we are angry about the scary black man with the different sounding name", instead the spin is "we simply want to make sure he isn't defrauding all of us." The loudest and most public of the opportunists to take up this birther argument was: Trump.

Think back to all the previous Presidents who had an organized opposition question their very citizenship. How many did you recall? Zero? Think of relatively recent examples of unpopular Presidents: people from different sides HATED Carter and GW Bush. Their positions were vilified, their character was vilified, but their fundamental right to legally be President wasn't questioned. No, that level of hatred was reserved for Obama.

Obama, the first African American President, is also the first President in the modern history to have an active campaign to question his citizenship. All as a tool to stoke the fires of an irrational fear of this "different" man. One could argue that is just a coincidence (IE: your spitting analogy) - but that would seem like an astounding coincidence - wouldn't it?

Now you might say that this doesn't absolutely prove that 100% of the motivations for birtherism were racism. If you're looking for absolute clarity - most issues couldn't meet the standard of 100% iron-clad proof. However, the preponderance of the evidence is pretty clear. The only real arguments that this isn't racism are (a) People - like some fellow posters - who want to pretend racism and xenophobia don't exist unless they personally see an actual cross burning or lynching, and (b) an academic/semantic argument - like you made.

As for Trump - he is a classic demagogue. I have no idea what he believes - about this or anything else - who could? However, he says racist things, and he has included white nationalists within his strategic inner circle. What is the value in debating whether he actually believes these racist things he says/does, or if he is just using these actions to manipulate the support of people who are racists. Aren't they both pretty negative things?

Thanks for thoroughly laying out your birtherism-is-racism case. I have to say I'm still unconvinced. The crux of the argument seems to be "1-birther/illegitimacy claims were leveled against Obama; 2-Obama is black; 3-the birther claims were leveled against Obama because he is black; 4-therefore the birther claims were racist claims." 1 & 2 are facts but 3 doesn't logically follow from 1 & 2, it's a non-sequitur.

There are a few reasons why I dispute the bridge to #3.

Consider literally the very next Democrat to run for office after Obama--Hillary Clinton. Illegitimacy claims or "disqualified for office claims" in your words were also leveled frequently against her this campaign--Trump and many Republicans literally and repeatedly said, and I quote, "Hillary Clinton should not even be allowed to run for the presidency." But Hillary's white, so racism couldn't be the reason for the illegitimacy claims. So was it sexism, because she would've been the first woman president? Or something else?

And there was even an earnest but failed attempt to delegitimize/disqualify the previous Democrat's presidency as well, literally through impeachment. (Bill Clinton of course)

I know what you're probably thinking, regarding the nature of these various illegitimacy claims: Hillary (FBI probe etc.), Bill (Lewinski etc.), Obama (birtherism), these are all very different types of claims of illegitimacy. True! But the common thread is they are still all claims to delegitimize the president or candidate.

You asked what other modern presidents had "an active campaign to question his citizenship" and I agree I don't know of any, but my counter-question is what other modern presidents (a) had a name like Barack Hussein Obama, in a time when 9/11 was fresh on our minds and we were literally hunting down foreign terrorists named Osama and Hussein? (b) had a father with the same name, who was not an American citizen and who was raised Muslim? (c) who wasn't born in the continental United States and until college almost exclusively lived outside the continental US? (d) lived much of his childhood in the world's largest Muslim-majority country?

To be clear I'm not suggesting in any way those facts about President Obama necessitate or legitimize birther claims, I'm just saying that if one wanted to try and delegitimize a candidate under those circumstances, birtherism would seem to offer a relatively clean approach to doing so.

I'll put it a different way. Could the birther movement have ever gained any momentum if at birth Barack Obama was instead given the name John Williams II, and was instead born to parents from Ohio who were both American-born and American-citizens (still a black father and white mother), and this President John Williams II was born and raised in Cincinnati, lived his whole life in the States, etc. Any sort of birther movement under that scenario would be doomed from the start! Even so, the opponent probably still would've tried to question his legitimacy with some other angle, as frequently that seems to be the MO.

 

[prophit44]

Thanks for thoroughly laying out your birtherism-is-racism case. I have to say I'm still unconvinced. The crux of the argument seems to be "1-birther/illegitimacy claims were leveled against Obama; 2-Obama is black; 3-the birther claims were leveled against Obama because he is black; 4-therefore the birther claims were racist claims." 1 & 2 are facts but 3 doesn't logically follow from 1 & 2, it's a non-sequitur.

There are a few reasons why I dispute the bridge to #3.

Consider literally the very next Democrat to run for office after Obama--Hillary Clinton. Illegitimacy claims or "disqualified for office claims" in your words were also leveled frequently against her this campaign--Trump and many Republicans literally and repeatedly said, and I quote, "Hillary Clinton should not even be allowed to run for the presidency." But Hillary's white, so racism couldn't be the reason for the illegitimacy claims. So was it sexism, because she would've been the first woman president? Or something else?

And there was even an earnest but failed attempt to delegitimize/disqualify the previous Democrat's presidency as well, literally through impeachment. (Bill Clinton of course)

I know what you're probably thinking, regarding the nature of these various illegitimacy claims: Hillary (FBI probe etc.), Bill (Lewinski etc.), Obama (birtherism), these are all very different types of claims of illegitimacy. True! But the common thread is they are still all claims to delegitimize the president or candidate.

You asked what other modern presidents had "an active campaign to question his citizenship" and I agree I don't know of any, but my counter-question is what other modern presidents (a) had a name like Barack Hussein Obama, in a time when 9/11 was fresh on our minds and we were literally hunting down foreign terrorists named Osama and Hussein? (b) had a father with the same name, who was not an American citizen and who was raised Muslim? (c) who wasn't born in the continental United States and until college almost exclusively lived outside the continental US? (d) lived much of his childhood in the world's largest Muslim-majority country?

To be clear I'm not suggesting in any way those facts about President Obama necessitate or legitimize birther claims, I'm just saying that if one wanted to try and delegitimize a candidate under those circumstances, birtherism would seem to offer a relatively clean approach to doing so.

I'll put it a different way. Could the birther movement have ever gained any momentum if at birth Barack Obama was instead given the name John Williams II, and was instead born to parents from Ohio who were both American-born and American-citizens (still a black father and white mother), and this President John Williams II was born and raised in Cincinnati, lived his whole life in the States, etc. Any sort of birther movement under that scenario would be doomed from the start! Even so, the opponent probably still would've tried to question his legitimacy with some other angle, as frequently that seems to be the MO.

Fair enough, you can choose to believe what you like. I'm sure all those people who were so afraid and hateful of Obama, his different skin color and his threatening name were policy wonks and fierce political partisans and not racists. Those people in the McCain video look like maybe supply-side economy experts to me.

Noting he is different, with a unique name and family history is pretty legitimate. However, with the facts about his history available, people choosing to make accusations that he was: an Arab, a Muslim, a Kenyan, or the child of satan... that was based on more than political disagreements.

 

[CWS]

Fair enough, you can choose to believe what you like. I'm sure all those people who were so afraid and hateful of Obama, his different skin color and his threatening name were policy wonks and fierce political partisans and not racists. Those people in the McCain video look like maybe supply-side economy experts to me.

Noting he is different, with a unique name and family history is pretty legitimate. However, with the facts about his history available, people choosing to make accusations that he was: an Arab, a Muslim, a Kenyan, or the child of satan... that was based on more than political disagreements.

While later corrected, or "corrected", depending on your take, his own book literally said that he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. It was only corrected ("corrected") when it became politically expedient to do so.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp

While I and many others like me totally disagree with President Obama and Secretary Clinton, I think we almost all like President Obama as a person WAY better than Secretary Clinton. I'm not sure what derogatory term that makes me.

I'm not saying that he was or wasn't born here, but that his book itself was enough to at least raise the question. The whole delay in producing the birth certificate didn't help. I saw a funny tweet or cartoon that said President Obama should leave an envelope in the White House desk that says "secret birth certificate" on it. That would be hilarious.

 

[kescwi]

Okay. we can set aside the other examples (Mexican rapists, banning a religion Judge Curiel, Khan Family) and just focus on the birther issue exclusively.

The root issue behind the birther position is making Obama illegitimate. It isn't enough to argue against his ideas - he must be silenced entirely by making him disqualified for office. It started with some fringe crackpots who were, shall we say, more overt in their positions. Remember this with McCain?

View embedded media

For some, it's not enough to disagree with Obama. He isn't allowed to be a worthy person with a different position; he must be categorized as completely unfit, unqualified, illegitimate, even dangerous! Now McCain is, at his core, a man of honor. To his credit, his instinct was to shut that batsh!t crazy stuff down. But notice the boos and angst when he says there's nothing to fear from Obama. What is at the root of that fear and hatred? Do you really think its policy difference? It certainly looks and sounds like irrational fear of the "different" guy running for POTUS?

While McCain took an honorable path, others saw opportunity in capitalizing on that irrational fear. Soon a cottage industry popped up to stoke those fears and make those nutters feel like they had a public advocate to help protect them. Remember, the root issue isn't citizenship - its fear of this one "different" man who would be President. The subject of the birth certificate is just a tool selected to take an existing fear/hatred and mask it with something that could seem like a legitimate concern. So instead of coming out and just saying "we are angry about the scary black man with the different sounding name", instead the spin is "we simply want to make sure he isn't defrauding all of us." The loudest and most public of the opportunists to take up this birther argument was: Trump.

Think back to all the previous Presidents who had an organized opposition question their very citizenship. How many did you recall? Zero? Think of relatively recent examples of unpopular Presidents: people from different sides HATED Carter and GW Bush. Their positions were vilified, their character was vilified, but their fundamental right to legally be President wasn't questioned. No, that level of hatred was reserved for Obama.

Obama, the first African American President, is also the first President in the modern history to have an active campaign to question his citizenship. All as a tool to stoke the fires of an irrational fear of this "different" man. One could argue that is just a coincidence (IE: your spitting analogy) - but that would seem like an astounding coincidence - wouldn't it?

Now you might say that this doesn't absolutely prove that 100% of the motivations for birtherism were racism. If you're looking for absolute clarity - most issues couldn't meet the standard of 100% iron-clad proof. However, the preponderance of the evidence is pretty clear. The only real arguments that this isn't racism are (a) People - like some fellow posters - who want to pretend racism and xenophobia don't exist unless they personally see an actual cross burning or lynching, and (b) an academic/semantic argument - like you made.

As for Trump - he is a classic demagogue. I have no idea what he believes - about this or anything else - who could? However, he says racist things, and he has included white nationalists within his strategic inner circle. What is the value in debating whether he actually believes these racist things he says/does, or if he is just using these actions to manipulate the support of people who are racists. Aren't they both pretty negative things?

I'll admit I didn't read all of that, trust you enough that I'm sure it is well thought out, just wanted to add, McCain was born in the PCZ at a time when the US did not recognize, military included, any child born there as a US citizen. After his birth, retroactively, that was changed and they became citizens by birth. If any candidates birth as a NBC could have been questioned, not that it should have been but, it was McCain.

White guy born outside the USA in a place the USA specifically said you were not a citizen if born there, gets a pass, Black guy with nothing but conjecture needs to prove he belongs. Yep, nothing racial to be seen here.

 

[terminalg92]

Fair enough, you can choose to believe what you like. I'm sure all those people who were so afraid and hateful of Obama, his different skin color and his threatening name were policy wonks and fierce political partisans and not racists. Those people in the McCain video look like maybe supply-side economy experts to me.

Noting he is different, with a unique name and family history is pretty legitimate. However, with the facts about his history available, people choosing to make accusations that he was: an Arab, a Muslim, a Kenyan, or the child of satan... that was based on more than political disagreements.

In the end I don't personally care about the birther thing as I'm not a D nor an R. I just observe that people often attribute things to racism that may or may not be racism.

e.g. how many times over the last 8 years did someone in gov't or the media make an earnest claim that Republican obstruction of Obama's policies was racially motivated?

And yet (and I can't prove this but given the political vitriol in the air I don't think it's a controversial point), the obstruction would've been as bad or worse with Hillary Clinton as it was with Obama. So given that she's white is this obstructionism suddenly sexist instead of racist? Or at some point do we just reduce the analysis down to the lowest common denominator and observe that politicians tend to obstruct opposing politicians in any way they can, and that politics is a very dirty endeavor?

Heck according to a WaPo poll a few weeks ago literally 1/3 of Democrats don't even accept Trump's victory as legitimate!! Given that 40% of the Democratic Party is non-white should that illegitimacy claim then interpreted to be racist against whites? Or ageist because Trump is the oldest newly-elected President? Or is it more likely just politics as usual??

 

[TOKenBoiler]

In the end I don't personally care about the birther thing as I'm not a D nor an R. I just observe that people often attribute things to racism that may or may not be racism.

e.g. how many times over the last 8 years did someone in gov't or the media make an earnest claim that Republican obstruction of Obama's policies was racially motivated?

And yet (and I can't prove this but given the political vitriol in the air I don't think it's a controversial point), the obstruction would've been as bad or worse with Hillary Clinton as it was with Obama. So given that she's white is this obstructionism suddenly sexist instead of racist? Or at some point do we just reduce the analysis down to the lowest common denominator and observe that politicians tend to obstruct opposing politicians in any way they can, and that politics is a very dirty endeavor?

Heck according to a WaPo poll a few weeks ago literally 1/3 of Democrats don't even accept Trump's victory as legitimate!! Given that 40% of the Democratic Party is non-white should that illegitimacy claim then interpreted to be racist against whites? Or ageist because Trump is the oldest newly-elected President? Or is it more likely just politics as usual??

It would be interesting to see a black, Republican President and one or both houses of Congress controlled by Democrats. Liberals wouldn't see their obstruction as racist and the MSM wouldn't call it that, either. This is simply what liberals do, they play an "-ism/-phobia" card whenever it's opportune. There is no principled disagreement...just racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc.

 

[SDBoiler1]

It would be interesting to see a black, Republican President and one or both houses of Congress controlled by Democrats. Liberals wouldn't see their obstruction as racist and the MSM wouldn't call it that, either. This is simply what liberals do, they play an "-ism/-phobia" card whenever it's opportune. There is no principled disagreement...just racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc.

Ds are the absolute masters of identity politics. Now that it seems that the electorate chose to elect a man who campaigned strongly against identity politics, the Progressives don't know what to do besides throw a hissy fit. They keep trying to frame the reasons they lost in terms of identity politics and it continues to make them look like they are completely out-of-touch with the majority of the landmass of America.

Democrats seem to think being the party of the coastal elites (NY, MA, CA) and IL (basically Chicago) resonates with the people.

It's shocking to me to hear some of the comments from HRC's campaign staff at the post-election review at Harvard. Jen Palmieri, HRC's mouthpiece, still insists that Trump won because of white nationalists and white supremacists. Robby Mook, too. These people are absolutely clueless, it seems. they cannot fathom that America rejected HRC's (and Obama's) Progressive message of divisiveness.

 

[Yoderboy89]

No research necessary, other then to get the quotes captured accurately rather than paraphrase. Anyone could go much deeper in just 10 minutes, but I will stick with the low-lights:

Trump the Birther
Trump was the most vocal and publicized proponent of the clearly racist birther movement. Actively trying to deny the legitimacy of the first African American President.
"I have people that have been studying [Obama's birth certificate] and they cannot believe what they're finding ... I would like to have him show his birth certificate, and can I be honest with you, I hope he can. Because if he can't, if he can't, if he wasn't born in this country, which is a real possibility ... then he has pulled one of the great cons in the history of politics." March 30, 2011

Start with the launch of the campaign: Mexican Rapists...
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people."

Then the call to keep an entire religion from entering the US.... based upon the racist/xenophobic thinking that an entire religion is good or bad - instead of individual people.
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on"

A mean Mexican-American Judge wouldn't be able to rule fairly - because: the wall
"He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is going to give us very unfair rulings -- rulings that people can't even believe."

Then Trump's feelings were hurt by Muslim Gold Star Parents
"If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me" You get this one right? Because if you've never actually met a Muslim, its funny to joke about how Muslim women aren't allowed to speak.

Me taking 5 minutes to reply to you - this certainly isn't the first time you have seen or heard these. It isn't that we have different definitions of racism. It is that some of you see these obviously racist/xenophobic things and choose to ignore them, or you try to concoct some wild context that makes them okay - there isn't a context, and they aren't okay.

The OP seemed to be challenging the presumption that all Trump voters are racist. That is an interesting debate. These racist and xenophobic things Trump has said and done, those aren't really debatable.

There is no evidence of racism in what you shared. Stereotyping isn't racism. It's a collection of thoughts associated with individual groups of people.

Racism is: "I hate that person because he or she is black or a Muslim."

Not: "I think that person wasn't born in America so let's get to the bottom of it."

What the left does is twist and distort words to infer the negative, which is to assail opponents with labels of racism based on their own inferences.

Normal people, if confused by a statement, ask the person to clarify their point. "Are you saying you hate black people by wanting to know if the president was born in America?"

Nope, they never ask for clarification. They just run with the baseless accusation in order to damage the reputation of said person.

Let's be honest. That's what's going on here. If someone was really a racist, I don't know of anyone who wouldn't disapprove of it.

Racism isn't a loose inference. It's a very specific, deliberate act. And you are recklessly belittling its meaning.

 

[BoilerJS]

Fair enough, you can choose to believe what you like. I'm sure all those people who were so afraid and hateful of Obama, his different skin color and his threatening name were policy wonks and fierce political partisans and not racists. Those people in the McCain video look like maybe supply-side economy experts to me.

Noting he is different, with a unique name and family history is pretty legitimate. However, with the facts about his history available, people choosing to make accusations that he was: an Arab, a Muslim, a Kenyan, or the child of satan... that was based on more than political disagreements.

Satan, Satan you say? The number of the beast is 666.
Fire and brimstone stone. We are all doomed. Coincidence-The Illinois pick three numbers the day after Obama got elected, the first time, were? 666. No kidding.
I sure hope we all make it the next month under his leadership without Armageddon!
HRC brought up this birther stuff. Trump, as an entertainer ran with it. I'd say he didn't want Obama in office. Trump is not a racist. An outspoken bafoon at times but not a racist. What happened to the 11 women who accused him of inappropriate groping. I guess HRC campaign ran out of money after the election. Just like HRCs claim on the birther movement the groping was fabricated by her campaign.