File: 1619215370764.png (88.05 KB, 1476x871, 1476:871, racial-polling-margin-2004….png) ImgOps Google
There have been repeated assertions by many on the left that the Trump Administration was especially racist, white nationalist, or white supremacist. If those assertions are true, one would expect that blacks and Hispanics would swing sharply toward the Democratic Party, compared to previous presidential elections. But as it turns out, Trump did better in both 2016 and 2020 than Romney had done in 2012. Of course, Obama being a black candidate probably increased support for him among blacks and thereby decreased support among blacks for his opponent. But looking at pre-Obama elections, Trump is still roughly on par with previous Republican nominees.
File: 1619215720770.png (183.09 KB, 2666x3125, 2666:3125, 115242396_usa_multiple_4no….png) ImgOps Google
And in 2020, according to exit polls,
the Dem margin among blacks was 87% - 12% = 75%, and
the Dem margin among Hispanics was 66% - 32% = 34%.https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54783016
File: 1619216212100.png (35.81 KB, 250x221, 250:221, flutterspider-148962635055….png) ImgOps Google
An odd combination
File: 1619218855728.png (633.13 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, flutterspider-148962630642….png) ImgOps Google
The Dem margin among nonwhite voters shifted from +40% in 2004 (Bush vs Kerry) to +60% in 2008 (Obama vs McCain). I'd consider that a fairly significant shift. The margin in 2020 was +42%, much closer to the 2004 margin than the 2008.
One other thing vexes me...
The OP appears to make two fundamental category errors.
First, criticism of Trump isn't something that only came about due to efforts by "the left". I actually think that the very systematic framing of this is wrong. There isn't really a "the left" in the sense of a homogenous assortment of duplicate beings deciding things in unison and acting as such, like Agent Smith in the 'Matrix' films. I'd say that there's an extremely broad grouping with loose associations that can be labeled as "left" relative to other peoples, understanding that the situation is complicated.
Trump has received severe criticism over a variety of matters, including that of his racial views, from all political groups of the general U.S. Are we forgetting that Trump only became the nominee after defeating multiple rivals in the primary, his racial opinions bring a core part of that? Are we forgetting that the conservative magazine 'National Review', which had been a core part of Republican activism and the general debate among people leaning right since the 1950s, ran an issue literally titled 'Against Trump'? Among libertarians, centrists, progressives, and all kinds of people Trump has been one of the most controversial celebrities in modern U.S. history and the most divisive elected official since Richard Nixon.
Second, the OP appears to treat being racist, being a white nationalist, and being a white supremacist as equivalent things, so calling somebody or some action one implies the other. This is false. Not sure how to sugar coat it.
The Prime Minister of Canada publicly appearing in blackface for the purposes of jokingly portraying certain stereotypes at party clearly did something stupid and racist. He shouldn't have done that. At the same time, absolutely no evidence whatsoever has come up of him viewing the white race as better than other races such that government policy should benefit them unfairly. To my understanding, Justin Trudeau is actually historic in terms of his efforts to promote equality as well as his support by various minorities.
It appears incredibly likely that a very large number of people would be willing to overlook somebody else doing something racist or even being racist as a pattern of behavior if the context mattered. In my own case, I'd say that my step-grandmother is rather clearly a racist, to the point where I feel physically ill when she comments on the appearances of black bakers on a cooking show I'm trying to watch with her. It's not that I don't see this as horrid. Or that I don't want her to change. However, I do still maintain a relationship with her and attempt to be nice to her, perhaps even unreasonably so.
Speaking more hypothetically, I would say that if a given candidate ran for office who displayed certain racist behavior but otherwise completely agreed with my beliefs on the issues... like, I don't know, what if I discover that Texas Gubernatorial candidate Matthew McConaughey (yes, the actor dude, he wants to lead Texas now) used to do hella racist joking on Twitter? Maybe got into some nasty bar rights when wasted with icky racial implications? Maybe even he did some blackface? Maybe more? I'd evaluate all that in context. It depends.
Now, what I just said doesn't magically make being racist suddenly A-OK with me. It means that I consider all kinds of things when looking at my views on other people, especially those seeking my support for higher office. I really doubt I'm alone.
I'm not sure if sorting things as 'white' versus 'not white' is helpful in those terms, statically.
Throughout the Trump Presidency, I'm not aware of any particular actions that might be said to be against the Jewish community coming from Trump personally, or from anyone in the government. I'm aware of quite a lot of antisemitism from famous Trump supporters, such as the notorious David Duke and Richard Spencer, but this wouldn't necessarily be a criticism of Trump. A lot of antisemites weirdly appear to like the Lord of the Rings but Tolkien was no bigot.
In contrast, quite a lot of open hatred of Muslim Arabs seems to have consumed the administration. Blantantly bigoted policies as well as words. I'm aware that done hardcore Trump supporters don't agreed with this framing, but honestly I think that they're either badly uninformed or just lying.
Given that neither of these groups are white, this is case that... I'm not sure. Maybe this would actually make Trump better off? Lose less support than gain?
To be honest, I've seen plenty of open commentary by Trump supporters as such. "As a Jew, your real enemy is the Muslim Arabs and their gay, transgender, liberal, atheist, socialist, st cetera enablers... Trump has made Israel stronger and wants to do the same for Jews here." Talk like that.
Thus, somebody could be racist to a great degree as well as generally quite bigoted but play things out to get significant minority support.
In my own case, I think hypocritical Orwellian double-think in the service in political goals is actually common among some? Quite a lot of the same conservatives with "liberal hunting season" bumper stickers and "rope, tree, transgender, some assembly required" plus "never arab, proud infadel" shirts will turn around and talk about not just how bad antisemitism is but how "the left" is evil because supposedly hates Jews. Hell, somebody of the far right can in the exact same conservation talk about gay people being put into camps and made to wear shame badges while express their love for Israel.
>>9233>First, criticism of Trump isn't something that only came about due to efforts by "the left".
Yes. Many on the right criticized Trump on a variety of issues. But it was from the left that came the vast majority of accusations of racism and nearly the entirety of accusations of white nationalism or white supremacism. And in any case, you can drop the phrase "by many on the left" from my OP message without significantly altering its meaning. >Second, the OP appears to treat being racist, being a white nationalist, and being a white supremacist as equivalent things, so calling somebody or some action one implies the other.
Not sure how you came to this conclusion. In any event, I agree with you that they are not equivalent and certainly didn't intend to imply that they were equivalent.
File: 1619223548687.jpg (151.89 KB, 1125x1329, 375:443, joe-biden-racial-jungle.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>9233>I don't know, what if I discover that Texas Gubernatorial candidate Matthew McConaughey (yes, the actor dude, he wants to lead Texas now) used to do hella racist joking on Twitter?
Both Trump and Biden used to be racist in the 1970s. People can forgive the past. >Now, what I just said doesn't magically make being racist suddenly A-OK with me. It means that I consider all kinds of things when looking at my views on other people, especially those seeking my support for higher office. I really doubt I'm alone.
I do too. But if a candidate was genuinely and obviously racist against blacks, that would be significant negative for me. And I expect it would be an even larger negative for black voters.
>>9235>A lot of antisemites weirdly appear to like the Lord of the Rings but Tolkien was no bigot.
Not sure why it is weird. A lot of the generation population likes LOTR. Is the percent of antisemites who like LOTR any greater than the percentage of the general population who likes LOTR?>Given that neither of these groups are white,
Which groups?>Thus, somebody could be racist to a great degree as well as generally quite bigoted but play things out to get significant minority support.
OK, so I said "racist" without qualification in the OP, but I was kinda thinking "racist against blacks and Hispanics". (Although actually Hispanic isn't a race (at least according to the US Government), but many people still (perhaps sloppily) use the term "racism" to denote prejudice against Hispanics -- I'm going to do too, to avoid excess verbosity.) And if Trump were actually racist against blacks or Hispanics, one would imagine that it would decrease support for him among those groups.>Quite a lot of the same conservatives with "liberal hunting season" bumper stickers and "rope, tree, transgender, some assembly required"
Personally, I've never seen any of that. I've seen really horrible shit on /pol/, but not IRL. Perhaps that's because I live in a city that's majority liberal, though. The only place I regularly visit where Trump supporters are a majority is a local range.
I just have to still flatly disagree with the framing.
Trump's racist actions and words have been called out by conservatives, by libertarians, by centrists, and others for years and years.
Believing "Trump is a racist" is the majority opinion of the country.
To be honest, you appear to be engaged in one of those manipulation games Trump supporters like to do in which something said, done, or believed by basically everyone is pretended to only be of "the left" (or "the far left", "the SJWs", "the radicals" and so on). And something that is a weird, isolated thing is viewed as widespread. I see this a lot and understand that it's something sincere in the minds of those who do it but remains wrong, to me.
For example, the "I'm famous therefore they let me do it"/"grab 'em by the (meow)" tape of Trump discussing sexual assault is defended by Trump supporters as language that all or most heterosexual men make privately about women, i.e. "locker room talk". In addition, Trump supporters will take specific demands made by Black Lives Matter such as that body cameras should be worn by cops and depict them as something that only, say, antifa and other communists would want. When, I've, seen body cameras are actually so popular that even most cops want to have them (their, correct I think, view being that adoption of them means exoneration from false accusations).
Biden advocated racist policies as a politician for support. He dropped those when they became unpopular. This is quite morally questionable in my opinion, making him unlike someone such as John McCain or Bernie Sanders who had always been anti-racist.
Trump did racist actions as a businessman, actively discriminating in his properties, and has continued both saying racist things and doing racist things throughout his entire life. It's open. And, I think, horrid at a different level.
As well, Trump is "I don't take responsibility at all". Never, ever in his entire life has he ever felt sorry for another person. Never apologized. Never sought amends. Never tried to make others better off at his own expense, even charity organizations functioning as tax dodges and piggy-banks rather than doing real good (I'd also like to point out that normal people are willing to help the needy without cameras present).
File: 1619225377525.gif (1003.1 KB, 540x540, 1:1, SpiderKyouko.gif) ImgOps Google
>>9240>Trump's racist actions and words have been called out by conservatives, by libertarians, by centrists, and others for years and years.
Hmm, well I guess the accusations from the right didn't stick in my mind. I'll do a mental update with this information. It doesn't really affect the main point of my OP, though, which focuses on the claims themselves, regardless of who made them. If Trump was seriously racist (as opposed to, e.g., just careless and insensitive in how he spoke), I'd expect it to drive down support for him among black voters.
>>9241>Trump did racist actions as a businessman, actively discriminating in his properties
Yes, that is well-documented.>and has continued both saying racist things and doing racist things throughout his entire life. It's open. And, I think, horrid at a different level.
Do you have any examples from after the year 2000? I don't remember seeing anything majorly racist (as opposed to just careless and insensitive).>As well, Trump is "I don't take responsibility at all". Never, ever in his entire life has he ever felt sorry for another person. Never apologized. Never sought amends. Never tried to make others better off at his own expense, even charity organizations functioning as tax dodges and piggy-banks rather than doing real good (I'd also like to point out that normal people are willing to help the needy without cameras present).
Yes, Trump is a really shitty person. No disagreement from me in that regard. The 2016 election for me was like "Which pile of dog shit do I want to step in?" -- I hated both candidates.
Do you recall when Republican House Speaker,2012 Vice Presidential Republican nominee, and suspected future Republican nominee for President post-Trump made a public statement in 2016 both morally criticizing Trump and labeling Trump a "textbook racist"?
This appears to me to be quite telling.
No comparison to this seems to exist for any Democratic or Libertarian Party Presidential context in my opinion.
I mean, just imagine if in 2020 there was a public statement by Hillary Clinton against Biden calling the man a "textbook pedophile"?
Richard Nixon is the closest example of a Presidential candidate and person in office that I can think of who would be analogous to Trump.
We tend not to think of Nixon ad only being opposed by "the left" and only being labeled as immoral by "the left"... negative attitudes are shared among most people? I think? Same for Trump?
>>9245>Do you recall when Republican House Speaker,2012 Vice Presidential Republican nominee, and suspected future Republican nominee for President post-Trump made a public statement in 2016 both morally criticizing Trump and labeling Trump a "textbook racist"?
I didn't. I just did a web search, and I found:https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/paul-ryan-rips-donald-trump-textbook-racist-comments/story?id=39668275
:>House Speaker Paul Ryan today ripped Donald Trump's attack on a federal judge over his Mexican heritage as the "textbook definition of a racist comment" but expressed no regrets about endorsing the New York businessman.>>"I regret those comments that he made," the Wisconsin Republican said in Washington today of Trump's remarks questioning federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel's ability to impartially preside over two civil lawsuits against Trump University.
I had forgotten about those criticisms from Republicans. I would like to point out one thing, though: Paul Ryan is saying that Trump's comment
is racist, not that Trump himself is racist. It is a subtle but important point. >>9245>Same for Trump?
I don't think so. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/31/donald-trump-racist-majority-say-quinnipiac-university-poll/1877168001/
:>91% of Republicans say they do not think Trump is racist; only 8% say they do.>86% of Democrats say he is racist, and 9% do not.>Among independent voters, 56% say Trump is racist compared with 38% who do not.
File: 1619233590531.png (545 KB, 1034x862, 517:431, c47e078ca5656f6d92cc380488….png) ImgOps Google
>>9247>I would expect that, as I mentioned above, in practical terms being seen as anti-Arab wouldn't necessarily mean being seen as anti-black. Not would being anti-Hispanic be as much for getting seen as anti-Asian. And so on.
Yes, that makes sense. I do not claim that Trump isn't prejudiced against Muslims or Arabs. But still, I recall a lot of claims that that Trump was racist against blacks, racist against Hispanics, and even a lot of claims that went so far as to claim that Trump is a white supremacist. And while it is true that Trump often made careless and insensitive and sometimes even rather racist remarks, I don't think he was a racist to a large degree. It's not like he was calling for racial segregation to be re-introduced or anything even close to that.
I'm not quite sure if "You're morally wrong for doing a bad thing that's racist" and "You're morally wrong for being a racist" should be seen as that far removed?
It appears to me that I might be looking at glass that's 3/4 full saying "eh, it's close enough to being full" while you're going "eh, if it's not full then I'm demanding the waitress come back". You've got your own right to your perspective, but I just don't share, and I suspect that yours is unreasonable.
I recognize that that's not the same thing exactly, but it's a difference to a level of subtly that like... hmmm. By comparison, an important but subtle distinction would exist between a reckless driver who took illegal drugs before getting behind a wheel and then ran someone over versus a political extremist who got behind the wheel onto to deliberately run someone over. Yes? We'd agree on that. I strongly suspect that we would view both behaviors be to morally beyond the pale and to require severe punishment. Perhaps one individual gets ten years in prison and the other thirty?
I'd like to add that Paul Ryan isn't unique by far and that this is well documented.
In 2019, about three dozen current Republican members of the House of Representatives called out Trump for making racist comments, a number of them prominently using the exact term "racist":https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-republicans/in-rare-rebuke-dozens-of-republicans-hit-trump-over-racist-tweets-idUSKCN1UB2RJ
I'm genuinely not sure what you're getting at with the poll that you linked.
As I've stated, most people in America accept that Trump is a racist. This is the majority, consensus view of the populace. A certain minority group doesn't agree.
Obviously, something isn't true because most people think it to be so. However, this is a crying example of a point that keeps getting made by me and others that seems to never sink in the heads of Trump supporters. I get genuinely frustrated.
It's not that "the left"/"the SJWs"/"the radicals"/etc are some dangerous outlier out there making clearly malicious lies about Trump, a man to whom everybody clearly loves and everybody clearly thinks to be the greatest fellow ever. I know that Trump himself appears to think so, his countless personal statements about himself being so grandiose that he's the most handsome man ever, the richest man ever, the most intelligent man ever, and so on. To be honest, the actual Jesus Christ of Nazareth claimed to be the Messiah and King of Kings, yet he pales like a mouse in the shadow of an elephant compared to what Trump sees himself as and what his supporters see him as. I get this.
To the vast majority of people who aren't Trump supporters, this is absurd. Beyond absurd. This is basically an L. Ron Hubbard sort of situation in which an new religious movement appears to be happening before our very eyes.
Maybe it's just my own linguistic idiosyncrasy, but I consider "X is a racist" to be a much
stronger accusation than "X said a racist thing". Like, I interpret "X is a racist" as meaning that X is racist to a significant degree.
Joe Biden arguably said something racist in 2020: "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black." I'd certainly consider it somewhat racist, and many others did too. But I don't consider Biden racist for saying it. He is prone to making gaffes, and he apologized for it .
Yes, and I agree that many of Trump's remarks are racist to some degree, as well as riddled with all sorts of other flaws. But I still wouldn't say that Trump, overall, is a racist.>>9253>This is the majority, consensus view of the populace.
It is a view held by a narrow majority of the population. I wouldn't consider it a consensus though, given how sharply people are divided on it by party lines.>It's not that "the left"/"the SJWs"/"the radicals"/etc are some dangerous outlier out there making clearly malicious lies about Trump,
Yes, I agree with that. I'd say that the country is divided roughly 51.3%-to-46.9% on whether Trump is a racist, with most of the left saying that Trump is a racist, while most on the right would only go so far as to say that Trump sometimes makes racist comments.
File: 1619241535797.png (16.98 KB, 253x215, 253:215, trump-rebuke.png) ImgOps Google
>>9254>so for them to state that the President was racist to the point of objective certainty, even having "racist" in the URL, is telling.
Huh? The word "racist" is quoted in the article. Reuters isn't asserting themselves that Trump is racist; they are merely reporting the words used by Republicans.
>>9249>"I don't think he was a racist to a large degree."
To be honest, I think this is going to come down to basic psychology to where different people with different background are simply not going to be ever able to see the situation from the other's eyes.
If we can try to define "racist" as "somebody who believes in prejudicial views in terms of race, generally in terms of promoting these views either through action, speech, or both" and then go deeper to say that "somewhat racist", "largely racist", and "completely racist" exist (all of that in contrast to "not racist") and subsets, would that help?
In such a case, it would appear clear to me in the sense of "clearly, the Earth is broadly round" and "clearly, global climate change in terms of general warming is happening" and "clearly, the coronavirus epidemic has been a real set of infections done by an actual virus in the wild rather than being an invented conspiracy" that Trump would be "largely racist".>It's not like he was calling for racial segregation to be re-introduced or anything even close to that.
What exactly is the fundamental moral difference between Trump and his supporters going "I hate Muslim Arabs to the point that I want even Muslim Arabs who are American citizens... hell, even anyone considered sympathetic enough to Arab Muslims to either share their ethnic ancestry in part or to have their citizenship... to be physically prevented using violence from entering the country if they're abroad as well as for the Muslim Arabs currently here to understand that they're second-class citizens, with them being physically made using violence to put their information into state registries and submit themselves for special monitoring" and a historical segregationist like George Wallace going like "I hate blacks to the point that they've got to understand that they're second-class citizens, with them being kept using violence from eating at our lunch counters or swimming in our pools and so on"?
I mean... a thug with a badge threatening to beat your skull in because you're walking into an airport reasonably expecting that in a just society you'd be allowed to go back to the place where you were born from and live back in the house that you live in, with this not being possible because your DNA is wrong... this appears to be something that can be called from the abstract as "forced physical separation against one's will based on solely core identity using prejudice as the pretext", and while not technically the same as Jim Crow is it really that distinguishable from Jim Crow?
In terms of government registries and being subject to specific surveillance due to born being the wrong type of person in the eyes of the state... didn't the actual, literal Nazis in history make completely identical demands at first? Claiming like "we're not really anti-Jewish, we just want them registered and monitored by a strong state so that everybody else is protected from them"? Isn't this something that came up a hella lot during Jim Crow when it came to black Americans, with civil rights campaigners being subject to all manner of illegal and immoral surveillance of their lives?
I realize that Trump supporters will likely get incredibly angry at my characterization and argue that there's an absolute disconnect between the two situations, but like...
Well, I mean, don't take my world for it. Look at, say, statements made by those in Holocaust survivor organizations:https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-holocaust-survivors-diss-trump-0203-chicago-inc-20170202-story.html
There's a difference between "I hate you so much that I don't see you as human" and "I'm going to intentionally take away your rights for the purposes of physical separation", yes. That is important and meaningful. There's also a difference between those two things and "I'm going to put a number on your arm". I understand completely.
Historically in practical terms and from my point of view in absolute moral terms, though, there's a line. An A -> B -> C path. It's not a 'slippery slope fallacy'. It's a 'if I don't even accept that you have any of the rights found in the Bill of Rights, then why stop now' thing.
File: 1619244874945.jpg (36.05 KB, 674x843, 674:843, ed24d33904d625c93fd13f3d98….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>9261>What exactly is the fundamental moral difference between Trump and his supporters going "I hate Muslim Arabs to the point that I want even Muslim Arabs who are American citizens... hell, even anyone considered sympathetic enough to Arab Muslims to either share their ethnic ancestry in part or to have their citizenship...
OK, so I keep making the mistake of saying "racist" simpliciter
when what I'm really talking about is racism against blacks and/or Hispanics
. I'll concede that Trump is significantly prejudiced against Muslims (a religion, not a race). I'm not sure if he's prejudiced against non-Muslim Arabs, but I wouldn't be surprised if he is.
>>9240>Believing "Trump is a racist" is the majority opinion of the country.
Do you have statistical evidence to back this up, or is it just your presumption?
Because I would certainly disagree, personally.
I'd say that I don't think 666 people [interesting number] who happen to answer spam calls asking a pile of questions a reliable source for the feelings of the majority of the country.
This is kind of why I don't really trust polls generally. But, then, I suppose it's difficult to get a big one anyway. Still, only 1306 people being polled, and that extrapolated onto a population of several hundred million seems like a bad idea.
I know that this isn't your intent, but the extreme nature of the situation makes this come across like deliberate trolling.
Donald Trump over and over again not only says racist things about different groups but then a)deliberately refuses to ever even consider rethinking them, let alone apologizing for them, because of his unconditional faith in himself as the world's most intelligent and most moral person in history, b)demands that his army of supporters adopt the exact same language as him while also ruthlessly flaming everyone who doesn't like those statements and aren't in the Trump camp as horrible inferiors, and c)actively uses the language as support for the specific adoption of real-world government policies intended deliberately to harm victims who deserve harming.
"The Cruelty Is The Point."
To compare this to Joe Biden making an off-the-cuff jibe in the context of trying to pander to a given audience, a statement that you yourself concede is likely not really racist but is only "arguably so", that Biden immediately apologized for because he, unlike Trump, understands himself to be a fallible human being... I'm not sure what to say.
A unicycle and an aircraft carrier can be be said to be "vehicles". That's correct. I wouldn't say that I'd put them both next to each other and make a statement in the vein of "Bob can ride a unicycle, so he definitely can pilot an aircraft carrier."
I know that polls in general should be taken with a grain of salt as far as arguments go, but I would like to also bring up this:> https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/01/17/8-in-10-black-americans-view-trump-as-a-racist-poll-finds/?sh=1c54c9f418e2
Not only do eight in ten African-Americans describe Trump as a racist, but the rise of 'Trump's America' as a whole has changed inherent U.S. culture in the eyes of most African-Americans. To the point where they actively describe it as now, compared to the past, actively bad to be black in America. This stands in direct contrast to attitudes in the very recent past.
File: 1619282066420.png (315.83 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, flutterspider-147711306471….png) ImgOps Google
>>9272>Still, only 1306 people being polled, and that extrapolated onto a population of several hundred million seems like a bad idea.
So, if the 1306 people polled is a simple random sample
of the population, you can use well-known theorems of statistics to estimate the a confidence interval for population. In this particular case, since the majority is so narrow, it might well be that you cannot determine the majority opinion at the p
=0.01 level. (I didn't bother making the calculations myself; it's been years since I did this sort of math myself.) >I'd say that I don't think ... people ... who happen to answer spam calls ... [are] a reliable source for the feelings of the majority of the country.
This is the bigger concern, I think. The people who actually answer these phone calls are not really a simple random sample of the population. And indeed, there is a theory that the types of people who refuse such phone calls are more likely to vote for Trump than the general population:https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/11/10/21551766/election-polls-results-wrong-david-shor
File: 1619283495023.png (728.76 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, flutterspider-147711252535….png) ImgOps Google
>>9282>you yourself concede is likely not really racist
Depends what you mean by "really". If you mean "in reality; actually", then I don't concede that. If you mean "very", then I agree with you: Although I think that it is racist, I think the magnitude of the racism is rather small.
I will agree that Trump is more racist [even against blacks and Hispanics] than Biden. But everyone is a little bit racist. I don't say "X is a racist" until X passes a certain threshold of racistness. Perhaps our disagreement about whether Trump is racist [against blacks and Hispanics] boils down to the threshold that we use before saying "X is a racist".
>>9283>Not only do eight in ten African-Americans describe Trump as a racist,
Compare that to the 86% of Democrats say that Trump is a racist. Given that most black voters vote for Democrats, I'm not sure that blackness has any explanatory power after controlling for political affiliation. I.e., are black Democrats any more likely to say that Trump is a racist than white Democrats? Are black Republicans any more likely to say that Trump is racist than white Republicans?>but the rise of 'Trump's America' as a whole has changed inherent U.S. culture in the eyes of most African-Americans. To the point where they actively describe it as now, compared to the past, actively bad to be black in America.
I think this is largely the result of the media attention on municipal cops killing black men and the resulting social unrest. I guess Trump's actions might have slightly worsened things, but I think his role is rather small.
File: 1622866594329.jpg (517.12 KB, 1005x1200, 67:80, aacc9dc185cadfd0e652574079….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Most Trump supporters aren't actually racist.