The Polarizing Corrosively Hurtful Hate-Filled We/They Approach To Political Debate.

[PoliTalker]

United we stand.

Divided we fall.

Let us be united in the concept of mutual respect, and let us STAND! (We can still disagree on politics.)

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Our very revered Republican President Abraham Lincoln gave a speech of that title and theme at the 1858 RNC in Springfield IL, as a then candidate for Senate.

He lost.

The concept of a house divided being unable to stand was not Lincoln's idea. His friend urged him to share where it came from, but he declined. He chose to let the message sink in. If people didn't get the point of the message, the source didn't matter.

(It came from the Bible.)

Lincoln was wise to let the message percolate and mature in the populace. He was wise to let time work it's magic. Some things are worth waiting for. Great things can take a long time to build.

Later, it was said that the speech made him President.

He was referring to slavery. He posited that either all of the USA must adopt slavery, or all of the USA must reject it.

The whole nation wasn't ready for it.

But it was at the beginnings of a mighty process.

Because the political landscape never stays the same; is always changing.

Today, we have very strong polarization in the USA. Lots of hatred for fellow citizens. Lots of pain, damage, and corrosive propaganda. And some good views, too. On both sides.

And it is good that we have many views and points to consider, that we overlook no point in considering the direction of our country. Diversity of people, experiences, and ideas makes us great.

And we have good people on both sides as well as bad. Neither side is all good or all bad. That is far too simple a notion, and FAR too common.

WE are not all good, and THEY are not all bad. It's just not that easy. The world is more complex than that.

The thing which has been lost is love.

From wherever it is borrowed, the message is clear. Love is the only way. Love they neighbor. Love thy enemies.

We are right to hold differing views.

But that should not prevent us from appreciating others.

Hatred is a cop-out. Hatred and personal attacks are the cop-outs of those who cannot argue their position effectively. Hatred and disrespect here in these forums don't make any political points, nor do they strengthen them. Instead, they only serve to shut down a good discussion.

A passionate argument is moving. Making a good point in strong words can be stunning.

When a reply focuses on the person who made the argument rather than the argument itself, then it is a cop-out. It is like giving in, acknowledging that the argument is so convincing it cannot be refuted and the only way to answer it is to attack the poster instead.

Hate-filled posts do not make any points.

All that is being done is attacking the MESSENGER. Any comment about the MESSAGE is overshadowed by talking about the MESSENGER.

Hate-filled posts are like Debate Poison.

Turning things personal turns things away from the political discussion.

Good debate focuses on the subject, not the other. Good debate makes strong points, doesn't derail the discussion with hatred.

We can improve the quality of this board if we minimize and try to eliminate hate-filled posts. We can have more participation. People have come here and left after only a few posts because of the hatred. Look at the member list some time. It is filled with people who came, made only a few posts and left. Guess why they left.

Show some love and it will come back to you.

It's OK to disagree. Just say why. Avoid going personal and mean. Look a message over before posting it. Soften it. Take out the hate like taking out the garbage. It's a worthy chore.

We all learn by talking to others.

Here is the best guiding principle to adopt:

"I know I am not perfect, and thus my opinion may be flawed by something I overlooked or got wrong.

So I want to hear why others believe the things they do. If I find flaws in their opposing reasoning, and none are pointed out in mine, then I feel more confident in my own view. If viable flaws are pointed out in my reasoning, then I adjust for the new information and possibly modify my view. This makes me feel very justified in holding my views. It is a political opinion vetting process."

If you are feeling lost and stuck in your positions, frustrated by the situation, maybe it's time to allow yourself to learn more. The more we back off on the hatred, the better the Forum gets. We'll never eliminate it. There will always be hurting messed-up people venting their frustrations on others. Let it be. Learn to recognize it, let it be, rise above it. We can create a better, more vibrant platform here one post at a time. Don't take the bait. Learn to DEbate.

Let these words ring in your head the next time you are ready to post a message. Pause a moment to read over what you've written. It will probably be far more effective without the invective. Maybe take a moment to edit a bit. Make it about the subject, not the poster. Break out of the short-term endorphin rush of telling someone off and transcend to the higher level of intellectual posting and learning. We all have that capacity within us. Find it in yourself. And thank yourself.

Is it easy to do this? No. If it was easy it wouldn't be worth it. You have to force yourself at first. The reward comes later. Some things are worth waiting for. Some great things take while to build.

Help us build a better JPP.

ps: No thread ban here but I will still not reply to those on my IgList. (I never will - for reasons of serenity and time savings, as I prefer to respond to good debate posts only in my limited time visits.)

 

[TTQ64]

United we stand.

Divided we fall.

Let us be united in the concept of mutual respect, and let us STAND! (We can still disagree on politics.)

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Our very revered Republican President Abraham Lincoln gave a speech of that title and theme at the 1858 RNC in Springfield IL, as a then candidate for Senate.

He lost.

The concept of a house divided being unable to stand was not Lincoln's idea. His friend urged him to share where it came from, but he declined. He chose to let the message sink in. If people didn't get the point of the message, the source didn't matter.

(It came from the Bible.)

Lincoln was wise to let the message percolate and mature in the populace. He was wise to let time work it's magic. Some things are worth waiting for. Great things can take a long time to build.

Later, it was said that the speech made him President.

He was referring to slavery. He posited that either all of the USA must adopt slavery, or all of the USA must reject it.

The whole nation wasn't ready for it.

But it was at the beginnings of a mighty process.

Because the political landscape never stays the same; is always changing.

Today, we have very strong polarization in the USA. Lots of hatred for fellow citizens. Lots of pain, damage, and corrosive propaganda. And some good views, too. On both sides.

And it is good that we have many views and points to consider, that we overlook no point in considering the direction of our country. Diversity of people, experiences, and ideas makes us great.

And we have good people on both sides as well as bad. Neither side is all good or all bad. That is far too simple a notion, and FAR too common.

WE are not all good, and THEY are not all bad. It's just not that easy. The world is more complex than that.

The thing which has been lost is love.

From wherever it is borrowed, the message is clear. Love is the only way. Love they neighbor. Love thy enemies.

We are right to hold differing views.

But that should not prevent us from appreciating others.

Hatred is a cop-out. Hatred and personal attacks are the cop-outs of those who cannot argue their position effectively. Hatred and disrespect here in these forums don't make any political points, nor do they strengthen them. Instead, they only serve to shut down a good discussion.

A passionate argument is moving. Making a good point in strong words can be stunning.

When a reply focuses on the person who made the argument rather than the argument itself, then it is a cop-out. It is like giving in, acknowledging that the argument is so convincing it cannot be refuted and the only way to answer it is to attack the poster instead.

Hate-filled posts do not make any points.

All that is being done is attacking the MESSENGER. Any comment about the MESSAGE is overshadowed by talking about the MESSENGER.

Hate-filled posts are like Debate Poison.

Turning things personal turns things away from the political discussion.

Good debate focuses on the subject, not the other. Good debate makes strong points, doesn't derail the discussion with hatred.

We can improve the quality of this board if we minimize and try to eliminate hate-filled posts. We can have more participation. People have come here and left after only a few posts because of the hatred. Look at the member list some time. It is filled with people who came, made only a few posts and left. Guess why they left.

Show some love and it will come back to you.

It's OK to disagree. Just say why. Avoid going personal and mean. Look a message over before posting it. Soften it. Take out the hate like taking out the garbage. It's a worthy chore.

We all learn by talking to others.

Here is the best guiding principle to adopt:

"I know I am not perfect, and thus my opinion may be flawed by something I overlooked or got wrong.

So I want to hear why others believe the things they do. If I find flaws in their opposing reasoning, and none are pointed out in mine, then I feel more confident in my own view. If viable flaws are pointed out in my reasoning, then I adjust for the new information and possibly modify my view. This makes me feel very justified in holding my views. It is a political opinion vetting process."

If you are feeling lost and stuck in your positions, frustrated by the situation, maybe it's time to allow yourself to learn more. The more we back off on the hatred, the better the Forum gets. We'll never eliminate it. There will always be hurting messed-up people venting their frustrations on others. Let it be. Learn to recognize it, let it be, rise above it. We can create a better, more vibrant platform here one post at a time. Don't take the bait. Learn to DEbate.

Let these words ring in your head the next time you are ready to post a message. Pause a moment to read over what you've written. It will probably be far more effective without the invective. Maybe take a moment to edit a bit. Make it about the subject, not the poster. Break out of the short-term endorphin rush of telling someone off and transcend to the higher level of intellectual posting and learning. We all have that capacity within us. Find it in yourself. And thank yourself.

Is it easy to do this? No. If it was easy it wouldn't be worth it. You have to force yourself at first. The reward comes later. Some things are worth waiting for. Some great things take while to build.

Help us build a better JPP.

ps: No thread ban here but I will still not reply to those on my IgList. (I never will - for reasons of serenity and time savings, as I prefer to respond to good debate posts only in my limited time visits.)

You forgot to ban me from the thread.

Why do you support and coddle racism and racist?

 

[PoliTalker]

NiftyNiblick recently said in another thread:

Nobody with a brain is falling for anything, politalker.
Unfortunately, nobody has to pass an IQ test in order to vote.
If we could lock the Trumpanzee crackers inside their trailer parks on election day, we'd have a hell of a good government as a result.
Give them free meth and fentanyl if we have to.

But please, don't expect miracles by trying to talk to the cretins.

I replied to him why I feel it is important to think more in a way of US (We, Americans) than We/They (We, the good Americans, and They the bad ones who hold opposing political views

I disagree. Such a liberal victory would be a shallow one. And it would be short-lived, destined to provoke a nasty return. We need to triumph fair and square. Our ideas, concepts and platforms are superior to theirs. The merits of our arguments are destined to prevail. The harder we have to fight for the hearts and minds of the country, the more long-lasting our victory will be. We have all the pieces we need to build a fantastic country. All we have to do is overcome tremendous greed and power. (No small task, but not impossible) We cannot prevail if we stoop to the level of petty nastiness. That is not our road to the goal of a more caring nation.

We absolutely have to follow Michelle's rule. When they go low, we go high. We don't want to make them hate us. We need to let them love us. That door must remain open if we want a nation built on mutual caring.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I feel it is important to think more in a way of US (We, Americans) than We/They (We, the good Americans, and They the bad ones who hold opposing political views

I appreciate PoliTalkers good intentions, but this is the kind of Pollyanna dreaming on the part of American liberals that keeps America a socially regressive nation.
America is NOT a WE. America has ideological diversity--far more debilitating that racial, ethnic, or religious diversity--that guarantees that half of America is always going to find the government repugnant no matter which side wins.

Suggesting that we can all come together is essentially flipping the middle finger to BOTH sides. It's saying that neither side is sincere in its values. BOTH sides are sincere in their values, but those values are completely incompatible.

This is why people like PolyTalker and I cannot work together. He wants people to compromise their values. I want people with MY values to win. Those are not common goals. My goal is difficult. His is a flight of fantasy.

One other thing, PoliTalker. The nastiness is not petty. The nastiness is genuine hatred and incompatibility. Calling it merely "petty' is turning one's back on reality.

 

[cawacko]

I appreciate PoliTalkers good intentions, but this is the kind of Pollyanna dreaming on the part of American liberals that keeps America a socially regressive nation.
America is NOT a WE. America has ideological diversity--far more debilitating that racial, ethnic, or religious diversity--that guarantees that half of America is always going to find the government repugnant no matter which side wins.

Suggesting that we can all come together is essentially flipping the middle finger to BOTH sides. It's saying that neither side is sincere in its values. BOTH sides are sincere in their values, but those values are completely incompatible.

This is why people like PolyTalker and I cannot work together. He wants people to compromise their values. I want people with MY values to win. Those are not common goals. My goal is difficult. His is a flight of fantasy.

One other thing, PoliTalker. The nastiness is not petty. The nastiness is genuine hatred and incompatibility. Calling it merely "petty' is turning one's back on reality.

Working off your attitude do you believe one can be principled while hating the other side or is it more the end justifies the means and everything is fair in love and war when it comes to politics?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

The Machiavellianism that the end justifies the means doesn't enter this particular discussion.

While morality definitely matters, let's put it temporarily aside and assume that each side thinks that it's the moral one.

The sides are at near perfect poles. Coming together would require almost total capitulation on both sides.

Working on achieving that cannot be the better approach than taking sides and fighting to make your side win.

This isn't an end justifying the means. If you're sincere, you believe that your means are as moral as your desired end.

This is America. We genuinely don't like each other, even a little, so we can't all be happy at the same time.

Both sides just worry about their own side being happy. Centrists trying to make everybody happy are banging their heads against the wall while what passes for their brains spill out.

 

[evince]

I hate lies

I hate racism

I hate Russian meddling in our elections


I hate people who cheat voters out of their rights


I hate politicians who take Russian bribes


I hate people who think its no sweat off their balls if children go hungry


Hate is part of the spectrum of Human emotions


its serves a purpose in mankind

I hate child molesters


I hate rapists



like any part of our spectrum of emotions it has helped keep mankind alive


hating people who DONT DESERVE HATE is a problem


NOT hating people who deserve all the hate in society for their evil is counter productive


I hate some people so much I would be willing to kill them

If I walked into a situation where someone was beating an old person


I might just kill that person to make them stop


in your eyes that may make me flawed

In my eyes that makes me a compassionate human being

 

[Nordberg]

All the barriers against rude, crude talk and telling lies about opponents are gone. Trump removed the vestiges of honest debate and replaced it with false and emotional attacks. Childish name calling and grimacing like a teenager getting a chastising from his parents. as his opponents speak, is now OK.I do not know if we can ever return to more mature debates and providing information to the voters. Trump may have changed America forever. It is not for the better.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

so your premise is that THEY have a hatefilled we/they perspective, but you do not?......

 

[Jack]

IMO, the people here aren't about 'Solving Problems'. The people here are more about 'Winning', as in Red Team/Blue Team.
Once you understand the 'Goal' here, it's easy to see why the 'Food Fights' begin.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello NiftyNiblick,

I appreciate PoliTalkers good intentions, but this is the kind of Pollyanna dreaming on the part of American liberals that keeps America a socially regressive nation.
America is NOT a WE. America has ideological diversity--far more debilitating that racial, ethnic, or religious diversity--that guarantees that half of America is always going to find the government repugnant no matter which side wins.

We understand. We don't expect you to change your views. Our battle is for the new ears and voices. But don't think we don't appreciate you. We need your voices for a reality check, if you can back off on the exaggerations, total myths, and alternate facts long enough to do that once in a while.

As we liberals battle to dominate the political landscape we must depend on conservatives to look at what the unconsidered realistic consequences of our ideas might be. Liberals need conservatives to complete our political consciousness. And visa versa. Naturally, we pretty much disregard the most extreme right views which are built on fallacy. Your challenge is to give us something even a liberal can believe in as a reason that what we want to do might not be worth it. We certainly don't see taxing the rich, forcing them to be be slightly less rich (but taxing all equally so nobody is made less poor than anybody else by taxing,) as any kind of problem. And if that's what your agenda is truly about, then all of the made-up excuses that you talk yourselves into believing, all of that, we will not accept. So our goal is to outnumber you and create a government that not only Promotes the General Welfare, but does everything it can to do it. And we run that by taxing the rich more. And THAT makes America GREAT!!!

Suggesting that we can all come together is essentially flipping the middle finger to BOTH sides. It's saying that neither side is sincere in its values. BOTH sides are sincere in their values, but those values are completely incompatible.

No, I didn't say "we can all come together" at all. Both sides are needed for us to have the needed political dialogues. I see the beauty of diversity. Diversity makes us great.

This is why people like PolyTalker and I cannot work together. He wants people to compromise their values. I want people with MY values to win. Those are not common goals. My goal is difficult. His is a flight of fantasy.

I expect you to hold true to your values just as I shall do the same. Nobody gets their way all the time but you do some times. Our political process is how that is decided. We need both sides to have those battles. There's no reason to think less of someone just because they are holding true to their values. But things have to get done. Decisions have to be made. We have our process. It's a good one. May the best side win. We are coming for you and we want our way just as much as you want yours. We can understand that passion. We share that passion for the process and trying to move things the direction you think they should go. There's no reason for either of us to think less of the other. We are both just doing the American thing, exercising our freedom. I see that as a good thing. We can have different goals and still be fellow Americans.

Now here's the really tough part. The weeder. We know that good respectful people don't have to go negative to discuss the issues knowledgeably, and we certainly know that there are going to be hateful nasty people who carry grudges and stereotypes, so do we use the fact that nastiness exists as justification for nastiness? We certainly could. That would be easy. It's actually very common. "They did it first!" Which, of course, as we all know, is totally concrete acceptable evidence in a court of law that makes that thing OK, right? Well, no. Not me, anyway. I would be lying to myself if I thought two wrongs make a right. So I don't do that. We, who don't do that, do not find that a justified reason. Because, think about it. If that was justified then quickly everybody would be doing that to everybody all the time. That would be so contagious it would just be constant. (Hey, some think it is!) But we know it isn't. Alas, there are people like us. I am not alone. I speak for many voices. Just because somebody else did it does not make it OK. We call BS on that!

So our challenge is to maintain respect. We can disagree, and that's OK. Let us argue the issues based on the merit of our arguments and see who's ideas are the most logical.

One other thing, PoliTalker. The nastiness is not petty. The nastiness is genuine hatred and incompatibility. Calling it merely "petty' is turning one's back on reality.

Well I wish people were more able to disagree without hatred. Hatred doesn't solve anything. That's a mental issue. It is not wise to hate. Logically, clearer minds are more able to produce creative and effective policy. It is a weakness that people are so misinformed that they latch onto these emotional dog whistles. Single issue people do themselves and the nation a great disservice. We need smarter people in this country. I do hold the Republican party responsible for holding back public education. Great job of ruining our public education system. There's a lot of dumb people out there who don't seem to understand the importance of taking care of their nation. They are not informed, they do no independent research of their own, they just watch Fox news and think that makes them a true blue red blooded American who has been informed by a 'fair and balanced' source. I would beg to differ.

I am in favor of having free public mental counseling available on a walk-in call-in basis 24-7-365. Let's create a new Department of Mental Health, and tax the rich more to pay for it. Actually, it would probably pay for itself. Imagine how much more efficient our entire nation would be with far more clear headed thinkers out there. Productivity and GDP would probably go through the roof.

Apathy kills. Hatred murders. Peace and cooperation build.

 

[Celticguy]

If you want to eliminate hate, and im with you on that, take it up with the left. For all their talk of tolerance they exibit none.

 

[Old Trapper]

I appreciate PoliTalkers good intentions, but this is the kind of Pollyanna dreaming on the part of American liberals that keeps America a socially regressive nation.
America is NOT a WE.

And so goes all good intentions. America is not a "Me", and never has been. The ideological divide should be shared by all, not the few who act as if they speak for all.

Both sides cannot be "equal" when one side supports the killing of the unborn, and the other supports the deprivation of the poor to the benefit of the wealthy.

Matthew 12: 22-29

Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”

But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”

Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

“Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house."

 

[Old Trapper]

If you want to eliminate hate, and im with you on that, take it up with the left. For all their talk of tolerance they exibit none.

Just as you have not in this post.

When does Trump exhibit any tolerance for others be it Muslim, Hispanic, women, journalists, homosexuals, whatever. And don't say you do not support the bigotry of the right. Your words prove you to be a liar if you do.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

so you're gonna stop with the threadbanning then?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Just as you have not in this post.

When does Trump exhibit any tolerance for others be it Muslim, Hispanic, women, journalists, homosexuals, whatever. And don't say you do not support the bigotry of the right. Your words prove you to be a liar if you do.

there's no proof he's racist. it all out of context bullshit and lies.

 

[Evmetro]

I appreciate PoliTalkers good intentions, but this is the kind of Pollyanna dreaming on the part of American liberals that keeps America a socially regressive nation.
America is NOT a WE. America has ideological diversity--far more debilitating that racial, ethnic, or religious diversity--that guarantees that half of America is always going to find the government repugnant no matter which side wins.

Suggesting that we can all come together is essentially flipping the middle finger to BOTH sides. It's saying that neither side is sincere in its values. BOTH sides are sincere in their values, but those values are completely incompatible.

This is why people like PolyTalker and I cannot work together. He wants people to compromise their values. I want people with MY values to win. Those are not common goals. My goal is difficult. His is a flight of fantasy.

One other thing, PoliTalker. The nastiness is not petty. The nastiness is genuine hatred and incompatibility. Calling it merely "petty' is turning one's back on reality.

You and I are on opposing sides of the war, but I think you are onto something here. Both sides will claim that "we" should all come together, but both sides know good and well that what we really mean is that the other side should come around to our way of thinking.

Hate and evil DO exist in reality, and they will never go away. Like you said Niblick, I want my side to win! Nice post, and fuck you.

 

[Flash]

He wants people to compromise their values. I want people with MY values to win. Those are not common goals. My goal is difficult. His is a flight of fantasy.

But in reality PoliTalker is more rational and pragmatic. Even if people with your values win they cannot accomplish anything unless they compromise with the other side. If they refuse because they are compromising their values, they accomplish nothing.

 

[Old Trapper]

there's no proof he's racist. it all out of context bullshit and lies.

Yeah we know. Ones actions only count if the one being "accused" is a Democrat.

But tewll me if you will is there any other group, Russian, Irish, etc., that he has denigrated as he has the Black and Hispanic, communities?

https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-racist-democratic-party/

These statements were met with surprise by white male reporters. During the 60 Minutes interview, Anderson Cooper immediately challenged Ocasio-Cortez by asking, “How can you say that?” Chuck Todd, host of one of the most important television political platforms in the country, quickly cut off Brown with the rejoinder, “Let me pause you there. You believe in his heart, he’s a racist?”

Since that specific question is in the national conversation, we should give it a clear answer: Yes, Donald Trump is racist. My colleagues at Democracy in Color have catalogued 242 separate actions, statements, or policies from the first 18 months of the administration. Both Vox and The New York Times recently provided historical summaries of Trump’s racism going back decades.

While it’s important and a good sign that some of our nation’s leaders, and media, are coming forward to call out Trump as a racist, focusing on that narrow question is problematic and could be counterproductive in many ways to the larger goals of ending inequality and injustice in America.

First, it diverts attention from the manifestations of racism that are most destructive. The emphasis on one individual’s personal views, actions, or statements misses the point, if the goal is to dismantle racism. Martin Luther King clarified the distinction in 1963 when he challenged the idea that legislation “has no great role to play in this period of social change because you’ve got to change the heart and you can’t change the heart through legislation. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me.”

The problem in this country isn’t the backward views of individuals, even if one of those individuals occupies the Oval Office. What plagues this nation is a vast array of public policies and practices that perpetuate a status quo that is grossly unequal and unjust after centuries of explicit racialized economic exploitation that is maintained by widespread, contemporary implicit bias. It is those public policies and practices that are the problem and that need to be addressed.

Far more dangerous than Trump’s personal beliefs are his public actions to make America white again—his political efforts to consolidate the support of millions of individuals who fervently believe that white Americans are under siege from people of color, especially Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and Muslims. At a recent Trump rally in El Paso, Texas, a Trump supporter articulated the public-policy priorities of far too many Americans when he said, “Build the wall, deport them all.”

Which leads to the second shortcoming of focusing on what’s in Trump’s heart—a diversion of energy and efforts from the immediate and most important challenges before us. The solution to a racist individual in the White House is to remove that individual (which absolutely has to happen). But our country’s problem is bigger than that. Much bigger. In order to transform this status quo, we need sophisticated electoral and social change strategies that are executed with a narrow focus and pinpoint precision.

 

[Evmetro]

Yeah we know. Ones actions only count if the one being "accused" is a Democrat.

But tewll me if you will is there any other group, Russian, Irish, etc., that he has denigrated as he has the Black and Hispanic, communities?

https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-racist-democratic-party/

These statements were met with surprise by white male reporters. During the 60 Minutes interview, Anderson Cooper immediately challenged Ocasio-Cortez by asking, “How can you say that?” Chuck Todd, host of one of the most important television political platforms in the country, quickly cut off Brown with the rejoinder, “Let me pause you there. You believe in his heart, he’s a racist?”

Since that specific question is in the national conversation, we should give it a clear answer: Yes, Donald Trump is racist. My colleagues at Democracy in Color have catalogued 242 separate actions, statements, or policies from the first 18 months of the administration. Both Vox and The New York Times recently provided historical summaries of Trump’s racism going back decades.

While it’s important and a good sign that some of our nation’s leaders, and media, are coming forward to call out Trump as a racist, focusing on that narrow question is problematic and could be counterproductive in many ways to the larger goals of ending inequality and injustice in America.

First, it diverts attention from the manifestations of racism that are most destructive. The emphasis on one individual’s personal views, actions, or statements misses the point, if the goal is to dismantle racism. Martin Luther King clarified the distinction in 1963 when he challenged the idea that legislation “has no great role to play in this period of social change because you’ve got to change the heart and you can’t change the heart through legislation. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me.”

The problem in this country isn’t the backward views of individuals, even if one of those individuals occupies the Oval Office. What plagues this nation is a vast array of public policies and practices that perpetuate a status quo that is grossly unequal and unjust after centuries of explicit racialized economic exploitation that is maintained by widespread, contemporary implicit bias. It is those public policies and practices that are the problem and that need to be addressed.

Far more dangerous than Trump’s personal beliefs are his public actions to make America white again—his political efforts to consolidate the support of millions of individuals who fervently believe that white Americans are under siege from people of color, especially Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and Muslims. At a recent Trump rally in El Paso, Texas, a Trump supporter articulated the public-policy priorities of far too many Americans when he said, “Build the wall, deport them all.”

Which leads to the second shortcoming of focusing on what’s in Trump’s heart—a diversion of energy and efforts from the immediate and most important challenges before us. The solution to a racist individual in the White House is to remove that individual (which absolutely has to happen). But our country’s problem is bigger than that. Much bigger. In order to transform this status quo, we need sophisticated electoral and social change strategies that are executed with a narrow focus and pinpoint precision.

There is a special thread on this forum that is dedicated to archiving all of the evidence that proves Trump is a racist. No lefty on this forum has ever been able to post a shred of evidence that proves Trump a racist.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?80126-Trump-is-not-a-racist

If you can post evidence on that thread that Trump is a racist, I will click "like" on every post that says Trump is a racist. The catch to the deal is that the evidence must be real, and not allegations, accusations, dismissed cases, gish gallop, or propaganda.