Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

I really need to know. When I asked this question on other sides, they just posted a whole bunch of links from media sites, which doesn't exactly scream "objectivity". Yet they say I'm ignoring facts and am falling into the "slothful induction" fallacy.

So please, I must ask, what exactly has Trump said that makes him a racist, along with the proper context?

Ban All Muslims from entering /leaving remark – straight up islamophobia ( that apparently was removed from his website)

Racism -I recall some lawsuits but concrete information is scarce.

Misogynistic – comments on Megan kelly and the miss universe "sex tape"

Here is your answer.

Ban all Muslims – Just rhetoric. He was getting votes. He removed it from his website. I actually called along with plenty others from all sides the fact that it was just him being provocative just like the whole wall thing. What you think of him lying for votes is valid but not related to bigotry.

Racism – Probably the most tenuous one. People usually say it's how he refers to black people in an awkward way which proves nothing. It proves he's an idiot with no filter for what he says but not a racist. People also use the "he said mexicans are rapists" which is just a lie that spiraled out of control by echo chambers and media spins. He said Mexico is sending over rapists. That is a fact. It's like how people call you racist for saying "black crime rate is higher". It's not it assumes nothing about a race or individuals just says numbers. People interpret those as racist themselves.

Sexist – Everything where people say he's sexist how I see it is again him not having a filter. He's not a very good speaker most of the time especially improvised the dude is a doofus. Also a fucking douchebag. I'll admit that he's a huge douche. Him insulting people's appearances isn't sexism, it's what he does. I dunno how when it's to women that makes it a bigot thing. It's a personality thing.

And disclaimer: I am not a fan of Trump at all. I'm not exactly defending him by saying he's an ass. It's not much better than being a bigot, I'm just saying there's a difference because of the ideas it spreads. It's important to differentiate. He's a lying, disrespectful, stupid, fickle, rash son of a bitch. But that doesn't make him a bigot. For every so called "proof" of him being racist aka through sketchy microaggressions there is footage of him being nice to people. Obviously biased (and very long don't watch all of it) but it's just clips of him being compassionate and people who have met him vouching for his character (with music lol)

If anything Clinton's character is much worse basically no one who has met her even tolerates her. But she's the better option because "not racist".

I'm fed up with these claims of him being a bigot because of the kind of fear it creates. These connections are always so tenuous but they create such mass paranoia it's the reason all this crap is happening right now. Doesn't matter if he's against Orwellian level corruption the argument 99% of people will use without fail is "at least she's not racist". Microaggressions from stupidity even if considered bigoted at all should not be how you decide a presidential candidate let alone treat him like Adolf Hitler.

And because he is seen as this "fascist" (the not exactly new but newly spammed to the point of no meaning buzzword) bigot, people start using that logical leap to logically leap to assuming anyone who supports him in the slightest is equally evil. That's why we're in this mess.

So he can change his policy and flip flop just to get votes? Then how is he even considered anti establishment if he lies just like any other politician? If another candidate did such things you people defend when Trump does it, then would you be fine with it?

If he's not a bigot then explain why he and his father stiffed away homes from black customers back in the 70s? Or gained political legitimacy by claiming fanning the flames on his the president being not from the United States? Is that okay too because only donald should do it as well? I realize that Clinton started the birther movement, but she didn't force the president to release his birth certificate. If he's no sexist, then explain to me your definition of sexist then. I can't stand all this damage controlling he's getting. Trump can betray his supporters left and right, and he's sadly right.

A few things that haven't been mentioned (and some of these are old, so it is possible Trump would not approve of these things today)

Trump says he might have supported Japanese internment

Trump was sued by the Justice Department for not renting to blacks in 1973

Trump built a casino in Gary Indiana and promised he would hire mostly local people (majority who are black). He later got the following lawsuits about how he didn't keep his promise dismissed because it was not a legally binding agreement

There is this incident that while may not be really racist doesn't really look good either way.

"Ban all Muslims – Just rhetoric"
so uh… basically this comic

Slutty Sam wrote:

people start using that logical leap to logically leap to assuming anyone who supports him in the slightest is equally evil

Here's what I don't get. Everyone remembers the "Basket of Deplorables" quote Hillary made. While yes, I disagree with that part of the comment fully, no one ever seems to remember the part that follows:

"But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

This is ultimately the more important part to look at, especially for people who really wanted Hillary to win. There are various reasons people supported Trump. It's not because they all wanted to have a giant border wall with Mexico, or wanted to bar Syrian refugees from entering the United States, or anything else you feel was wrong about Trump. For many, when they see a system that seems to to little care about them, anybody who honestly acts like their goal is to change that, especially when they tell you it's in your favor, it's hard not to support them.

{ why he and his father stiffed away homes from black customers back in the 70s }

There's no evidence this happened at all, they settled out of court. aka they were paid a decent amount but a shit ton less than they would have got if he were actually discriminating by race and they went through the courts, but they didn't want to risk hiring their own lawyers and losing before a jury to come away with nothing. This happens today, frivolous lawsuits where somebody sues over a ridiculous claim but they get a few hundred k because the billion dollar corporation doesn't want to bother.

If he's so super racist, why did Jesse Jackson personally invite and introduce him on stage to speak at two of his charity events meant to support blacks and minorities on Wall St? He straight up gave them free office space in Trump Tower.

{ ““I now want to bring forth a friend who while he is deceptive of his social style…one can miss his seriousness and his commitment, but his success is beyond argument. When we opened this Wall Street project and we talked about it, he gave us space at 40 Wall Street, which was to make a statement about our having a presence there. And beyond that, in terms of reaching out and being inclusive, he’s done that too.” }

awks.

also how does questioning Obama's birth certificate translate into hatred for an entire race based on their skin color for you? That's what racism means.

Sexism means you think your gender is superior just because it's your gender. Trump has been a classic slimeball, but a sexist? Do you understand how much money has been given charitably and global volunteer opportunities/awareness spread because of Miss pageants? & you know why you didn't ever hear the rabid feminist media attack the all male white boy poker club executives he hires for his businesses? Because the gender split is almost 50/50, there are more women executives than men in his real estate businesses. Poor Mother Jones even attempted to go after him from this angle, but they could only come up with women being underrepresented in executive positions at casinos.

{ no one ever seems to remember the part that follows: }

People were pissed because those two baskets are the same damn people and she tried to conveniently separate them to make herself look all open and accepting, Hillary's just against the racists, not those poor no-college-degree hicks down in farmersville who are just sad and misunderstood :(

The ENTIRE election the Democrats openly mocked and berated "under-educated males" who are only, you know, TWO-THIRDS of the country.

I think The Donald is a business man, so he truly doesn't see color for better and for worse. He's not going to be in the business of helping any group of people unless the end goal is profit/success. So depending upon how he sees it, "success" could be exploiting impoverished communities in one decade in order to "win" at business and then looking to save them in another decade in order to "win" at politics.

That is, race is irrelevant as long as he achieves the goals he sets his mind to.

Regarding the claims of Trump, it is mostly as Graphic T says. He says racially insensitive things, but that's about it. I won't speak to the xenophobia or sexism, because I'd need to look more into the comments.
 
I would say that having to back off of extreme statements like banning all people of a group, simply dismissing the claims of him entering pageant dressing rooms without giving a warning, acknowledging his ability to grab or touch women whether they want it or not because he's freaking Donald Trump (your lawyers would never beat his) isn't a good thing.
 
But back to race, he makes statements that beg a question that tacitly pushes for a response and an action based on very simple statistics:

That is a fact. It’s like how people call you racist for saying “black crime rate is higher”. It’s not it assumes nothing about a race or individuals just says numbers. People interpret those as racist themselves.

This, for example:

For a somewhat unrelated reason, I went and found some statistics about murder rates between blacks and whites. This is what I said:

Murders by race in 2013.
Murders by race in 2014.

These data are from the most recent released records from the FBI. Of course, it’s probably somewhat inaccurate, but probably not enough to make up the proportionate disparity.

• About 77% of the 2015 US population is white.
• About 13% of the 2015 US population is black.

• 2,756 of 2014 murders were committed by whites.
• 2,693 of 2014 murders were committed by blacks.

So 13% (black) of the population commits about the same amount of murders compared to another 77% (white) of the population.

So he’s right. No bones about it.

However, I probably wouldn’t want to associate with someone who uses that one bit of information to make a point about most blacks: Ultimately, in a country with well over 300,000,000, The 50,000,000 or so who are black had included…Less than 3,000 murderers.

That’s 0.006% of blacks.
That’s 0.001% of whites.

If you have to split hairs, the percentages are even smaller. There are actually about 51 million blacks, and fewer than 2,700 murders by blacks. So maybe 0.005% or 0.004%?

Saying blacks are more violent than whites is like saying my grape Kool-Aid has more sugar in it than your lemonade when my Kool-Aid has 100,000 crystals of sugar and your lemonade has 99,995 crystals.

Yes, that is 100% correct.
It is also practically irrelevant.

I figure that the murders are more situational than predisposed. And blacks end up in situations to murder more often than whites. But not enough to mean anything about the core nature of blacks.

So when people make statements like that, they're stating a true-to-life fact.

But it's probably going to end up being irrelevant as soon as you go into meaningful layers.

And speaking of "meaningful," even if you didn't go into the meaningful context of the statistics, why would you make an incendiary statement like that for no reason? Well, the most likely answers are that he's not politically savvy, or there actually was a reason. But neither is good.

That's what I mean by he "makes statements that beg a question that tacitly pushes for a response and an action."

When you make a statement like that as a politician on a stage as a politician, you say it for a political reason: You're going to address it. And if you just say "Blacks are more violent than whites" or "blacks commit more crimes than whites," you're implying you identify it as a problem, and you want to address it, because you're making the statement as a politician on the stage where you are in the role of a politician.

All the while, there's a horrible light being put on black people without any sympathy in the message or answer for why black people commit more crimes…beyond the fact that we do.

That very well could be because he's super awkward and tactless.

But what you say as the POTUS sets the tone for local leaders who have constituents that voted you, the President, into office. And it also legitimizes very simple folk who aren't going to think beyond what you say…liberal and conservative alike.

That said, on a personal level, a call for stop-and-frisk would suck for me since I live in a pretty bad area. I look as suspicious as everyone else, because I don't want to walk around in slack and a cardigan with an ascot. So despite no criminal record, I'd be having to deal with cops for no good reason a lot more.

The actual stop probably doesn't prevent crime as it is the actual fear and annoyance that everyone in an area would have to take on. Practically, I'd rather not be late to work, because someone got stabbed the night before and a short, black man in a hoodie fits the description. In terms of personal pride, I'm just going to be pissed at having to be stopped when I have no record and have more education than the average American. Like, I went to school and stayed out of trouble so I wouldn't have to deal with that, man.

Do you want more evidence that Trump is bigoted against Islam?

In his latest speech, he claimed that he will, and I quote, "do everything in [his] power to protect LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of the hateful foreign ideologies".

Yes, the core message is nice. It's in reference to the Orlando Massacre. At least, it's an attempt at showing sympathy and contrasting with the usual Conservative view on queerfolks.
But it is clearly implying that Islamic fundies are the only one who commit acts of violence (whatever they may be, from slurs to attacks) against LBGTQ communities.
If you don't see why it's wrong, then I don't know what is.

{ The 50,000,000 or so who are black had included…Less than 3,000 murderers. }

That's the number of federally reported homicides, few escalate to that level, which is why we tend to look at it by percentage and make assumptions, just like the pollsters do during elections with their 1000 phone call sample size. For example: Chicago is at 650 murders on the year so far. 650. Chicago. One city. What percentage do you think were black vs white, compared to the national average? Offenders and victims. Inner city black crime is soaring coming off decades of violent crime going down nationally for everybody.

{ Do you want more evidence that Trump is bigoted against Islam? }

Being a bigot isn't the same as being a racist wtf, being a bigot is being intolerant of an opposing view or opinion. This place is stacked with bigots. So the guy is intolerant of a view that says gays should be killed and women are worse than camels, and recognizes a direct threat to the LGBT community by his opponent's plan to roll out the welcome mat to that ideology unvetted. What a horrid man.

His plans for dealing with terrorism at least went from a total ban on Muslim immigration to extreme vetting awhile ago. You could call it flip flopping, but if I'm not mistaken he proposed the Muslim ban during that myriad of terrorist attacks happening all over the world within the same month about a year ago – after San Bernardino, I think. Maybe he and his team just found it appropriate to chill out a little when the attacks stopped?

@lisa

Ok, so let's say that blacks in the inner city are more violent than everyone else.

You make that statement in a national convention or a similar stage. No context.
 
 
…Now what?
 
 
Are you saying that blacks in general are more violent?
Are you saying that blacks in the inner city are more violent?
Are you saying that blacks in the inner city are more violent towards whites?

No one, Trump or otherwise, says anything beyond giving that answer, and that's a political problem. But the politics in trying to solve problems needs to give an answer as to what the core problem(s) is/are and then have a solution to fix it.

When you just kinda stop at some statistics that can be summed up by "Blacks are more violent than whites," it leaves a lot unsaid. And the most immediate and reasonable assumption is the urban population of Chicago (or wherever) is the problem. Nothing structural or situational.

I don't think that's a hard conclusion for liberals or conservatives to come to. And I think extremist conservatives just feel vindicated by that, and blacks just feel shamed by it. The statement itself does nothing but create harm or potential harm.

lisalombs wrote:

{ no one ever seems to remember the part that follows: }
People were pissed because those two baskets are the same damn people and she tried to conveniently separate them to make herself look all open and accepting, Hillary’s just against the racists, not those poor no-college-degree hicks down in farmersville who are just sad and misunderstood :(

The ENTIRE election the Democrats openly mocked and berated “under-educated males” who are only, you know, TWO-THIRDS of the country.

The United States male to female ratio is 0.97, aka there are slightly more females in the Unites States than males, which means that it is literally impossible for two thirds of the country to be an "under-educated male". I'm not saying that I endorse or approve of mocking people who fit this description, but don't make up statistics that are clearly false to try and support your point.

Also, thanks for attacking the one part of the post that was trying to encourage people who supported Hillary to not think all Trump supporters are just a bunch of racists sexist bigots. I wasn't highlighting it to show how "wonderful" Hillary was.

lisalombs wrote

{ Do you want more evidence that Trump is bigoted against Islam? }
Being a bigot isn’t the same as being a racist wtf, being a bigot is being intolerant of an opposing view or opinion. This place is stacked with bigots.

> Thread title is literally "So When Has Trump Shown That He's Racist and a Bigot?"
> gets upset when someone brings up the bigot part
> leaves out part of the common definition which includes bias based on social group

I was never really convinced Trump was a racist, but the whole "Grab her right in the pussy" debacle showed he either has no respect for women or other people in general.

Meant two-thirds of the voting population* a quick Google search would have cleared that up for you in half a second. & I don't care about your argument, I care about what she said, which was not an attempt to play nice.

Religions are a social group, I didn't leave them out. Religions are just a collection of opinions and views. Being bigoted isn't comparable to the "isms" and shouldn't be part of this thread, which I thought was obvious enough without needing to be directly spelled out more than "being a bigot isn't the same as being racist" but here we are.

{ Are you saying that blacks in general are more violent?
Are you saying that blacks in the inner city are more violent?
Are you saying that blacks in the inner city are more violent towards whites? }

Yes, yes, yes. We have inner city stats that back it all up, and Trump has also spoken extensively how to change them. He mentioned restoring inner cities in his acceptance speech. He won in Michigan and in other unexpected states that were absolutely sure to go to Hillary because he resonated with the low class workers whose jobs were traded for immigrants and machines. A lot of those people are low skill inner city minorities. The Democrats have been promising free shit for decades but it's getting harder now even with free handouts, and Trump said he would give them their jobs and independence back through infrastructure repair and renovation in their own communities, which not only provides jobs now but in the long term provides better access to other areas and cities that has resources inner cities do not. These are the basic solutions that benefit everyone that our politicians should have been enacting instead of trying to force affirmative action quotas.

Islam is literally every against what liberals believe is morally ok, so I don't understand how these same people are defending Islam? I'm not going to defend islam the same reason I won't defend Nazis. Their ideology is 3rd world.

Trump has said some racist or sexist things, but it is always drowned out by the "racist" and "sexist" things he has done. No, retweeting something a KKK member says does not make you racist. Being supported by the KKK also does not make you racist.

Because Muslims are usually Arab, and Arabs aren't white, so they must be protected from racism. I wish that was a joke, but that's the logic I see being used most of the time.

The Palestine situation helped to get this notion that arabs/muslims are oppressed.
if i remember correctly in one of these college threads some students wanted "free Palestine" along side with other demands.

Why can people not trust me when I say it is just locker talk. One bad statement way back as a joke and the whole world takes it out of context! I love all races! Minorities deserve good lives and I will make them GREAT AGAIN. Have faith!

First, I would avoid posting in Serious Debate with a RP account, I don't know how lenient the Mods are towards RPing in SD.

Second, I think this has been said before, but it's not the fact that Trump was crude that got people upset but the fact he admitted to sexual assault. It was the action he said he did that got people upset, not the way people said it. Locker room talk doesn't excuse that.

@lisa

"Inner city blacks are more violent than anyone else."
 
Full stop before anything else.
 
 
In saying "Yes" to blacks are more violent than whites/other racists, the most immediate assumption for a statement like that isn't structural or situational (as the conservative take plans for creating jobs would address, which is reasonable.) The immediate assumption is that blacks are just inherently more violent. That's not a stretch to come to that assumption by making that statement and just using basic stats to back it.

Again, as a politician, you have to be PC. Not to do a good job in your role, because that doesn't change what you actually do.

But to not immediately lose support from the people you're trying to help (i.e., "Hey, black people! I've seen some stats that says you guys are more violent than everyone else! Here are some jobs! You're welcome! Time to go and grab my wife by the pooch now… #MAGA The Donald awaaaaay~" [Trumpcopter noise Doppler effects]) …no one will be thanking you for that. Heck, they might be reserved in taking the jobs, because it was such a condescending approach.

…or it might incite the worst of your supporters. Most Trump supporters/Clinton critics aren't racist. But we all know that your white supremacists are very much so Trump supporters. If you have control over your message, you don't want to embolden them if you don't have to.

That's's not his fault, but the fallout from a chain of such comments stems from his lack of tact. If you can stop it before it happens, then it's almost negligent if you choose not to as a politician.

Like I said, when you speak as a politician, you need to know your audience is very simple. Blacks are immediately ashamed, and extremist conservatives are immediately vindicated.

Instead of saying "Blacks are more violent," just say you're looking to improve poverty in the inner cities by creating jobs. You don't even have to talk about crime statistics for that.

{ In saying “Yes” to blacks are more violent than whites/other racists, the most immediate assumption for a statement like that isn’t structural or situational }

I was responding to a question in context of the inner city stats we were just discussing, so why would the immediate assumption be anything broader? Inner city black violent crime rates are way higher than any other race, especially black on white crime that disappears when you bury it in the national average.

{ You don’t even have to talk about crime statistics for that. }

I'M NOT GOING TO IMPROVE MY LIFE BECAUSE THE LEGITIMATE FACTS OF THIS SITUATION MAKE ME UNCOMFORTABLE AND I DON'T WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEM. Yeah, that's why 8 years of Democrat's calling stats racist reversed course and turned inner cities back into what they are today. Maybe more black people would be aware of the systemic violence inherent in their communities if we plastered the stats on posters like we do white boy rape?

I suspect a lot of it may stem from the whole Birther movement that he championed so ardently during Obama's presidency. Well that is another kettle of fish that has come and gone, I don't think the left have forgotten Donald's attempts to delegitimatize the first black President of America.

I was responding to a question in context of the inner city stats we were just discussing, so why would the immediate assumption be anything broader?

The most immediate assumption is that inner city blacks (I only pulled up data on blacks compared to whites, so I can't speak to Latinos or other races) is that blacks are just violent.

If that's the case, then jobs won't help. They'd still be more violent than others. Why even bother trying to save an inherently violent people? That's an awful but easily followed chain of logic if you don't provide context.
 
That gets me back to the thread topic: If you just make that statement in itself and don't take it to any broader context, it leads you to the easiest assumption, and that is "blacks are more violent than other races."
 
If that assumption isn't racist, then I honestly don't know what is.
 
Now if you could take it to something that doesn't even have to make the statement (so as to avoid the assumption from the statement), then you can still properly address the situation by providing jobs in the area. But to be honest, I think there was another thread where you said you can't convince employers to open up shop in dangerous neighborhoods, so I'm not sure how successful that would be in practice.

I’M NOT GOING TO IMPROVE MY LIFE BECAUSE THE LEGITIMATE FACTS OF THIS SITUATION MAKE ME UNCOMFORTABLE AND I DON’T WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEM.

When you've got nothing (and we all agree that inner city poverty doesn't give residents a lot,) one of the few things you have is your pride. The hood doesn't get much worse than what it is right now, so if you value your pride above all else, you're not going to easily take that insult.

You can't expect a culture that can't ascribe to mainstream norms to immediately be able to do so after being flat out insulted by a rich man who's never been broke on a national stage. Especially after the later mentioned transition of job opportunity from the inner city made the inner city what it is today.

…unless the thought is that white flight actually isn't why inner cities got to be so bad in the first place. But if it wasn't, the assumption is that the congregation of black people is why…again, that assumes something negative about inner city minorities…which is, by definition, racist.

We'll see if Trump can entice business to locate themselves in the streets or if inner city minorities can take the insult (mind you, I think we both agree that being called inherently violent is an insult) and take the jobs after Trump flies back out.
 
But if you want to get the job done, then I think using your words more carefully is a better and more effective way to do it.

…do you disagree? Or do you think it's more effective with the insult? Again, yes or no.

Yeah, that’s why 8 years of Democrat’s calling stats racist reversed course and turned inner cities back into what they are today.

No, according to conservative rhetoric, lack of proper action was why: not enough stimulation in the economy and not enough available jobs. And the inner city hasn't been decent since white flight long before Obama. So I wouldn't put that off on the past 8 years.

Birther movement was just him being dumb and as others said Clinton started it. Trump wasn't saying him being foreign makes him a bad president, he was saying being foreign makes you legally not allowed to be president.

As for the Islam thing, it's a fine line both liberals and alt-right have a hard time understanding. Middle Eastern Arab societies are indeed hateful theocratic conservative hell-holes. We should not respect their views on social stuff. However, not everyone who lives in those places possess the same views so not all immigrants/refugees will be pieces of shit. Also when moving to the West there is a chance for some of them to assimilate with our values and become moderate Muslims. Or they could come from an already moderate non-middle eastern country.

But a lot the left makes it seem like all Muslims are oppressed and not oppressors. Defending them at every turn no matter what. Blaming Florida for voting Trump because "Pulse Shooting" when Pulse was done by one of the people Trump wants to fucking stop. And before blaming the fact that he was a religious nut they started shitting on guns as usual. There's a line. Accept Muslims as individuals don't write them off as a group, but don't accept them all just for being a so-called "minority" even if they brutally murder Christians and other groups in their own countries.

Well they're not the only ones,but yes, Islam is in fact a "hateful foreign ideology". So there's nothing wrong with saying that.

No she did not start it. A few die hard Clinton supporters salty over the fact that she was losing the 2008 Democratic Primary may have started it, but Hillary herself and her staff never said anything starting it.

Personally I find the idea of constantly chasing after a conspiracy theory and then trying to blame your rival for it to be kind of sad.

I gotta say, I really appreciate the responses you guys have given me. This gives me much more to work on in terms of how I see Trump as opposed to constant cries of him being a racist, homophobic, and a borderline rapist, and that everyone who voted for him is denying facts about him, are also racist and homophobic, and if they claim they aren't are denying it or have internalized racism and misogyny.

You guys are much more mature than that. I really appreciate that.

{ is that blacks are just violent. }

{ the assumption is that the congregation of black people is why }

The data is "inner cities have experienced a sudden surge of violent racial crime over the past 4 years". You could make at least twenty different assumptions based on that statement, and only one of them is "it's because all black people are inherently more violent than the other races". I'm asking you why that particular assumption would be your immediate assumption.

idk what they teach in high school now but we used to have a few mantras, "correlation does not equal causation", "don't make actions based on assumptions". If I only gave you the data for autism and vaccine rates you might also immediately assume vaccines cause autism. Not all assumptions are correct, and it's really not my problem that some people are convinced vaccines cause autism or all black people are violent because they've made bad assumptions based on perfectly indiscriminate data.

{ (mind you, I think we both agree that being called inherently violent is an insult) }

The ONLY people who have been called inherently ANYTHING during this election are the inherently racist/sexist/Islamophobic/uneducated white rural citizens. You're asking me whether it would be easier to fix things without being insulting but I'm not seeing the insult.

Good business isn't going to be moving back into those neighborhoods for a long time, that's the point of starting with infrastructure. Then at least people have stable income and will become less tolerant of those in their community who choose the gang life, because now they actually have a different option. That's how the culture improves itself, and it's not like this is a black-culture-specific phenomenon. It's literally how societies evolve/have evolved, from hunter-gatherer-warriors to civilization.

Well the thing is, when you live in your own bubble you tend to lash out when it gets popped.

That's pretty much what happened to most young Hillary supporters, which is why so many responded with tears, hysteria, and anger.

I hate to be that guy who talks about media bias when it comes to Trump, but it's really something that needs to be laid out for sure. Trump might be tactless and have virtually no filter on his mouth, but he's not some baby eating monster. He actually apologized for the rude things he's said during one of the debates, and his acceptance speech noticeably didn't include any bragging. He even had a (somewhat) cordial conversation with Obama, and seems to be willing to work with people on changing Obamacare rather than just removing it outright.

Meanwhile Hillary is friends with a pedophile cult leader and is literally a rape apologist (for her husband) but somehow Trump is the misogynist. I honestly was scared that someone like Hillary was this close to actually becoming president of the USA. Or the fact that people were willing to overlook her various scandals (one of which involved an investigation for treason) just for the fact that they believed Trump was some kind of Sith lord.

When did he apologize?

It's not hard to find

I'm not supporting Trump, but I don't think he's intentionally racist. He would have done and said a lot more if there was genuine hate behind what he says. He's only afraid of Muslims because of the threat of ISIS and his view on immigration is just a part of his plan to "make America great again".
Again, I don't support Trump or any of the things he says.

Trump has stated that Judge Curiel shouldn't be handling his case because he's Mexican and that's "inherent conflict of interest" since Trump want's to build a wall.