General Question

elbanditoroso's avatar

Which is worse? Behaving badly sexually, or behaving badly racially?

Asked by elbanditoroso (24888points) 1 week ago

They’re both nothing to admire.

In Virginia you have a black man accused of sexual assault twice.

You also have two white men (maybe three) accused of wearing blackface, which is normally seen as racist behavior.

Which is the greater sin?

Who, if any of them, should resign?

Does the race of the person make a difference? Should it?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

79 Answers

Dutchess_III's avatar

There are degrees of everything. In the examples you gave, sexual assault is worse than someone wearing black face, assuming they don’t also assault someone.

stanleybmanly's avatar

People are flawed. The degree and variety of those flaws are endless. Politics is one of those on stage professions where exposure of those flaws is a veritable industry in itself. It doesn’t help that the field of politics attracts folks of exaggerated egos and flamboyant preferences. There comes a point when the endless exposes’ and scandals grow tiresome and meaningless through sheer weight and volume. Individuals must be judged on their overall performance balanced against the severity of whatever offense is sensationalized.

elbanditoroso's avatar

OK, who, if anyone, should resign in Virginia?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Who is Virginia?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Probably no one, but who is in a position to rationally determine such a thing? Do you feel that YOU know enough to wield a rational decision?

Demosthenes's avatar

I don’t think any of them should resign, but they probably all will eventually. It’s rare that politicians don’t succumb to this kind of pressure.

The blackface isn’t enough to lose your job, in my opinion. The sexual assault would, but it hasn’t been proven, and I’m not a fan of guilty until proven innocent, which seems to be how it goes with sexual assault allegations.

seawulf575's avatar

I guess the answer depends on how radically right or left you are. It seems that something someone did 30+ years ago, such as putting on blackface for halloween or some other party, is suddenly reflective of who that person is today. For all of you out there that are over 55, let me ask…did you ever do things when you were 18–20 that would be viewed as being wrong today, but were okay at the time? Or things that weren’t okay then or today? Does that mean that is the same person you are today? What if someone went into your past and pulled up something like a DUI. What if they suddenly splashed it all over the various media outlets calling for you to resign your job because you are a lush and present a danger to those around you? I mean, after all, you might have had the DUI 30 years ago, but geez…that defines who you are today, right?
For the sexual indiscretions it still comes down to how radically left or right you are. Sexual assault is not okay ever. But when someone comes out of the woodwork making accusations of something that happened in the past, they are just that…accusations. We (thankfully) live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty. Just because someone comes out of your past accusing you of something, doesn’t mean you are automatically guilty. Nor does your presumed innocence mean the accusation isn’t true. But to take action against someone based on innuendo or accusation alone is wrong.
The radical left/right part comes in how you react to the different cases. Let’s take sexual misconduct for example. Let’s pick out a few of the biggies over the years. Let’s pick Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Roy Moore, Keith Ellison, Brett Kavanaugh, Al Franken, and now Justin Fairfax. The lefties out there went crazy over Trump, Moore, and Kavanaugh. They made excuses for Clinton, Ellison, Franken, and now Fairfax. The righties were on the opposite side of things, though to be honest, those on the right are a little more open minded about things. If the accusations were proven true, those on the right were willing and supportive of tossing the offending douchebag out on their ears if it was warranted. Those on the left still seem to downplay the issues.
In the end, all these people need to be afforded the exact same rights…that is how our nation works best. Accusations have been made. Is there proof? If so, then the question becomes “how serious is this?” For wearing blackface when you were a teenager, I would say that isn’t serious, but that is my view. For raping a woman, I would say jail time is warranted. But the first question has to be “Is there proof?”
As for resignations, that really rests on the decision of those involved and those that are influential on them. It might be better for the integrity of the office to resign than to continue on, though it might not be. In politics, it is rarely about the individual, it is about the party. For Fairfax, having him resign and replacing him might be the right thing to do for the Democratic Party. They get to keep a Dem in the lineup and they do away with the bad press. But the resignation really comes down to Fairfax alone. He cannot be forced to resign. He can be fired, but resignation is his choice.

janbb's avatar

Two women have come forward; one of whom told people right after it happened.

Demosthenes's avatar

@seawulf575 I agree with most of that, but the Left didn’t make excuses for Franken. He was brought down very quickly. Clinton I won’t count because that was pre-#metoo. Neither party cared until recently. But post-#metoo, the Democrats have been pretty adamant that any politician accused of assault should resign, Democrat or not. They’ve made sure to be tough on their own. They were talking about this on NPR Politics Podcast the other day. Mara Liasson brought up due process, how “believe the woman” is problematic, and one of the other hosts commented that well, that’s the position Democrats have put themselves in. If they want to be the party of “believe the woman” then they’re going to have to sacrifice their own when accusations come up, no matter if they’re unproven.

seawulf575's avatar

@Demosthenes let me clarify a few things. The lefties, particularly on these pages, did indeed make excuses for Franken. He’s a comedian, he was just being silly. It was a joke. Even as more and more women came forward they said it was nothing. He did finally get forced out. Saying Clinton was post #metoo is likewise making excuses. Roy Moore’s accusations were from events that supposedly happened longer ago than Clinton’s. Likewise Kavanaugh’s actions supposedly happened 30+ years ago….long before #metoo. Keith Ellison’s are far more recent and included video tapes supposedly. Yet there was silence from the left on calls for his resignation. In fact they supported him. Trump was hit with innuendo for taking a ride on Jeffry Epstein’s plane one time, claiming he was a pedophile. Yet Bill Clinton rode on that plane and vacationed on Epstein’s private island repeatedly and the left…well they didn’t want to talk about it. It isn’t relevant is the excuse. Clinton still has a woman accusing him of rape and another for groping him and they both say Hillary covered it up. Yet none of the Dems want to even bring that up. That is what I’m talking about when I say the reaction depends on how radically left or right you are. My stance is that if there is an accusation, you should treat it like any other crime. You do an investigation and find the facts. If there are no facts, there is no case and it gets dropped. Your reference to Mara Liasson is spot on, though. The Dems did create this guilty-until-proven-innocent idea. They did it as a way to try smearing their political rivals. It got away from them though and they discovered that there are many in their own party that are paying the price.

rebbel's avatar

You mean “some on the right spectrum”, and “some on the left spectrum”, right?
Makes it sound so generalizing.

seawulf575's avatar

No, I mean radically left or right. Those that are radically on either side have a hard time admitting any fault by any member of their own party.

Demosthenes's avatar

@seawulf575 My point is that the fact that Democrats didn’t demand Clinton’s resignation in 1998 doesn’t mean much because that was before the Democrats created their “zero tolerance” attitude. I’m not referring to the time the “indiscretions” took place, but the time of the reaction. If Clinton were still in office, I think the reaction would probably be different. I agree that the reaction to Keith Ellison was underwhelming. They seem to ignore it if they can, but if they can’t, then they double down on that person, demanding their ouster.

seawulf575's avatar

@Demosthenes I understand the time difference. But here are some keys that do play in. (1) Clinton is being accused of Rape. As far as I know, there is no statute of limitations on that. Being in office is meaningless. (2) along with Bills actions, there are accusations that Hillary orchestrated a coverup and campaign to destroy the women coming forward. Yet she was just running for the same office Trump is filling. She may run again. (3) Bill and Hillary both still make tons of money on his name. That is a travesty of justice, if the accusations are true.
And in the end, you still have non-politicians like Weinstein or Spacey that aren’t in office and are being brought down by the #metoo. Their actions also took place in a different place and time yet they are being held accountable by today’s standards. Why is Bill any different?

rebbel's avatar

@seawulf575 Ah, “some on the radically right”, and “some on the radically left”?

JLeslie's avatar

If I have to choose, sexual assault is worse, but quite honestly it is in my opinion threatening to dress up as a klansman. A man cornering me to the point I fear he might assault me is on par with someone standing near me dressed in a hood. With both I fear for my safety.

I don’t think the VA governor should have to resign, although I’m appalled that photo is from 1984! WTH?! Did faculty sign off on that year book? Not that it matters much since they were med students. Still, it’s very long ago, and I care more what he has done in the last 20 years. I still don’t know why they were dressed like that in the photo? Was it a costume party?

As far as zero tolerance now vs Clinton. I call BS on that. First of all I am usually not for zero tolerance in general with anything. Secondly, I think it’s valid to point out hypocrisy regarding Democrats and Clinton and other politicians and their sexual escapades. The Republicans are blazing hypocrites too though, in my opinion they are worse, because if someone is an Evangelical Christian saying how immoral Clinton was, well how does your morality change so much that it’s now ok with Trump?

Unofficial_Member's avatar

Some people enjoy to be treated in a certain sexual way that others might not appreciate/see as bad experience. Being racist doesn’t really affect other people so long as you keep it only in your mind and not materializing your behavior in the form that that causes discrimination. So long as neither of them affect me in a bad way I won’t think badly of them.

JLeslie's avatar

@Unofficial_Member It’s not just discrimination, it’s terrorizing. It’s downright scary when you think people around you hate your group. Especially, when there is proof out that there sometimes that hate leads to physical harm and death. Confederate flag, KKK hoods, swastikas, it’s all symbols of terror in my opinion.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie yet despite high crime rates among blacks and violent and hateful actions and speeches by some of their leaders and groups towards whites, if a white person does anything other than accepting them as great people, the white person is a racist. Despite having an army that does dreadfully horrific things and leaders that spew hatred of the US, if you have any reservations about a muslim, you are an Islamaphobe. Why is it that when white people hate they are the haters and when other groups hate, the white people are still the haters?

Dutchess_III's avatar

@Unofficial_Member what two consenting adults do as far as sexual behavior is their own business. The key word is “consent.” The key word in sexual assault is “assault,” as in against their will.

Would you clarify the statement “So long as neither of them affect me in a bad way I won’t think badly of them,” though?

Unofficial_Member's avatar

@JLeslie But we have to accept the fact that every persons have a right hate whatever they don’t like. Instead of blaming them and labeling them as wrong we first need to understand the reason of their hatred and how plausible it is. If a black person hate a white person because of historical mistreatment then it’s understandable, I am not saying that it is right, I am saying that it is understandable, thus they have a right to hate. We can’t change or control other people’s mindset, we can, however, regulate the situation so that these people are not wrong as long as they don’t materialize their mindset in to action.

Dutchess_III's avatar

That is an interesting thought…..everyone has a right to hate whoever they want. And that’s true. As far as “why,” in the case of racism there is no logic for it. It’s just how they were raised.
What is wrong is when they actively preach the hate, make fun of the object of their hatred, or torture and murder the object of their hatred for no reason. Even if it doesn’t affect you personally, it’s still wrong.

Unofficial_Member's avatar

@Dutchess_III I mean, how other people’s mindset could affect me if they keep it just for themselves? And even if they materialize their thinking in to action not all people will look at it in a bad way. Some people like myself like lewd comments given by strangers, now that isn’t assault, it’s something that is acceptable. Some people don’t really care if others make ‘rude’ comments against their race so long as they’re not deprived of any benefit (a store owner can make racist gesture or comment toward his customers so long as he’s willing to sell to them, it’ll be a racism if he refused to sell because of his personal hatred toward certain race. Essentially, all people care about getting what they want).

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 You aren’t going to understand this, but I want you to consider it anyway. It really should improve your perspective on the issue of race as well as the fallacy of its trap as an obsession. You’re missing the picture if you view Islamists as a force arrayed against white folks. You have to get past those skinhead white power explanations on how the world works. In fact the best possible approach, is to ignore (if possible) racial questions after answering the basic question “In the history of the modern, world which race has been on top?” Then turn your head toward economic matters.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly your question is idiotic. Take ignore race, but then tell which race has dominated. You see the contradiction ,right? But yes, let’s do that. Which race has been on top? Well, that would depend on which continent you are on. And let’s expand it to religion as well, since I have mentioned that as being a factor in liberal scare tactics. But in the US, it has traditionally been the white folks on top. In Europe as well. In the far east, it has been Asians, in Africa it is the blacks, in South America it is the Latinos. Now, you want to take the world as a whole? Asians outnumber everyone with Caucasians coming in second. Interestingly, China has the largest population with India being the second largest.
By contribution to industrialization? The US led the way…by the contributions of mainly white folks. If you get into electronics development, you sort of get a toss up between the US (white folks), Japan (Asians), and China (Asians).
With me so far?
So let’s move on to Religion. Christianity is the most populous religion on the planet with Islam coming in a close second. After that is spreads out.

So now we know all the players, let’s take a look at how they contributed. As was already mentioned, most of the industrialization was by white folks, contributing ideas and developments that led the way for all to prosper. So that obviously makes us the bad guys, the racists. Since that was the only reason anyone developed anything. And since Trump is white, he must be a racist, isn’t that your stance? Oh wait…that’s right…slavery! Yeah. Again, that depends on which continent you are on. In Africa, there were many Muslim and Black slavers…far more than whites. In the US, since most of the population of the developing country was white, they were by default the slave owners. But interestingly, we fought a war about that some 150 years ago. And it wasn’t a war between races…it wasn’t blacks against whites. It was whites against whites. I would say that was the sole reason for the war, but it wasn’t. In fact the North had its slaves as well. And after the war, the slaves were freed. There were those in the US that clung to their hatred of that freedom. They were called Democrats. They fought tooth and nail to keep blacks subservient and they were/are racists.
Getting into the question of religion, let me ask…between Christianity and Islam…which religion has sworn to kill the other for the past couple hundred years? Yeah, that would be Islam. Which religion formed up an army to kill all the infidels in their way? Which religion led more terrorist attacks against other nations? You got it…Islam. Does that mean all Muslims are evil or bad? Absolutely not. But they, as a group, have shown themselves to be far more violent than Christians towards other groups for the sake of their religion. Yet according to liberals, such as yourself, they are all warm, loving, unicorn lovers and anyone that dares say anything different is an Islamaphobe.
Now let’s turn our heads towards economic matters. Trump is a racist according to you. That would mean that he only cares about whites and hates everyone else. Yet surprisingly, his economic efforts have led to the lowest black and Latino unemployment in decades…possibly ever. So if he is such a racist, why would he do something to help those folks?
Now, taking your hatred of conservatives and Trump out of the equation (though I think you are incapable), please tell me exactly what makes white people so bad?

JLeslie's avatar

@Unofficial_Member People can hate, stereotype, have prejudices, that’s fine. It’s unfortunate, but not specifically what I’m talking about. Hating, and being willing or wanting to take action to actually hurt someone in the hated group is what I am talking about. Displaying symbols that represent violence and murder and the removal of civil rights towards a group is terrorizing.

@seawulf575 Back in the day there used to be more sociological discussions on fluther. Jellies has to be extremely careful to ckareful that any generalization didn’t mean all members in a group. We still need to do it or some jellies go crazy. If you talk about statistics regarding a minority group, the stats can be fact, and it’s true, you still might be jumped on for even mentioning it whether good or bad. If you generalize about blacks, Hispanics, CHRISTIANS, REPUBLICANS, Jews, Muslims, even if you clarify “I don’t mean all I only mean the ones who behave in the manner I am speaking of,” people in the group being mentioned still take a offense, and people very sensitive to generalizing and stereotyping will also be disgusted. All groups do it.

We had a lot of discussions before you arrived here about conforming, assimilating, wearing things like hijabs or burqas. It was a very interesting time, and we had a jelly who was quite brilliant who worked in sociology that could add a lot to the discussions.

If you want to get slammed less then don’t say Muslims when you are talking about terrorists, say terrorists, unless you do mean all Muslims are suspicious? No one says “Christian terrorist” when a Christian does a mass murder. Maybe if you were willing to do that then you would have a leg to stand on. Not that I’m recommending it.

Unofficial_Member's avatar

^^ In that sense, I agree with you, but only after the hateful action has been done in a physical form. We need a proof, after all, to make a justified action against these kind of people, most especially if what they’ve done is a criminal act.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 you mean of course my ANSWER is idiotic. And my answer was consider who’s on top, THEN ignore race. My plan is that we might get back to it later. Meanwhile, why not take the time to review your last answer and count the opportunities for me to chew you up?

stanleybmanly's avatar

And while you’re at it, here’s a surefire is method for weeding out a hapless racist. Anyone who confuses resentment of American policies with hatred of white folks or —never mind. What’s the use?

JLeslie's avatar

@Unofficial_Member There is a ton of proof in America, and other parts of the world. Statistics show more hate crimes against blacks, Jews, gays, and Muslims. Synagogues and black churches have been targets of mass shooting historically and recently. Mosques set on fire, Muslims attacked. This isn’t some random act against some stray person and others get caught in the crossfire, these are acts to kill Jews, blacks, and other minorities, and to desecrate minority houses of worship. That’s not happening in white churches. White Christians in America very rarely are victims of hate crimes, Eapecially, compared to minority religions. It does happen in other countries where the Christians are the minority.

How would you like to see 100 large black men with “white Christians should burn in hell” on their t-shirts carrying knives and guns walking through the streets? That’s what it’s like for a Jewish person to see 100 skinheads with confederate flags on their shirts, and swastika tattoos chanting they want to take America back. Hell, it can be just 5 men in either description I gave. It’s scary.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie I understand about generalities. So why is it okay to slam all white folks with “white privilege” or all Trump supporters as racists? Your moral high ground on the left crumbles under your own hypocrisy. Tell you what…you start lecturing all the liberal jellies about making generalities and I will take you seriously.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly no, again…your answer was idiotic because you tell me to ignore race and then consider it. You can’t have it both ways. That’s what you on the left always forget. You can’t stand in judgment of people and then do the exact same things they do. You can’t call for justice against someone and ignore or deny the call for justice against someone else who did the exact same thing or worse, just because the second person is a liberal.
Along these lines, take your last response to me. Anyone who confuses resentment of American policies with hatred of white folks or —never mind. What’s the use? Isn’t that funny? I disagreed with American Policy when Obama was setting it and all I heard was what a racist I was. So yeah…you on the left set the rules for the game and established the playing field. You ought to be able to keep up.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Slow down. Read what I actually wrote. Then tell me whether it matters which of the 2 requests comes first. The word “after” is there for a reason.

seawulf575's avatar

In fact the best possible approach, is to ignore (if possible) racial questions after answering the basic question “In the history of the modern, world which race has been on top?” Then turn your head toward economic matters.
Not a lot of haze area there..Ignore race in a racial question. And then consider race as you answer. Maybe you should rethink your question instead of asking others to try making sense out of them.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 I NEVER mean all or say all about any group. You just did exactly what I wrote about. Why do you say things about all Muslims, all Hispanics, all blacks? I don’t lecture about generalities, I was one of the ones often generalizing. I was annoyed that generalizing was taken as though I meant “all.” Then I had to start writing all the time, I don’t mean all, I’m just generalizing. Generalizing doesn’t mean all, not how I define it.

seawulf575's avatar

And yet you are lecturing me for generalizing. In fact, the discussion I was having was all about how whites are treated in relation to other groups. I have seen jellies on here tell me ALL Trump supporters are racists. You don’t lecture them. They have stated that ALL Trump supporters are ignorant. You are silent towards them for those comments. I have seen jellies on here tell me about how all whites are privileged. Not a peep out of you about that either. So your hyped up lecture to me about offending others is hypocrisy, my dear. I cannot take you seriously about this. You jumped in on this one when I was debating with @stanleybmanly often says these hateful things about others. When was the last time you lectured him?
I have noticed that many people on these pages don’t want to acknowledge what I have written and they jump on me. It seems that if I’m not out there waving a sign about impeaching Trump, I’m just evil. I really don’t care what they think. I do get offended by when there is no logic being used, when hypocrisy is running rampant, and I REALLY get offended when someone lectures me about my attitude, while giving every liberal jelly on here a pass. I got lectured once about not giving a citation for my statement. Yet that same jelly let 6 liberal jellies pass on that. So yeah, if you want to lecture me, you better come with your halo in tact.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Poor brave persecuted soul ! I think most would read the sentence to mean “consider the question, THEN set race aside in order to approach these topics from an economic perspective.

seawulf575's avatar

Your question is still foolish. You want to ignore race to discuss racial inequalities. You really can’t understand that, can you? Okay, ignore economics and then talk about economic inequalities. It cannot be done. You cannot ignore something and then talk about it. Unless you are a liberal, I guess.

stanleybmanly's avatar

You’re such a raving fool. Calm down—please. I want to drop the race issue simply because you and I cannot get anywhere if you want to convince me that white folks are victims of oppression exceeding the
travails of the races they oppress. What I’m trying to get you to consider is that perhaps the race issue is out there to keep the factions at one another’s throats, and therefore disitracted from what REALLY matters.

seawulf575's avatar

So you want to drop the race issue so we can consider the race issue. Sorry hoss, that is what you are saying. Are there race issues? Absolutely. Do we get rid of them by further splintering society into smaller groups and divisions? Well, if you are a liberal, that makes sense apparently. To me, every time you bring up a race question (which has nothing to do with race to you) you create more narrative for stirring up differences. I understand your racist mind cannot grasp that, but it is true. Maybe if you stepped back and thought about it logically…wait, what am I saying? Never mind.

stanleybmanly's avatar

No. I’m asking you to approach the racial question from another angle. What if there’s a great deal more to racial issues than race? Who benefits from racism or bigotry? Why do you believe white folks under siege? Are Moslims a genuine threat to America?

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 Not lecturing you. I expected you to answer back that you don’t mean all either, and then I’d reply, “exactly my point.”

If you do mean the Muslim religion is just all bad and Muslims are all bad then that’s a different story.

seawulf575's avatar

No, @JLeslie I don’t mean all. I have NEVER meant all. In fact, if you read what I wrote: Does that mean all Muslims are evil or bad? Absolutely not. you would have your answer. Instead you launched into a lecture and yes, it was a lecture. But facts are facts. Many Muslim leaders have called for the death of our nation. ISIS is all Muslims that are running around brutalizing all non-Muslims or even Muslims that aren’t of the same sect. These are not actions you typically see from Christian groups. But in the end, there are bad Muslims, there are bad Christians, there are bad whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, Rich, Poor, and Middle class people. Assholes come in all sizes and shapes. To try pointing a finger at any one division, you have become that which you hate. You become the problem you believe you are attacking. @stanleybmanly is incapable of seeing that.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 If you never mean all then why don’t you know most people never mean all? Why don’t you know Hillary wasn’t calling all Trump voters deplorable? Why don’t you know jellies don’t mean all Christians when they talk about the Christian vote? If you do know it doesn’t seem like it.

Religion is used as a tool. The KKK uses Christianity. Some bad leaders in the Middle East use the Muslim religion. All of these leaders are using the religion of the region to control people. I don’t believe Trump is religious, yet he uses Christianity and God for his followers. Many politicians do this whether they are good or bad people, it’s a way to speak to their crowd and foster loyalty, sometimes blind loyalty. It’s not the religion itself, it’s how it’s used and interpreted.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie let me help you a little. Here is the quote from Hillary:
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
So officially, she didn’t mean all Trump supporters, only half. She called them racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it. Trump got about 63 million votes. So according to Hillary, there are 31.5 million deplorables that fit into her basket. That’s about 10% of the total population and about 25% of the voting population. And here’s the key, she didn’t really specify which people fit those categories other than that they were “Trump Supporters”. So she created a narrative that Trump supporters are horrible racists et al. Notice she really has no proof of any of that…she just throws it out as a brand. So let me ask…did that help or hurt the division in this nation? Go ahead…the answer is easy…it hurt it. And be honest…most jellies on these pages believe those descriptions apply to ALL Trump supporters. I have had that reinforced time and again. I have been slammed for being a Christian because some Jelly has a hard time with Christians. To them, ALL Christians act a certain way or think certain things. But you have been silent time and again while these attacks go on. So I ask you the question: Why did you choose to come at me for this same transgression when, in fact, I specifically stated that not ALL were bad?

JLeslie's avatar

^^I think Hillary never should have said that about Trump supporters, I said it the second she said it. I had lots of my Trump friends writing on Facebook “I guess I’m deplorable” even though, as you wrote above, she specifically stated not all. Why did my friends decide she was talking about them being deplorable?

Trump’s horrible statement about Mexicans: “...When Mexico sends its people they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you; they’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people…” using the word sending is ridiculous, but I’ll ignore that for now, he leaves a little leeway that some are good people, but that not his main message and he is not even qualifying here about illegal immigrants, so he is targeting Mexicans in general. Some choose to interpret his statement as only talking about those immigrants who are criminals, some interpret it as he’s implying be really wary of Mexican immigrants in general.

My point is, everyone hears what they want to hear. That’s all.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Yes, she probably shouldn’t have said it, but she did and she was spot on.

seawulf575's avatar

Thank you for making my point, @Dutchess_III

seawulf575's avatar

Oy vey…is that the start of the lecture to @Dutchess_III about making generalities and including all people of a group into a slam? Heck, she didn’t even categorize it as I did and you lectured me.

JLeslie's avatar

^^Yes, @Dutchess_III made your point. Although, just remember Hillary was clear to say she didn’t mean all, so again, if you are thinking she (and @Dutchess_III) are talking about you, why do you think that? When people generalize about Jews I don’t automatically think they are talking about me when it’s in reference to who I vote for.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Right. She said “half,” if I remember correctly.

seawulf575's avatar

Okay, let me make it a little more clear. Hillary did indeed say half. So which half? How does she know it’s half? What is her basis for branding a quarter of the voting population as racists, sexists, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamaphobic?
Now, once you start weeding through those questions, let me ask this…when someone says they are a Trump supporter, or worse yet, when you suspect they might be, do you automatically believe they fall into one of these categories before you know anything about them? If you think someone might fall into one of these categories, do you automatically think..“they are probably a Trump supporter”?
So Hillary’s comment according to @Dutchess_III is spot on. In her mind, she has automatically made racists, sexists, xenophobes, homophobes, and Islamaphobes all Trump supporters. That would mean that anyone that has any of those traits cannot possibly be a Trump supporter.
So let’s tie it back to the original conversation. You have three Democrats in VA who have a history of being either racists or sexists. Think they are Trump supporters? Probably not. But they are racists and sexists, allegedly. So in reality, the tie between these traits and Trump supporters is 100% false. Yet Hillary’s categorization was bought hook, line, and sinker by the left. So I have to ask…did that comment create more or less division in the nation?
And given that it created MORE division and was echoed by one of the Jellies, why didn’t you jump on them as you did with me? Because my political views differ from yours and theirs don’t? Did you just create more or less division?
As for whether Hillary thinks I fall into those categories or not (or @Dutchess_III or any other jelly)...I don’t care. I don’t think of myself those ways. But what I find funny is that you do. You lectured me on exactly these things even though I specifically stated that not all Muslims are bad. I specifically stated it because I specifically believe it. Yet you ignored that to lecture me. So let me ask you…why did you lecture me and let @Dutchess_III slide?

JLeslie's avatar

^^So when someone says half, you assume they are talking about you? WTH? Are you deplorable or not? She said, half of Donald Trump’s supporters belong in a basket of deplorables characterized by racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic views.

Are you racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and Islamaphobic or not?

Demosthenes's avatar

Was Mitt Romney correct when he said this?

All right, there are 47 percent who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie Someone says half. I don’t assume they are talking about me, I have already stated that. But apparently everyone else does. How do YOU differentiate between your average schmoe that voted for Trump or liked him better than Hillary and some Neanderthal racist? Which half if all you have to work with is a suspicion they voted for Trump? Now be honest….if you hear someone is a Trump supporter, what is your initial impression of that person?
Do you have any idea how many times I have had idiotic arguments with someone because THEY are wrapped around the axle about race? About religion? I have stated unequivocally that I believe we need to ensure we vet all immigrants and refugees before we turn them loose in our country. I say that from a perspective of security for our citizenry. Yet as soon as I say something like that I get called a racist or an Islamaphobe. I’m told I hate brown people. I’m told I’m a stupid moronic Trump supporter. So where in my statement did I say anything about race or religion? I stated we need to vet all immigrants and refugees. Period. So how do we get from that to all the things I get accused of? Because of the division caused by idiots like Hillary that have nothing else other than name calling to bring to the table.
And you have noticed that you are dodging all my discussion on division and even on whether you lecture me because I am ideologically different from you, right?

seawulf575's avatar

@Demosthenes, No…Romney was not correct when he said that. For the same reason Hillary was wrong for her basket of deplorables comment. It is not based in fact and it is divisive. A POTUS needs to be responsive to ALL the different attitudes in the country. He/she cannot write off millions of people because he/she wants to paint a picture. That does nothing but drive divisiveness.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, they’re proving to be pretty freaking deplorable @seawulf57.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III I suspect @JLeslie wished you weren’t on her side in this. You keep making my point admirably.

stanleybmanly's avatar

No one’s “writing them off”. And say what you will, there’s validity to Clinton’s “deplorable” argument. Unlike her opposition, she saw no need to court the skin head, lunatic or too dumb to sort socks or great white hope voters. And yes, it is deplorable that there are people who believe or pretend to believe Trump’s open attitude on immigrants to be foremost about protecticing the country rather than slamming the door

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly so you truly believe that description the skin head, lunatic or too dumb to sort socks or great white hope voters. applies to 25 million voters? Are you really that duped? And let’s stop with the “great white hope” spiel. Hillary is white too. So was Cruz, Bernie, and most of the other candidates. So are you really that drunk on the kool-aid that you believe there are 25 million voters that are skin heads? OR are you, as I have explained repeatedly here, buying into that description because that is the division Hillary created? You really can only go two ways with this…you really believe it or you have been duped.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 I totally understand your frustration. When I lived in TN and someone would find out I’m a Republican they too often assumed I thought Obamacare was the best thing since sliced bread, that I’m ok with aborting an 8 month fetus and killing it, and that I want all guns confiscated. Living in the Bible Belt if someone found out I was an atheist (that didn’t happen much, I didn’t offer that information) or they spoke about atheists in front of me, they assumed they were communists and trying to secularize the whole country. Nothing I said above is true about me, but plenty of people want to assume it about me.

The thing is, you not only support Trump, you are ok with many of the things that freak out a lot of us who are worried about Trump. Things like being ok with the term Nationalist, being ok with using White Supremists like it’s a benign term. When you’re ok with some of these things it’s even harder for people to think you aren’t in the mind set that white people are better. It just doesn’t sit well with most of us.

Let me say that I have friends who support Trump, who I don’t believe to be racist, but they too defend using the word Nationalist, and I think they are making a huge mistake. They just don’t get it.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 I make no such claim. I’m merely stating what everyone with any sense knows to be probable. Your side gets the skin heads, survivalists, rapture enthusiasts, bible thumping snake handlers, white supremacists & folks dumb enough to place their faith in a certifiable fool. Not all of them. There are probably a couple of black folks who voted for Trump. White folks don’t necessarily hold the franchise on stupidity. My point is that the fool could not possibly have been elected without those “deplorables”.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 Regarding the vetting—we do vet. Some countries more than others. We also allow millions of people in every year on tourist visas, and from some countries there is barely a fornality to get a tourist visa, and from other countries there is a big hoop to jump through.

Trump talked about vetting Syrian refugees like we weren’t already doing it, but we were. Some Democrats do sound like it should be a free for all to get into our country, but many don’t. Both sides suck to some degree.

Trump uses those 3 word one syllable each phrases. Build the wall. Lock her up. In America we can even chant U S A.

stanleybmanly's avatar

You know why of course? The stable genius is required to appeal to those of single syllable capabilities.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly you aren’t helping your argument. You say you make no such claim and then double down with it as your defense. Hillary threw at least 25 million folks into her basket. How many are you throwing in yours?

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie we do vet, except we weren’t. Especially under Obama with refugees from the Middle East. Especially with every illegal that crosses our southern border. Millions of illegals are in this country and none have been vetted. And then, when Trump suggests a travel ban from specific countries that are known hotbeds for terrorism or have sworn to harm us…a ban that required proper vetting before travel would be allowed…the left went nuts. They pulled out the race card. They threw down the Islamaphobe label. They sued to keep him from doing that vetting you believe we are already doing.

rebbel's avatar

Yeah, that was ridiculous: the moslim people from Saudi Arabia were free to travel to the USA.
And its not as if known terrorists from there have ever had anything to do with acts of terrorism in your country.
And there are also no known weapon deals between the two nations.

JLeslie's avatar

@rebbel Yeah, well some people believed we needed to go into Iraq because on 9/11 planes flew into our towers.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@JLeslie ”...someone would find out I’m a Republican they too often assumed I thought Obamacare was the best thing since sliced bread, that I’m ok with aborting an 8 month fetus and killing it, and that I want all guns confiscated….” what?

JLeslie's avatar

^^Gawd, Lol, thanks. Should be that they find out I’m a Democrat. I must have been thinking Republican for some reason.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther