Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login


So I should vote for the other side that reflexively calls me racist and bigoted whenever I don't agree with them? The side that takes innocent cops that were defending their lives and ruins their careers and lives, so that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can advance theirs? The side that has forced colleges to lower the standard of evidence in college sexual assault cases, so young men can have their lives ruined by an accusation? The side that has invented a gender wage gap to sow division? The side that arranged to carry a massive banner at the front of the gay pride parade in NYC this weekend, saying "Republican Hate Kills"? The side that will try to destroy my career if I donate to the wrong political cause? Look, I can make your side look like demons too.

The attack on the judge was a bad move and poorly argued. Instead of "he's Mexican and I want to build a wall", he could have argued the defensible "he's associated himself with some Hispanic-American political groups that have political goals that I represent a huge threat to" (or really, just have left it alone). I would never join an organization called "La Raza", which literally means "The Race"; the thought is appalling to me, as it should be to you. It was appalling to Cesar Chavez, the left-wing Mexican-American civil rights activist, when they were first founded.

Trump has been in the public spotlight for decades, runs major companies with many employees, and no one ever thought to call him racist or accuse him of discrimination until he said he wanted to build a wall.


Hackernews is rate-limiting me, here's my response to maxerickson:


I stand corrected. Here are the Google search results for "Donald Trump racist" up to 2008, before his criticism of Obama got the word thrown around a ton. Almost everything comes from one guy's tell-all-type memoir (aka tabloid crap) and the rest speaks for itself as political opportunism. If anything, it actually helps prove my broader point about it being thrown around ridiculously.


Year 2000, people call Trump racist: http://graphics.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/gaming/part...

1993, Governor of Connecticut calls Trump bigoted: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/05/nyregion/weicker-apologize...

First link, they call him racist. Because he opposed their casino; zero evidence of racial bias, just cutthroat business. Seems like exactly what the GP is talking about - just throwing insults.

Second link is Trump pointing out exactly what the first article says! That X place wants to run a casino, but can't get legal permission. So they go to Indian tribes to get the legal part bypassed. It hardly seems bigoted to point out this is just exploiting a legal loophole.

It does everyone a disservice to so lightly throw around these words. If I were to start calling every panhandler/beggar that bothers me "assault", people would discount it. Same with all these accusations - they are losing their impact and people will start ignoring it. If Trump and the like are to be defeated, his opponents are going to have to come up with more substance instead of yelling "bigot".

(I'm in Guatemala, and some people here realise how good Trump will be for them. By blocking illegal Mexican immigration, if immigrants are needed, it'll open up more legal pathways for countries that aren't Mexico.)

No, you don't have to vote for the other side. But you're definitely voting for someone who is obviously going to be a poor leader. And he's demonstrated poor judgement over and over again. All the signs are out there but you choose to ignore them because you hate the other side so much. I cannot understand how a Hispanic can vote for someone who is so anti-Hispanic among other things. Are you HOPING that it's all an act? Really? This election is not a trick question. Many in the GOP have rejected him. Does that not count for anything?

We don't always get easy choices but I refuse to abdicate my responsibility to make the best choice for my country, even if it means swallowing some of my reservations. The other side has nominated an unprincipled criminal who has shown utter contempt for accountability in the course of her public service. Not to mention that I share about 0-5% of her policy views.

Aside from the whole judge debacle, which I concede can be seen that way, I don't see any evidence that Trump is anti-Hispanic. It's a nice narrative for the other side, because it turns off any thinking about the substance.

The GOP is unfortunately full of people who are more interested in abiding by liberal PC pieties, more interested in not being called racist, more interested in staying in power, than they are in actually delivering for their voters and for the American people. The Romney's and Bush's of the world just offer a slow-motion surrender instead of an overnight loss. Sometimes that's all you can get and it's better than nothing. Trump offered the base a chance to go all in. Despite his weaknesses, it's probably as good a timing as we will ever get.

Like I said in my topmost comment here, there's also the plain fact that many of these Republicans don't share the world view of the wing of the party that Trump represents. American parties are big tents with lots of room for ideological diversity. In countries with proportional systems, politicians have to negotiate with multiple parties to get a majority in Parliament. In America, that fight happens in the People.

Also, look, Trump is divisive obviously. He might win, but he's very controversial and has generated a lot of animosity, because he slaughters everyone's sacred cows. If he loses, some think it could damage the Republican brand for a long time, especially if our politically-correct culture continues down its current path. A lot of Republicans are trying to hedge their bets, to prevent another long-term calamity like the fallout from Goldwater's loss. I disagree with them, but I see where they're coming from.

> The other side has nominated an unprincipled criminal who has shown utter contempt for accountability in the course of her public service. This is really naive. Both sides are hardly saints. This sounds like a talking point from the GOP or Fox News.

So, after the Leavers won the #Brexit vote, we hear of these racist attacks on Polish immigrants by idiots emboldened by the vote result. I would not be surprised to see the same thing happen in the US.

A talking point from Fox News? This has been all over the media for months, even if some left-wing outfits have been trying to downplay it. If a normal government employee did what she did, they'd be out of a job, barred from ever having a security clearance again, and potentially facing criminal charges for the reckless handling of classified data. They'd almost certainly be facing criminal charges for destruction of evidence.

Also, have you not seen the large number of violent anti-Trump protesters attacking Trump supporters and police?

You need to add an extra newline to go to a new line btw.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/donald-trump-californ... . It of course opens with the weasely "fair" opening sentence: "Protesters and supporters of Donald Trump clashed in the streets of San Jose, California, Thursday night after the presumptive GOP nominee held a rally." But the violence was exclusively in one direction, violent anti-Trump mobs attacking peaceful Trump supporters while waving Mexican flags and burning American ones. The biggest provocation from a Trump supporter was apparently waving the middle finger. A mob cornered her and threw eggs at her face. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-quick-cuts/watch/trump-supporter-... At least she didn't have a bloodied face and need to be taken away in an ambulance, like some Trump supporters have. This has been playing out all over the US.

If you vote based on who has the most violent supporters, then you'd be crazy to cast your ballot for a left-winger in any Western country. There's a contingent of far-left protesters in the West that just cause mayhem at any major event, like party conventions, G8 summits, WTO summits, Davos, etc. You barely hear about it because it's basically background-noise to Western society at this point. I don't think it's fair to use this as a shot against everyone on the left, unless they're trying to accuse conservatives of violence, or unless they're purposefully tolerating or equivocating about the violence, like the mayor of San Jose did.

A couple of comments. Firstly, I strongly advise you to look at the repeated rise and decline of Silvio Berlusconi. I think Trump's awfully similar to Mr. Berlusconi in many ways, including some of the circumstances that caused Italians to elect him. Italian machismo has a different face than American machismo, but it's kind of the same. Mr. Berlusconi was not politically correct. The net result was a pretty poor PM... beyond scandals and giggle-worthy headlines, there really wasn't much policy advancement, unless it empowered Berlusconi's personal fortunes. He also was a leader that was not respected by the EU in any way, not a terribly good deal in this global world. The economy ended up stalled (Berlusconi fixed none of Italy's business structural problems)

Mr. Berlusconi was also anti-immigrant, similar to Trump (actually not quite as coarse, but no matter). It didn't matter much one way or another, frankly. I get the impression today's Italians don't look quite that fondly on that era.

I get that some of the above (the EU / global part) is part of the reason for things like Berlusconi, Trump, Brexit, etc. I also think, ironically, that any economic impact (which in some cases is big) might disproportionately affect many who vote for such things. Talent / company "brain drains" happened under Berlusconi, and it looks like the same will happen under Brexit. Those that can are more likely to move wherever the jobs and opportunities are. Those that can't end up in a not quite so enriched country. This really isn't a solution for the globalization / technology inequality problem. It might exaggerate it for all I know.

The second: Since 9/11, only two general classifications of terrorists have actually committed mass murder in America. The first is Islamic terrorists. The second is right-wing terrorists (right-wing as in: white supremacists, anti-semitism , militia types, anti-abortion advocates). Don't get me wrong -- the far left-wing certainly is capable of violence, the clashes at the Trump rallies are deplorable, and there have been murderous radical left terrorists in the past. But these days, I consider right-wing white supremacists in particular the most "likely to commit terrorism" category next to radical Islamists. I don't know of a left wing incident recently where a church was mass-shot; white supremacists have mass-shot two churches this decade.

It, of course, is not fair to use these right-wing white supremacists as a generalization of conservatives (as it would be the other way, as you say). But Donald Trump's unashamed nativism, macho authoritarianism, and identity politics does make me worry a bit whether this will encourage more white supremacists terrorism in the future. We'll see, I guess.


Citation needed. He's talked a lot about limiting Mexico's free access to free movement of people. This disproportionately affects Mexico and Mexicans, and their media reflects it!

Having gone through immigration ordeals, it's a slap in the face to embrace illegal immigration. I put up with the law, and it hurts me[1]. Others just say fuck it, run across, and that's supposed to be OK? Or more ridiculously, saying it's not OK is racist?

For every other country that's not Mexico, stemming Mexican immigration is a boon. Of course his words are spun to make people offended. I spoke to one woman here (Guatemala) who said "But he hates people like me". But when asked, she couldn't say why, she had just heard reports. After showing what he really said, she no longer believed it.

Oh, and immigration laws south of the US are a lot harsher than the US! My daughter's a Canadian-American in Guatemala. Since she doesn't have her GT passport, if she tries to leave the country, she owes a $4000 fine for being here illegally[2]. Imagine the backlash if the US imposed exit fines on such immigrants! I only point this out to highlight the absolute hypocrisy when these countries complain about US policies.

Let's face it: A huge chunk of the world population would jump at the chance to live in the US. Their countries would also love that, as remittances are a huge business. (Mexico gets what, $2BN a month? That's perhaps 1-2M households being supported?) If the US needs immigration, then they should do so in a fair-to-everyone way, not in a way that lets people get hurt, forces illegal crossings, allows Mexico to stop non-Mexicans from making the attempt, etc. And this also selects for "not the best people". The professional people I know in Latam would never dream of visa overstay, let alone illegal crossings. The ones I do know that gone illegally might be nice people, but they're hardly the top talent the US can attract.

People need to stop being hysterical, stop worrying about looking bad, and actually examine fairness and data to determine policy. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist by any means, and insisting so will just result in being ignored.

1: My daughter was killed indirectly due to immigration law forcing us to go to a poor country with junk healthcare.

2: Yes I can sort it out for probably half that amount. But the point remains.

I believe you can be anti-illegal-immigration and not racist. It's also not a stance that Trump or the GOP owns.

> People need to stop being hysterical Well, have you heard what's coming out of Trump's mouth? He's exploiting people's fear of Mexicans. That carelessness counts as being anti-Hispanic and also, have you heard what he said about that judge...

When Trump talks about building a wall (charging Mexico for it!) and deporting all illegal immigrants you can't ignore that pipe-dream. Somehow this guy is going to solve illegal immigration? That's why you're supporting him? Because why write this huge defence of him?

Again: What has trump said that's actually anti-Hispanic (not even just Mexican) or outright racist? I have looked up a lot of what Trump _exactly_ says. He's very careful with his words; people just project meaning into them to get the result they want.

All people have biases, even judges. The judge in question belongs to "La Raza Lawyers" ("The Race"). La Raza in general is very pro-immigration and doesn't like Trump's policies. Trump didn't say it was because he was Mexican heritage, he said it was because the judge kept ruling against him. But it's not crazy to think there may be some bias there, possibly.

I don't know why you think it's a pipe dream. Charging Mexico is trivial: Threaten the remittances. Tax them or just ban them (add more AML/KYC rules). Since there's 1-2M households depending on this income, even a 2 month interruption would devastate Mexico - they can't play around with it. As far as deporting people, the US deported 1M in a the 50s[1]. With social media and modern tech, it should be easy to surpass that number.

I'm not even supporting him here. I'm just annoyed that people that could take down Trump don't, and instead resort to baseless insults. We just saw this happen with Brexit. The Remain side, outside of debates, was a lot of "don't be racist" screaming. People are ignoring this kind of yelling, and it desensitizes people to actual racism.

This isn't really a good topic for HN, but please email me (see profile) so we can discuss more.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact