El Presidente Trump

Nobody knows what a Trump presidency will look like. We have to see what he does and how he behaves towards Congress.

The conversation appears to have gone a bit off the rails. We're now on BBC and some annoyed woman. I actually figured it was some totally over the top thing, but tbh, if I was sitting there as a black woman and a white man in his nice suit tried to explain to me that Donald Trump wasn't sending out entirely racist messages as part of his way of appealing to the lowest common denominator (which doesn't accurately reflect his entire support base, no, but it -is- part of it), while the KKK are still celebrating, I'd be inclined to ask him where the **** he gets off defending him against the evidence of my own ears and eyes as well.

Believe it or not, I was actually inclined to reckon it probably was an example of an over-the-top liberal, since they definitely exist, but while her phrasing was unfortunate, it's a lot more harmless (especially when read as "you don't get to, as a white man, defend -that- guy's assholery as not being racist") than some of the other **** out there.

Thing is, Trump absolutely has been racist. Here's an example of some points;
"Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It's not anything they can control.... Don't you agree?" - Now, this is from a book that wasn't authorised by Trump, but he did clarify that what the guy wrote was "probably true" several years later. He's since denied everything. Take it with a pinch of salt if you want.

He managed to be sued by the Justice Department in 1973 for racist discrimination in housing rental. I mean, you could get away with a lot of **** in 1973, so it was pretty blatant if he could get sued for it. He settled and his people had to undergo training in not being douchenozzles.

The Birther Saga - c'mon. Really. Does anyone really think this idiot myth would have lasted so long with legs if Obama had been white? Reeeally?

Oh, and he's hired this guy;
"Ms. Jones, the film colleague, said that in their years working together, Mr. Bannon occasionally talked about the genetic superiority of some people and once mused about the desirability of limiting the vote to property owners.
“I said, ‘That would exclude a lot of African-Americans,’” Ms. Jones recalled. “He said, ‘Maybe that’s not such a bad thing.’ I said, ‘But what about Wendy?’” referring to Mr. Bannon’s executive assistant. “He said, ‘She’s different. She’s family.’”" - Yeah, it's an anecdote, but there's been a few too many of those out there for a bit too long (i.e. well before the Great Smear Race, 2016, sorry, I mean the presidential election.

Like, I've just picked out a few egregious examples and I've not even touched on Muslims or immigrants. But all things considered, yes, the guy's either a racist or perfectly happy to suck on racist propaganda to further his efforts.

So, while yes, I do reckon that white people should have an opinion on racism, I don't agree that this particular guy got anything more than he deserved for condescendingly contradicting freaking reality to someone who is actually amongst the targeted group.

We're well past smoothing things over for a candidate because the alternative is much worse. Clinton's gone. Need to focus on this guy and what he's up to. There is no goddam way that any of the above would not be considered racist if there wasn't so much riding on whether Trump can act like a sane, intelligent leader for the next four years.

In short, oh, stop whining about the mean black lady being nasty to the poor white guy. He said something dumb, he got smacked for it. Maybe it wasn't smacked down in the most safe space, politically correct way possible, but at the same time, she was a hell of a lot more correct than he was. Why is it that anyone leaning left has to not only prove beyond shadow of a doubt with multiple eye-witnesses that something happened, while phrasing it as gently and nicely and understatedly as possible for fear of hurtiing feelings, when the right seem to be able to come out with any old **** and don't even have to goddam check it? Where I was uncertain of my sources up there, I goddam noted it, even if it's harmful to my argument.

ALSO, if he's so darn sure there was massive voter fraud against him - and bearing in mind he WON - shouldn't he be all for the recount? Prove that the majority of the country really did vote for him and that his campaign's "three-prong voter suppression tactic" did in fact work?

Put your money where your mouth is, Trump. I know we might see that there's less of it than you say there is, but have some balls of any variety, please.

The flying mouse wrote: »

And if that had being the result & Hillary did win ? You be all saying suck it up Donald the people have had there say.This thread wouldn't even exist.


I would be known as liberal open minded person, but the reaction of the media & a lot of online whatever they are to the results first from Bretix & now from Trumps democratic (as they both do it) wins is pushing me away,
All this thread is posting is swipes & critism from every source that comes up.

Embrace the change folks as your certainly not doing your corner any good favour's, imo.

Honestly? I'd have rolled my eyes because I absolutely would have expected it from Trump's words beforehand. But I'd have accepted it was part of the democratic process.

And the problem is that he is incredibly criticisable. What have I, for instance, said about Trump that just isn't fair or is untrue criticism*? Have I unjustly swept peoples comments aside or have I attempted to engage with them and fact check them? Which side is, honestly, doing more protesting about needing safe spaces and how people should just accept it while some very dodgy things are going on in the transition phase?

Accepting that the other side won does NOT mean accepting everything that proceeds from that. Not when there's this many warning signs. Not when peoples' lives are actually affected. But give many of us the credit for attempting in a very anti-fact climate, to treat it in a fair and measured fashion (by reading up on it).

*I have engaged from time to time in creative hyperbolic descriptions such as "narcissistic orange", but that's just how I speak. I do at least back this stuff up with data. I can absolutely back up both "narcissistic" and "orange". And "tangerine" and "nitwit", although I grant the last is subjective.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/28/trump-tweets-new-voter-fraud-claims-blasts-cnn-but-offers-no-evidence.html

Honestly. What the actual hell is even going on here? Why on -earth- should this level of actual downright stupid be ignored because the guy's in line for one of the most powerful positions in the world?

Why is it stupid? It certainly seems obvious to me, but in case of a biased perspective since I do think he's ...yes, anyway;

- Party without a hope initiates recount because they have some so-so statistical evidence. Well, that's their right to do so, and they're not yelling accusations of massive fraud, they're carrying out a check. Clinton's campaign did not push for and it actually put them in a rather awkward spot.

- Trump goes on a twitter rampage baselessly accusing the democrats of massive voter fraud without even the remotest shred of evidence and then has the nerve to accuse journalists of not doing their job -because they're not backing up his nonsense-. One of them's challenged him there to produce some evidence as that's what they're looking for. Not seen a response yet.

There are so many nasty signals in this that it's a bit of a pandora's box.
First, he's supposed to be leader of all Americans, not just the ones that voted for him. He's actively undermining the democratic process here by trying to sabotage the recount by stirring up ****.

Secondly, he's supposed to be a -leader-, full stop, and he's using baseless accusations to stoke tensions between groups rather than let something that he doesn't personally like happen. Despite that if he's telling the truth, it should be something he -welcomes-.

Thirdly, the hypocrisy is just staggering, given his comments beforehand. Let me direct you again to "I'll accept the results...if I win".

Fourthly, YOU STARTED THIS ****, TRUMP. He started it months ago, laying the groundwork for excuses why he didn't win. He undermined the democratic process of his own country and damaged the faith of millions in it RATHER THAN RISK LOSING FACE. And this is a fcuking leader, is it? A man who puts his own fragile psyche before the good of his people. Yeah, that's where my absolute contempt of him comes from. The rest, nasty as it is, is just really unpleasant icing. This attitude is the really scary one.

Did I miss anything? I got a bit caught up in point four.