DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Racist MAGA hatted individuals attack "Empire" actor Jussie Smollet

I've always said I don't know if the guy is a racist or not ... what I do know is that he panders to the racists because they are part of his base. And that without doubt encourages them and enables them..... Does it affect me personally? No. But that doesn't mean I can't comment that I think it's bad for the country.

Pretty damning on the surface. I don't have time to dig into the articles right now, but I will later. Thanks for sharing!



My comment to you wasn't an indictment, I was sincerely looking for proof. And, I wasn't doubting your statement, just that I couldn't think of any examples I had seen.

No problem ... it was more in response to Eve saying earlier that the increase in hate shouldn't worry me if it doesn't affect me personally.

That's not what I said at all, but thanks for putting imaginary words in my mouth.

Well I was writing quickly ... apologies if I didn't relay the spirit of your early responses.

I really enjoyed reading this.

No, it's really not. Unless you feel that an increase in hate groups and their numbers is the same as saying this is the way all republicans are. Which isn't what anyone has said or implied.

When true evil is gaining momentum, it should be something all Americans consider a problem. When this is happening and your president doesn't or hasn't spoken out against it, it should be something all Americans consider a problem.

Everyone knows we have unstable people on both sides. When you have a have a man in power who calls the press "the enemy of the people", who calls the opposing party "radicals", you're helping push the buttons of the unstable. At some point people need to admit that words have consequences and realize that using rhetoric that spurs the unstable into action is a part of what we're seeing here.

Cal - as Clem pointed out and I didn't mention, that was a very good post and I agree with your sentiments. I only responded to the one item about whether there is any evidence to suggest Trump is enabling the rise of these hate groups.

I appreciate that, mgh. I do want to dig into your links. While I feel Trump's presidency has enabled and propagated divisiveness, the US isn't the only country with these types of problems, there are neo-Nazi, anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, and anti-Muslim groups, even extremist men's rights groups throughout Europe and Russia. I don't think blame can be laid at the feet of Tump, (I personally think he's a bafoonish, self-serving clown whose only agenda is increasing his wealth and furthering his influence) though again, I believe his presidency has allowed this type of hate to flourish here in the US. But the problem has been growing for a while here at home and on a global scale, probably since the 70's.

Side note: I applaud law enforcement for keeping violent damage somewhat in check.

You can't blame Trump for them. You can blame him for the rhetoric he uses that emboldens them.

Honestly, Pit, I don't pay any attention to him, so I'm not educated at all in his rhetoric. But I do see the divisiveness his presidency has propagated. I keep thinking he'll be hauled out of the Whitehouse in handcuffs at any minute. My only question is, what's taking so long? I do however believe he hate problem we face reaches far beyond his influence.

First, it’s an unwritten rule to not indict a sitting president.

Second, the investigations are still ongoing.

Third, like anybody else should be held to the same standard, you’re innocent until proven guilty. So we’ll see what the investigations yield.

You are right - there are similar issues across Europe as well. To me there is a stark juxta-position of Brexit and Trump being elected on the back of disgruntled and disenfranchised voters feeling angst and frustration at a political system that doesn't seem to work for them. That is there and I don't know who is to "blame" if anyone .... in some ways I blame the voters themselves and believe you get the government you deserve - because most of the populace is ignorant and apathetic to politics and holding public officials accountable. . . . but I digress: Yes - Trump is not responsible for the hate. But his deeds and words have (imo) enabled and exasperated the issue in the USA.

Swish pretty much nailed it. It's protocol that a sitting president not be indicted. The right uses it as proof that Trump isn't guilty of anything. The fact is, just wait until after he's left office. That's when the crap will hit the fan.

The right will never call for him to leave. They've watched him lie, call for violence against the press and elected a man who is morally bankrupt. They're in too deep to stop now.

j/c:

Unwritten rules aren't rules. I realize the investigation is ongoing. I understand the standards of our justice system. What I'm not clear on is your point.

Shortly after he was elected, I was at a family gathering. I said at the time he may be the first president we see hauled from the Whitehouse in handcuffs. There is a laundry list of criminal behavior associated with him. Whether he will ever actually be indicted and arrested during his presidency, I have no idea. But I wouldn't shocked to see it happen. Impeachment is the more likely course of action, but there is a lot of foot dragging, so criminal investigation and arrest may be the only course of action. Protocol be damned.

Even Nixon wasn't indicted.

You stated you expect him to be hauled off in handcuffs, but wonder why it’s taking so long.

I answered that directly. That’s the point.

He was given a full, unconditional pardon. The reason he wasn't indicted.

I didn't say I expected him to be hauled off in handcuffs. I said I keep thinking he'll be hauled out of the Whitehouse in handcuffs at any minute. It's a subtle difference, I know, but a difference none the less. Frankly, I have no expectation of anything concerning the justice system, politics, or people in general.

Yet he wasn't indicted while he was in office. That's what you were asking, right? Why Trump hasn't been indicted while he's in office. Nixon wasn't pardoned until after he resigned.

Yes, that's correct, Nixon wasn't indicted while in office. And to be clear I'm not asking why Trump hasn't been. I'm saying anything is possible. Take this scenario: What if say, evidence was discovered that Trump is complicit in espionage, voter fraud, or pedophilia? Should he be arrested while in office? I think we both know the answer to that. Would he be? Who knows? I'm not sure what you guys are trying to say here.

Also, I forgot to point out, as we all know, innocent until prove guilty doesn't apply to arrests.

I most certainly think he should be under any of the circumstances you mentioned.

I'm saying every Republican under the sun claims a sitting president can not be indicted. I'm not an attorney so I don't know the answer. I'm saying there is much debate about whether it can be done or not. I'm saying that it was known that Nixon was involved in criminal activity as a sitting president and was not indicted while he was president.

I think it will depend on 2 things:

1. How egregious is the provable offense? - Hush money payments to mistresses probably won't get him impeached regardless of how cast iron the evidence. Proof that Trump is compromising the USA while either looking to profit or being compromised himself to a foreign power .... that would change the landscape regardless of precedent.

2. How iron clad and incontrovertible is the evidence? . . . if there is ANY wiggle room for Trump to deflect and confuse and I don't think it will matter.

Yeah, who knows? I think it would depend on the extent of the crimes, the evidence involved, and the amount of time left in office. If Federal prosecutors had enough evidence to take him to trial today on espionage charges, then I think they would march his ass out in handcuffs. However, if the extent of Muller's investigation only reveals evidence of paying off Stormy to keep quiet about their sexual relationship, then I doubt it would happen.

lol, I was basically just writing the same thing.

There are things within these articles that I don't like, and yes, it's possible he may be a racist. It's also highly likely groups like the Alt Right feel empowered under his presidency. But frankly, I don't see direct evidence of him "encouraging and enabling hate groups across America." If anything, he has spoken out against racism, the KKK and Neo-Nazis. Is it possible this stance is strictly political? Sure, but it's his official stance none-the-less.

As much as we (as a people) love to hate, taking fragments of information to form erroneous conclusions makes it all that much easier. You wrote about the ignorance and apathy of the populace. Part of that has to be laid at the feet of our soundbite society, and our own willingness to only hear what we want to hear, or bend what we think we see, hear, or read to fit a narrative we feel strongly about. Scroll up a few posts and you'll see that very thing occurred on a relatively minor issue. Far too often we rush to be heard with the unhealthy need to appear to be "right" regardless of the issue.

I agree people need to become better educated and more well informed. Particularly the later as you don't need a college degree to do a deep dive into both sides of any particular issue. However many people are too lazy or don't want to be inconvenienced in that way. I believe we ended up where we are through that type of knee-jerk, soundbite politics. The very thing that allowed us to end up with candidates like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the first place.

JMHO

I think the apathy of the public is directly proven by the fact only 58% of eligible voters voted in 2016. When 42% of eligible voters refuse to vote, I think that speaks volumes of apathy. Whether that apathy comes from simply not caring or the lack of what they see as candidates fit for office I won't speculate on.

So what you wrote is correct in as much as Trump seems to eventually say the 'right' thing - or close to it.

But - to me that initial appeasement and refusing to reject and speak out against the people who have close ties to well known hate groups is what counts most. That sound bite - that news story reaches the ears of those groups and does the enabling. Disavowing them later is too late - the damage is done and in my view it is deliberate. It's far from the worst I see in Trump - but when discussing this topic it's how I see it.

I am certainly not going to argue or attempt to dissuade you from your opinion on the matter, especially in light of the fact that I think it's likely he's a racist. I also think it's possible he's a narcissist, a misogynist, a homophobe, a rapist, and a pedophile. But those are just my thoughts on the matter based on what I've read and seen concerning the man, I have no proof. Would it surprise me to find out he has strong affiliations with white supremacists groups, or is a Russian asset. Nope.

There's been a continual dumbing of, and manipulation of, the populace in general since the advent of television, further propagated by the lessening of educational standards. News is merely infotainment (most of it irrelevant to our daily lives), and entertainment is pablum for the intellect. The result of which is that we idolize those who attain "entertainment" status. That's how a movie star and a reality TV drone get elected president, in my view. At least Regan governed a state. Trump has absolutely no qualifications other than being a failed businessman and a prime time face. If Karl Marx were alive today, he might be quoted as saying, "Entertainment and technology are the opiates of the masses."

You forgot to mention over 2 years experience as President of the United States of America and 2 years experience as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America.

Your name comes up in the dictionary when you look up the word obtuse.

Ha! Good one. Were you leaning on that when you voted for him?

Maybe we can turn congress and the White House into a reality show and vote people out on a weekly basis.

lol, I love that idea. With a live action popularity meter.

You need to watch the "Majority Rule" episode, season 1 of The Orville.

That was a good episode, even as twisted as it was.

Well, we do have an actual reality star leading the cast and at the current turnover rate in the White House, that weekly basis doesn't have much further to go to reach that pace.