Is Trump a racist?

From iGeek
(Redirected from OldLink:2514)
Jump to: navigation, search

Let's start by reviewing what words actually mean:

  • Racism - ray•se•zem. noun: the belief that ALL members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
  • Not-racism: insulting an individual (based on their race), because you don't like them, or something they said or did. That's a personal attack on an individual, not an entire race. It might be racially or culturally insensitive, it might hint at a bigger racial issue, but it's often mislabeled by the politically correct as racism.

People that confuse Not-racism for Racism either:

  • (a) don't know what they're talking about and are conforming what they've been mis-educated on (media, school, cliques)
  • (b) they know better and are using one of the most vile accusations in American culture to shut down an honest discussion or argument that they're losing

So now that we are reminded what the words actually mean, let's review what's going on.

Building a wall

Q: Is building a wall a racist act?
A: It could be, depending on your motives.

If your motive is that you think all latinos are inferior to whites, then sure. It could be racism. But the most likely explanation is that you believe in defending the immigration laws of the country, providing national defense, and that immigration needs to be controlled.

The Mexico-American border is the most heavily crossed border in the world, both legally and illegally. The history of "the wall" or fence goes like this:

  • 1937 under FDR with the Organ Pipe National Park (ORPI) building cattle fences to prevent Mexican cattle from overgrazing on American land[1]
  • 1960's and the "War on Drugs" started the creation of a barrier in earnest, and was expanded under Nixon in the early 1970's.
  • 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) responded to rising illegal immigration problem by providing one-time-amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants, in return for increased border security (the promise of the fence by Democrats) and penalties for companies "knowingly" hiring illegal immigrants.
  • 1994 NAFTA harmed Mexico previously protectionist agriculture with cheaper American produce, this (along with a booming dot-com economy) caused a big immigration wave north, and increased the pressure on better immigration controls.
  • 1996 Bill Clinton's State of the Union address promises, "One of these areas is the problem of illegal immigration. After years of neglect, this administration has taken a strong stand to stiffen the protection of our borders." to finally live up to to the promises of 1986[2]
  • 2003 Israel's first major segment of the West Bank barrier is completed (this was started in 1992), the effect is an immediate reduction in violence and suicide bombings. Each new segment sees further decreases, and this invigorates American politicians aware of the problem, to follow Israel's lead. Are they all racists? [3]
  • 2006, After 9/11 Congress authorized the Secure Fence Act, under the guise of national security: a multi-billion dollar plan to build hundreds of miles of fencing along the border. Hillary Clinton speaks out in favor of the wall[4]. She tried to walk that back after the Trump issue by claiming she was "for a fence, but against a wall", completely Clinton'ing the topic. Yeah, a fence is less racist than a wall.
  • 2007 After the 2006 election brought them wins, the Democrats start walking back their promises, delay many parts of the project, start pushing for more "environmental studies", and by 2010 put a freeze on the project, due to cost overruns partly caused by their shifting requirements, delays and studies.
  • 2014 ISIS and Al Queda are sending people to Mexico with the intent of them crossing the border and infiltrating the U.S. illegally. A few are caught in the U.S., but in immigrations usual catch and release program, they are released in U.S. before identified, and they disappeared.

Where we sit today is 580 miles of the 1,954-mile border with Mexico has some sort of official fence. (There are other tracts which may have something like cattle fencing / barbed wire, but are local ranchers fences, not official border control). Around 400 people die per year trying to cross the border illegally, but it fluctuates dramatically depending on the economy. There are a few overlapping issues : immigration laws, national security, and broken promises.

Republicans feel the Democrats have been promising then obstructing their side of the agreement -- because Democrats win key votes with the help of illegal aliens (lookup my old haunt, the 46th district and Bob Dornan / Loretta Sanchez as an example), and Democrats see it as a wedge issue where they can play both sides. They tell the Unions and Americans they'll fix it, tell latino's they're against it, and calls anyone that tries to fulfill their promises a racist. It's win-win for them.

Progress is harder because of past broken promises by the Democrats, and their demagoguing. This is like when the Democrats torpedo'ing Bush's immigration reform by calling it amnesty, (turning his party against it), while selling the Latinos that the failure was all because of the Republicans. Or like Obama's unconstitutional executive overreach (he's been ruled against many times by federal judges and Supreme Court), or lies that ACA wouldn't cover illegal aliens (but does), that causes political backlash against amnesty and illegal aliens, then they use that backlash to paint the Republicans as racist, for this political fight.

But if the wall / border fence is racist, then all the Democrats that supported it, including Hillary Clinton, are racists as well. They don't get it both ways.

Of course what happens is that polemics claim that the Democrats motives are pure and not race-based, while the evil Republicans are all racists for wanting to actually do what the Democrats promised the public they would do. But those with a clue, know there’s scummy politicians on both sides.

Cohen v. Trump

  • Donald Trump is in a lawsuit (Cohen v. Trump), where he is accused of fraud for calling his real-estate seminars a "University", and that it wasn't worth the money, by a law-firm whose principal's maxed out their donation to Hillary Clinton, and paid the Clinton’s hundreds of thousands more in speaking fees.
  • Trump's lawyers showed that of the named plaintiff (Tarla Makaeff), and the other key witnesses named in the lawsuit, had given glowing exit recommendations, and even testimonials on video tape, of the value of the education they received, as had over 98% of the customers, in contradiction to the case's key points. 4 of the 6 charges were immediately thrown out, and the plaintiffs' lawyers filed a motion to remove their key named plaintiff immediately .Trumps' lawyers thought that should end the case right there: the only significant charge left was a minor licensing issue (the kind usually handled in arbitration), and thus the case was no longer a federal RICO case. Done. They thus asked that the case should be dropped (for summary judgement), but the Judge (Gonzalo Curiel) decides the lawsuit should go-on anyways.
  • Trump's and his lawyers are livid, they claimed the Judge to recuse himself for bias, and showing a "manifest disregard for the law", they point out that Curiel is an Obama Appointee, involved with a latino advocacy group called La Raza Lawyers Association, and was involved with the opposing lawyer in the past.
  • When Trump is asked about the case by Jake Tapper on CNN, he mentions a lot of this, and points out that Curiel is offering questionable rulings, and thus feels the Judges Latino heritage (and dislike for Trumps' politics: e.g. The Wall), is biasing him.

At this point the left goes nuts and accuses Trump of being a racist for implying that the Judge is biased because his parents were Mexican. But they're lying (omitting): the full context is it wasn't about him being Mexican/Latino, it was about him offering what Trumps' Lawyers thought was an unfair ruling AND being a Mexican Activists, AND Obama appointee, AND knowing the AG (key lawyer on the other side). Most of those things are slight exaggerations, but that’s how they perceived it, and they were responding with THAT context.

But let's use our brains:

  1. Mexican is not a race -- so even if it was an attack on Mexicans, that's not racism.
  2. Attacking a judge for bias because of his behavior and associations, is not the same as saying all of a certain race is inferior (what racism means). This was a personal attack on the Judge for his bias based on Latino Heritage, not saying the judge was unqualified because he was Mexican
  3. The NYT admits that Trump had done many personal attacks on Judges that didn't rule his way before (and they were white), so this wasn't unique to just Mexican Judges (not racism)
  4. The democrats are flip-flopping on whether cultural identity matters, as they’ve always said it did in the past, and that’s why we needed tokens of various races, religions, genders and sexual preferences managed by bureaucratic quotas.

Q: But isn’t it racism to say a Judge wouldn't be able to do their job, or would do a different job, because of their race?
A: Well if that's the case then what can you say about identity politics and we should put Women or Latinos (or both) on the Supreme Court because of their identity (and that will give rulings different biases)?

Look no further than the words of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor who herself suggested that her latino heritage played a role in her decision making:[5]

Talking during confirmation on why we need a Latina on the Court
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Sotomayor was called controversial for these claims at the time of her appointment (by conservatives), and leftist rabidly defended her, claiming it was her biases of gender and ethnicity that uniquely qualified her for the job. If identity doesn’t matter, then their whole affirmative action being needed diversity arguments fall on their face — so democrats have always argued that “of course, it matters!” So the left is trying to have it both ways. Race/Culture/Gender make a difference in judges when it suits them. But if you point out that the judge may be biased by their race/culture/gender/causes, why that makes you a sexist/racist pig?

And don't think she's alone in self identifying bias, Ol' Barry Sorrento (aka Barack Obama) did the same thing. In 2015, immigration Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor sued Obama's Department of Justice after they forced her to recuse herself from “all immigration cases involving Iranians”, because she was Iranian.


Don't even get started on this canard, it doesn't end well for Democrats. We have Carter blocking Muslim immigrants during the Iran Hostage Crisis[6], to Clinton whining about Cuban refugees[7], to FDR's blocking Jewish refugees during the holocaust (knowing what turning them back meant to their life-expectancy)[8]

Ignoring that Cuban, Jewish and Muslim (or Syrians) aren't races, dealing with a complex refugee crisis isn't racism.

I don't like Trumps position, it's too extreme for me. But the point that when a group of people promise to try to kill you, and you take refugees from that area of the world, and have to admit that you can't adequately tell the good ones from the bad ones[9], you're debating about security and compassion (isolationism, or accepting the mass murders and terrorism that will come with accepting those refugees), not racism.

I actually support the risks of taking more refugees, but only if the Democrats will be honest to the American people, and do it eyes-wide-open. We will accept them, knowing that many Americans will die because of it, because that's who we are. But we will not lie to the public and pretend it's safe, that we can vet them adequately, or pretend that those who don't want to accept the resultant deaths are all racists. They aren't. They just value their friends and families lives more than symbolic gestures, and have seen muslims ruin their own countries, and don't want to bring that here. If you call them racist for those reasonable positions, you immediately turn me off to your arguments as a fool or fraud.

Trade rhetoric

Rhetoric isn't racism, even if it is insensitive. Yes, Trump's, "tough on trade" positions with Mexico or China are sometimes abrasive. But it's not materially any different that the rhetoric that Bernie or Hillary has said[10], just he's more blustering in his solutions. My view is a pox on all their houses: I don't trust any of them to follow through on their promises completely. But whether you agree with him or not (I don't), Trump is the most accomplished on making deals, even if I dislike his style.

Violence at his rally's

These are funded distruptions of HIS events, by anti-Constitutional forces. (Free speech means you don't get to shout down, and harass the other sides speakers). Riots are not protests. That they are paid for by the political opposition, says a bit.

But everyone says so?

There are the usual lefty propaganda sources (like NYT, WaPo, MSNBC or CNN) that keep making the unsupported and false allegation, but if you watch closely when rarely asked to prove it, they don't back it up with specific claims, more with a vague "pattern" that you can't nail them down on. The infamous dog whistle that only the left can hear and can't support with hard data but fuzzy things like 10 years ago there was a search trend on Google, or he once had a lawsuit (that every real estate developer in NYC has had, black or white for alleged racism). Then they forget to mention that they are under more supported allegations of racism themselves. Both unsupported allegations and failure to disclose are breaking journalistic ethics standards and would get you flunked out of J-school.

Watch this fake story on Trump making fun of a disabled person, and you get the gist. The folks that know the whole story, know that he’s not a bad guy that mocks disabled people. (He does overstate things). The ignorant and partisan Democrats, think something else.

Trump and the Disabled Reporter

This is a fake news story about how Trump knowingly mocked a disabled reporter. The true story is the Trump administration exposed the media getting caught spreading fake fact checks, and they desperately needed to change the narrative, so they took an out of context frame of video, doing a gesture he'd done many times before, and showed it next to a reporter Trump claims he didn't know (but he may have met 30 years ago).


So the whole racism charge is bullshit: there's zero evidence from these things that Trump is a racist, just because he questioned the judges objectivity in this case, or he believes in a border fence. That doesn’t mean he is or isn’t a racist — I don’t know what’s in his heart. I just know there’s no evidence of him saying or believe it — but a lot of evidence that he’s a blusterer.

A lot of this was probably created by Trump and his lawyers confusing the La Raza Lawyers Association (a latino scholarship) with the National Council of La Raza (a radical latino advocacy group)[11], so they thought the Judge was more of an activist than he was. Still, that point that the judge belongs to a latino group and supports the point that he might not like Trumps politics. At worst, that shows that Trump is a loud-mouth buffoon that doesn't fact-check as well as he should have, but not that he's a racist.

And for those that go with the distraction of Trump University lawsuit that at least that case shows that Trump is corrupt for duping students, then that opens a real quagmire for the Clintons, because it turns out, they did the same thing only far worse. Bill Clinton endorsed Laureate University as their "honorary chancellor". They do on-line courses in the U.S. and latin America, and paid him $16.5 Million for the endorsements over the years, only now there's multiple class action lawsuits and claims of fraud, and failing to live up to standards. Isn't duping poor latin Americans more racist that duping rich real-estate investors in the U.S.?

In the end, there's a lot more evidence that Trump is sloppy with his bloviating than that he is a racist -- those attacking him are either ignorant of the most plausible explanation, or are intentionally deceiving the gullible by pretending this has anything to do with race and they know how he feels. Either way, their idiocy forces me to defend the truth against their falsehoods -- and I hate having to defend Donald Trump. But we have a choice, to live in a world where the truth matters more than the politically correct mistruths, or sign up to live in the Democrats alternate reality, where spin matters more than the facts. I'm still opting for the former, how about you?


  1. Organ Pipe National Park (ORPI) cattle fence:
  2. Bill Clinton's SOTU address on border security:
  3. Israel's West Bank barrier works:
  4. Hillary Clinton on the Wall:
  5. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor says ethnicity matters in rulings:
  6. Carter blocking Muslim immigrants:
  7. Clinton on Cuban Refugees:
  8. FDR blocking Jews during the Holocaust:
  9. Lack of vetting quality:
  10. Hillary on China:
  11. Wrong La Raza:

More links