Trump will never win over most Jewish voters... OPEN THREAD

[StoneByStone]

I followed the event on no-name news articles (i.e. I don't remember the sources) and from listening to YouTube commentary (i.e. do a search on the event and listen to the first four videos). What I found amazing is the vast numbers of people who are apparently omnisicent and assert with absolute certainty "details" that I could not verify no matter how much research I performed, i.e. everybody seems to be bullshitting about that event. What I saw in the videos was a vast crowd of BLM initiating violence on the small group of KKK as they marched to where they were going to demonstrate. I can't find a single leftist that will acknowledge this.

Well I acknowledge that BLM and Antifa attacked the Alt-Right. But it's beside the point. The point is the Alt-Right is an influential movement that the media has tried to ignore, until they did something so big, that ignoring them was impossible.

If that were the case then yes, xenophobia would apply to those of different countries. However, Trump was making the standard comment that I and others make to people who live in the US but bash on the US, i.e. "If you don't like it here, fuck'n leave, dumbass ... you won't be missed." Do you imagine that I wouldn't say that to Rep Omar? I'll tell her that she can sit on this and spin around. And no, I do not "fear" her or have any sort of phobia. I have a profound lack of respect.

Again, he told non-white people who were born and raised in America to "go back" to their countries when this is their country. It's not that he used "love it or leave it" as an attack. It's that he used a common racist trope against them.

I love "Drunk Irishman" jokes.

If it's just a joke, it's fine. But imagine if someone seriously made the argument that someone is unfit to be president because they're Irish and all the Irish do is drink and fight. You'd agree that would be racist, right?

Kylie Finnigan moves to a new town and quickly finds a quality pub. The bartender asks him what he's having and Finnigan responds "One shot of Jameson for me and one more for my brother Patrick." The bartender asks Kylie if Patrick will be joining him. "No," replies Kylie, "my brother is not able to be with me. He had to remain behind to care for our mother ... but as long as he is alive, I'm going to drink one in his honor every day ... my brother Patrick!" So the bartender sets up the two shots and Kylie slams one and then the other.

The next day at the same time, Kylie returns to the pub and tells the bartender "Same thing ... one for me and one for my brother." The following day, the exact same thing. And then again, and again. For four months this continues until finally one day Kylie enters the bar with a cold look on his face, he trudges up to the bar and tells the bartender "There's been a bit of a change. Just pour me one from now on." The bartender asks "I don't mean to pry but did something happen to your brother Patrick?" Kylie answers "To patrick? Oh, no ... today I quit drinking."

Alright, that one was kinda funny.

Nope. Trump made the bogus claim that Jeb Bush would be in favor of illegal immigration. It's not racist; it's illogical.

If Trump said "Jeb would be in favor of illegal immigration because he's left-handed" or something like that, I'd agree. But his argument was that Jeb loves illegals because his wife is Mexican.
It's funny, Conservatives usually accuse Liberals of using "immigrant" and "illegal immigrant" interchangeably. And I agree, that's really stupid. But if Trump uses "Mexican" and "illegal Mexican" interchangeably, is that not kinda racist?

If it weren't a court case then it would be bigotry, not racism. However, it was a court strategy to get the judge removed. All's fair. All strategies that are permitted are permitted.

I'm not arguing that it's not permitted. I'm arguing that Trump used racism in order to discredit the judge. Whether all's fair in court is a different issue. My only argument is that this was yet another case of Trump using racism for his own benefit.

I claim that Trump isn't going to suck up to a group of only twenty-thirty people.

Why not? Has he not proven he'll suck up to anyone if it will benefit him? And considering how his base responds to these racist tropes, it's obviously a lot more than thirty people.

 

[IBDaMann]

But imagine if someone seriously made the argument that someone is unfit to be president because they're Irish and all the Irish do is drink and fight. You'd agree that would be racist, right?

No. "Racist" is the wrong word. You are describing prejudice and bigotry.

"Racism" becomes the right word when said Irishman is otherwise prevented (i.e. tangible action, tangible result) from becoming President because of being Irish.

... but yes, the scenario you describe above is definitely bigotry.

If Trump said "Jeb would be in favor of illegal immigration because he's left-handed" or something like that, I'd agree. But his argument was that Jeb loves illegals because his wife is Mexican.

In this case you are the one making the error. Your argument only makes sense if you consider "Mexican" to be a slur as opposed to meaning "from a bordering country." Suppose Jeb Bush had been married to a Canadian. Trump's argument sounds moderately plausible ... it just doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny.

I'm not arguing that it's not permitted. I'm arguing that Trump used racism in order to discredit the judge.

Nope. You are using the wrong words.

Trump accused the Judge of racism in a play to get the judge removed. Trump's motivation and argument is the unfair treatment Trump has received from that judge up to that point. Excellent strategy. There is nothing racist about it on Trump's part. Judges recuse themselves all the time and court cases get transferred to other judges all the time. There is nothing to see here. Everything is standard courtroom strategy to gain an advantage. Remember, Trump's opponent in the case was not the judge. The judge was the judge. Trump wanted a different judge, a fair judge, and that judge would not recuse himself voluntarily.

Why not? Has he not proven he'll suck up to anyone if it will benefit him? .

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Trump got elected. He did so by building a broad fan base, which he accomplished by making it clear that he wasn't going to pander to anyone, i.e. he wasn't going to pander to illegal immigrants by promising open borders, he wasn't going to pander to millenials and generational welfare addicts by promising free everything, he wasn't going to pander to LGBTQIATIOAPP by promising to allow men in women's public bathrooms and by screwing with military effectiveness, he wasn't going to pander to Islamic extremists by pretending that terrorism is somehow OK and that dressing as an Arab automatically makes one immune to scrutiny, etc. He was the exact opposite of the Democrat Party. That was his platform and it resonated. You did catch that he got elected, right?

So no, he doesn't pander. He does what's right. He does what's best for the United States of America. It's why he will be reelected with more than 300 electoral votes, presuming the DNC is not permitted to commit their planned massive voter fraud.

.

 

[overkill]

Pulling this one out of the kiddie pool (even though I am not personally blocked from it) so that ALL voices can participate...

The OP in its entirety:

Jews? Who gives a flippin flying fuck! There are around 319 million people in the U.S. Only around 5 million of which are jews. The number of jews that we should have in the U.S. is ZERO!

 

[StoneByStone]

No. "Racist" is the wrong word. You are describing prejudice and bigotry.

"Racism" becomes the right word when said Irishman is otherwise prevented (i.e. tangible action, tangible result) from becoming President because of being Irish.

... but yes, the scenario you describe above is definitely bigotry.

#semantics
In everyday speech, we would say that verbally attacking someone over their heritage is racist. But sure, if we want to use the word "bigotry," we can say that Trump uses bigotry when it benefits him.

In this case you are the one making the error. Your argument only makes sense if you consider "Mexican" to be a slur as opposed to meaning "from a bordering country." Suppose Jeb Bush had been married to a Canadian. Trump's argument sounds moderately plausible ... it just doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny.

The reason it was racist isn't because he said the word "Mexican." It's because he equated being Mexican with being an illegal immigrant.
If Jeb was married to a Canadian, and Trump said something like "Jeb has to support illegal immigration from Canada because his wife is Canadian," I'd consider that racist too. Again, the implication is that everyone from this group is a criminal who came here illegally.

Trump accused the Judge of racism in a play to get the judge removed. Trump's motivation and argument is the unfair treatment Trump has received from that judge up to that point. Excellent strategy. There is nothing racist about it on Trump's part. Judges recuse themselves all the time and court cases get transferred to other judges all the time. There is nothing to see here. Everything is standard courtroom strategy to gain an advantage. Remember, Trump's opponent in the case was not the judge. The judge was the judge. Trump wanted a different judge, a fair judge, and that judge would not recuse himself voluntarily.

But Trump's entire argument was that the judge should be removed because this judge, who was born and raised in America, is a Mexican. You can say it's an excellent strategy, a terrible strategy, whatever. The point is that Trump is saying this guy can't do his job because of his racial ancestry.
You said he accused the judge of racism, so what is the implication there? He's racist because his ancestors were Mexican?

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Trump got elected. He did so by building a broad fan base, which he accomplished by making it clear that he wasn't going to pander to anyone

That's just not true. He pandered to the Alt-Right and other racists with similar ideas. And he didn't build a broad fan base, rather he alienated lots of people, such as Hispanics, Muslims, and so on.
And getting elected wasn't much of an accomplishment considering he needed the electoral college. He was running against the most hated Democrat in America and he STILL failed to get more votes.

he wasn't going to pander to LGBTQIATIOAPP by promising to allow men in women's public bathrooms

He actually said Cait Jenner could use whatever bathroom she wanted at Trump Tower. He did a fair amount of sucking up to the LGBT crowd when running, which I'm sure pissed off his base, but the racism made up for it. Then when he became president, he decided to double down on the Fascism thing by trying to ban trans people from the military.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Jews? Who gives a flippin flying fuck! There are around 319 million people in the U.S. Only around 5 million of which are jews. The number of jews that we should have in the U.S. is ZERO!

Is there's so few, why do they bother you so much? What did you post before you altered it? Did you off a "final solution" for the "Jewish Problem" then post your name and address?

 

[StoneByStone]

Is there's so few, why do they bother you so much?

Maybe because this tiny minority controls several major institutions and uses them to benefit themselves.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Maybe because this tiny minority controls several major institutions and uses them to benefit themselves.

Soooo....you're a socialist or just run of the mill antisemitic?

https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2019/august/wealth-inequality-in-america-facts-figures

 

[StoneByStone]

Soooo....you're a socialist or just run of the mill antisemitic?

Depends what you mean. I don't think the government should force collective ownership. But if a Socialist is just someone who thinks regulations should help the working-class instead of the rich, then I guess I'm a Socialist. I don't hate all Jews. But if an Anti-Semite is someone who recognizes the problem with Jews controlling so much of the country, then I guess I'm an Anti-Semite.

 

[IBDaMann]

#semantics

This is an internet message board. Semantics is all there is. Any crying of "semantics" is an admission that you realize you were wrong.

In everyday speech, we would say that verbally attacking someone over their heritage is racist.

In everyday speech, common misconceptions are nonetheless wrong. Learn English and you won't have that problem.

The reason it was racist isn't because he said the word "Mexican." It's because he equated being Mexican with being an illegal immigrant.

I speak English. That equivalence was not made. I shouldn't have had to explain to you what it meant but I did anyway. Nonetheless you are insisting on getting it wrong.

The main issue here is that Trump retweeted something from someone else. Trump did not choose the specific wording. At the time, Trump was obviously contrasting his own stance of pushing to build a wall against the relatively soft stance Jeb Bush took on illegal immigration. You are avoiding all context on this just to pin a "racist" label on Trump.

He didn't write the tweet. He was competing on stance on illegal immigration. He took down the tweet when he realized the wording could be ill-interpreted. Why don't you address the underlying issue, i.e. stance on illegal immigration? He has never made any bones about his desire to build a wall.

. Again, the implication is that everyone from this group is a criminal who came here illegally.

Nope. You got a shitty score on the SAT verbal section. Ask me how I know.

But Trump's entire argument was that the judge should be removed because this judge, who was born and raised in America, is a Mexican.

Nope. Trump's argument was that the judge was unfair and ... he had to give an official reason ... so he tied it in with his desire to build a wall on the border with Mexico. He was trying to get the judge removed and that was as good a shot as any. Did you have a better strategy for getting the judge removed?

The point is that Trump is saying this guy can't do his job because of his racial ancestry.

It doesn't matter. It's a court case. Your argument is null and void due to the circumstances.

You said he accused the judge of racism, so what is the implication there? He's racist because his ancestors were Mexican?

Trump claimed that because of the judge's heritage he is personally offended by Trump's attempt to build a wall and therefore cannot be impartial towards Trump.

That's just not true. He pandered to the Alt-Right and other racists with similar ideas.

I understand that's your claim but it's crazy. You clearly read "Alt-Right" into everything based on all the Anti-Trump propaganda you were absorbing like a sponge. It's just that none of it was true and you were being manipulated.

And he didn't build a broad fan base,

You are insane. The massive crowds that couldn't get in at every packed Trump rally all across the country didn't teach you anything? You should pay attention more.

... rather he alienated lots of people, such as Hispanics, Muslims, and so on.

That was Democrats driving up Trump's negatives by offering all of them free stuff and special treatment. Trump contrasted with that as I mentioned earlier and got elected because of it.

Dont think that all Hispanics are against Trump. Prior to the DNC's Goya blunder it was close to 50/50. Now, Hispanics are mostly for Trump. They are all about the Goya. The DNC really screwed the pooch on that one.

And getting elected wasn't much of an accomplishment considering he needed the electoral college.

We have a republic, that's how it works. The DNC was not somehow unaware of this.

He was running against the most hated Democrat in America and he STILL failed to get more votes.

Au contraire, he won the election. He got more votes. Do you not understand how that works?

He actually said Cait Jenner could use whatever bathroom she wanted at Trump Tower. He did a fair amount of sucking up to the LGBT crowd when running, which I'm sure pissed off his base,

You are confused. Trump's entire base is aware that Trump is not a homophobe, and that doesn't piss them off because Trump's base is not homophobic. Your confusion on that matter is yours alone.

... on the Fascism thing by trying to ban trans people from the military.

You need an example that does not involve the military. Why can you not find a single example anywhere outside the military?

Dismissed.

 

[IBDaMann]

Soooo....you're a socialist or just run of the mill antisemitic?

Sooooo ... you're a highschool dropout who believes that earned income is somehow not earned but rather is "distributed." I think I'll go have lunch with the national income distribution guy and maybe talk him into giving me a raise. Too funny.

You need Bubba to ream some sense into you. Get back to the credenza.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Depends what you mean. I don't think the government should force collective ownership. But if a Socialist is just someone who thinks regulations should help the working-class instead of the rich, then I guess I'm a Socialist. I don't hate all Jews. But if an Anti-Semite is someone who recognizes the problem with Jews controlling so much of the country, then I guess I'm an Anti-Semite.

Just like CFM isn't a racist because he has a black friend?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Sooooo ... you're a highschool dropout who believes that earned income is somehow not earned but rather is "distributed." I think I'll go have lunch with the national income distribution guy and maybe talk him into giving me a raise. Too funny.

You need Bubba to ream some sense into you. Get back to the credenza.

LOL. Sorry INT/IBDa/gfm/etc, but you're wrong again. Not a surprise for someone whose signature is larger than their IQ.

 

[StoneByStone]

Just like CFM isn't a racist because he has a black friend?

I don't know what CFM's deal is, but of course you can hate an entire race of people with a few exceptions. I'm not like that with Jews, I don't hate anyone. I just accept that Jewish Supremacy is a thing in the West.

 

[StoneByStone]

This is an internet message board. Semantics is all there is. Any crying of "semantics" is an admission that you realize you were wrong.

Not really. Most people don't engage in #semantics. Some do, but only when they realize they're wrong.

The main issue here is that Trump retweeted something from someone else. Trump did not choose the specific wording. At the time, Trump was obviously contrasting his own stance of pushing to build a wall against the relatively soft stance Jeb Bush took on illegal immigration. You are avoiding all context on this just to pin a "racist" label on Trump.

He didn't write the tweet. He was competing on stance on illegal immigration. He took down the tweet when he realized the wording could be ill-interpreted. Why don't you address the underlying issue, i.e. stance on illegal immigration? He has never made any bones about his desire to build a wall.

I'm not arguing against his stance on illegal immigration. I'm saying that the specific argument he used against Jeb Bush is racist. And whether he wrote the tweet or retweeted it is unimportant. The point is he used the racist tweet.

Nope. You got a shitty score on the SAT verbal section. Ask me how I know.

You're resorting to ad hom attacks because you know I'm right.

Nope. Trump's argument was that the judge was unfair and ... he had to give an official reason ... so he tied it in with his desire to build a wall on the border with Mexico. He was trying to get the judge removed and that was as good a shot as any. Did you have a better strategy for getting the judge removed?

Again, not the point. The point is that his strategy to get the judge removed was racist because he used the judge's ancestry.
So we agree that Trump uses racism when he thinks it'll benefit him? Good. I admire you for admitting I was right.

Trump claimed that because of the judge's heritage he is personally offended by Trump's attempt to build a wall and therefore cannot be impartial towards Trump.

And the ONLY evidence he presented for that case is that this judge, who was born and raised in America, is a "Mexican judge."

You are insane. The massive crowds that couldn't get in at every packed Trump rally all across the country didn't teach you anything? You should pay attention more.

A massive crowd isn't the same as having "broad" support. Trump alienated lots of groups of people with his racism, sexism, and xenophobia. Obama had broad support in that he had lots of support from every demographic group.

Au contraire, he won the election. He got more votes. Do you not understand how that works?

He got like three million votes less than Hillary. But, sure, he got more votes.

You need an example that does not involve the military. Why can you not find a single example anywhere outside the military?

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/25/trump-administration-doubles-down-trans-discrimination

 

[Phantasmal]

Soooo....you're a socialist or just run of the mill antisemitic?

https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2019/august/wealth-inequality-in-america-facts-figures

I’ve never understood why people hate Jews for being so good at Capitalism.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't know what CFM's deal is, but of course you can hate an entire race of people with a few exceptions. I'm not like that with Jews, I don't hate anyone. I just accept that Jewish Supremacy is a thing in the West.

The fact you pass along conspiracy theories or single out groups of people for whatever reason, in this case money, belies your disclaimer.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I’ve never understood why people hate Jews for being so good at Capitalism.

It's an ancient hate starting with the battle between early Christian liberals and Jewish conservatives. It worsened when the Christians finally gained power in Rome and used that power to actively condemn and attack Jews. Two thousand years of that bullshit threads it very deeply into Western culture. Obviously Americans broke with those ideas, but the thread is still here.

The history of antisemitism is an excellent example of Tyranny of the Majority, something the US fought against through the structure of the Constitution. Specifically with a Constitutional Republic and the Electoral College.

 

[StoneByStone]

The fact you pass along conspiracy theories or single out groups of people for whatever reason, in this case money, belies your disclaimer.

It's not a conspiracy theory that Jews have a disproportionate amount of power in Western countries.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It's not a conspiracy theory that Jews have a disproportionate amount of power in Western countries.

Great, but unless you have solid evidence, all you have is rumor and speculation. Second to that is why you have such a problem with it, even if this is true.

Are you going to deny you, as a white American male, have a disproportionate amount of power and wealth globally? Aside from bitching about it on a small anonymous political forum, what are you going to do to fix that disproportion?

 

[IBDaMann]

Most people don't engage in #semantics.

Every poster necessarily engages in semantics (except Crocodile who avoids all cognitive function altogether) because words are all we have in a forum of ideas.

I'm not arguing against his stance on illegal immigration. I'm saying that the specific argument he used against Jeb Bush is racist.

... and you are mistaken. If you were to recognize it as the logically fallacious comment made by Rob Heilbron that it was, you would be correct to say that Trump should have paid closer attention to what he was retweeting in support of his border wall. However, Trump did not, he realized too late and he took it down.

Are you or are you not aware that that is what transpired? If so, why are you twisting and stretching all angles of this to force it into being "RACISM!" like you are trying remold Gumby into being Pokey?

And whether he wrote the tweet or retweeted it is unimportant.

Certainly not when you are dead set on remolding this into "RACISM!" Trump could have offered a polite "Buenos Dias" to Jeb's wife and you obviously would be working just as hard to distort that to be "RACISM!"

The point is he used the racist tweet.

I understand how a tweet can express bigotry but how can a tween enact racism?

Again, not the point.

Yes. I explained to you exhaustively on multiple occasions the point, the whole point and nothing but the point. Your intentional supplanting of the whole point in its entirety just to install RACISM! is ludicrous.

For racism you need something other than a legal strategy.
For trans-phobia you need something other than the military.

Why are you unable to cough up any valid examples when you have essentially the entire world from which to choose?

A massive crowd isn't the same as having "broad" support.

You have it backwards. Having MASSIVE crowds on short notice wherever he goes is evidence of his BROAD support, unlike Hillary and Biden who need to bus in the number of people they want at a venue. They have to pay people to stay and listen to Kamala.

Trump alienated lots of groups of people with his racism, sexism, and xenophobia.

You aren't telling me anything about Trump but you are speaking volumes about yourself. Nothing you have expressed is grounded in reality. Yes, he alienated competitors who really thought it was their "turn" in very Hillary Clintonesque fashion. Like I have said before. Marco Rubio used to be my guy; I was a HUGE Rubio supporter ... but when I heard Trump's platform of putting America first and then watched Rubio deteriorate into a pathetic TDS-driven temper tantrum ... I sadly had to drop him like a hot potato and began supporting Trump. I ardently oppose bigotry and racism and Trump gave me nothing about which to object. I'm just not a totally gullible slave who takes marching orders from the media.

Obama had broad support in that he had lots of support from every demographic group.

Obama had very narrow support, only from the intersectionality ideologues, not from any diversity of thought. Obama was elected in order to have the first "black" President and not for the content of his character or for making the US better in any way.

He got like three million votes less than Hillary. But, sure, he got more votes.

Now I see your problem. You never learned that we have a Republic of sovereign States and not a democracy. You were apparently never taught that the Founders specifically intended to avoid having one or two states mandate by fiat to the other states. Thus we don't have an electoral college and a Senate with equal representation from each State.

Hillary did NOT receive more votes from the electoral college. Do you know what the electoral college is? Does Hillary Clinton know what it is? Was she trying to win the electoral college vote or the democratic vote? Trump was in the electoral college race, in case you didn't notice and he won that one. I don't think he was ever in the race for the democratically elected position ... whatever that might be.


.