[whamlastxmas]

The issue is that any Trump supporter is immediately labelled a racist xenophobe. It's also possible to be anti-immigration and support many of other Trump's policies despite not being racist or xenophobic. People always jump to that conclusion though, hence the OP's frustration with all the name calling.

[capote]

That's because any Trump supporter (be it by privilege or other) seems to be unfazed by Trump's racism and xenophobia. If we elect him, these are policies that will be at risk of being enacted, and this will affect minorities, immigrants, and Muslims. This is a large cost to our society, values, democracy, you name it.

In modern times, not caring that the rights of minorities and immigrants will be trampled is rightfully interpreted as being a racist xenophobe. We are trying to collectively move away from these old-fashioned bad ideas, and supporting Trump is backward in this sense.

[basseq]

See, this is what fascinates me. I don't think it's that Trump supports are "unfazed by his racism and xenophobia". I think it's that they don't see it as racism and xenophobia. After all (playing devil's advocate)...

Trump has never mentioned race negatively. Mexican is not a race (it's a country). Muslim is not a race (it's a religion).

Trump's comments on immigration, trade, or terrorism doesn't come from a dislike of people from other countries, but a desire to put American citizens first. This might be what you want from an American President.

So your "racist xenophobe" is someone else's "nationalist leader".

But name-calling tamps down reasonable discourse in all cases. (And Trump is as guilty of this as anyone, but certainly not the sole offender.) Going up to a Trump supporter and saying, "Hi you racist xenophobe, want to have a level-headed discussion on nationalism and human rights?" doesn't work so well.

The profoundly negative coverage of Trump is doing as much to explain his success as anything else. It causes people to shut down. And it's not healthy for anyone.

[capote]

> "nationalist leader"

Trump cannot be a nationalist leader as he does not respect the principles upon which this nation was founded (see my other comments for more specificity).

[oh_sigh]

I don't mind your tone, but your logic, while more thought out than just blindly calling someone racist/xenophobic, is really just a more verbose talking down to of Trump supporters.

"These people believe stupid things, and they won't respond to logic unless you sugar coat it"

[basseq]

Which part? (Seriously.)

My point was that there's no one source of truth. Perception is reality. To a vast majority of his supporters, Trump is not a racist xenophobe. Period, full stop. And this isn't stupid: an intelligent, reasonable person could make that argument. And plenty of Trump supporters are intelligent, reasonable people.

Did something get lost in translation?

[oh_sigh]

Okay, that's fair. I took your original post to mean something along the lines of "Trump supporters believe something stupid, and when you talk down to them, they just dig into their stupid beliefs. If you would come at them nicely, you would have a better chance of teaching them how stupid their beliefs are"

[basseq]

The exact opposite! If your train of thought starts with "Trump supporters believe something stupid" (or wrong, or racist, or whatever), you've already lost the discussion. Because you're not interested in having a discussion: you're interested in forcing your worldview on someone or, more likely, parroting someone else's talking points.

I'll say that a different way: if you think that a large number of people with whom you disagree are stupid (or racist, or whatever excuse you choose to minimize their logical decisionmaking), YOU ARE IGNORANT AND NAIVE.

You may disagree with them. That's fine. You might be interested in finding common ground and compromise instead of running around accusing everyone of being a stupid, racist xenophobe. In that case, you're looking to have a dialogue which can only happen from positions of mutual respect.

That respect is lacking, particularly on the vocal left.

You may convince someone to "see things your way", but you have to open yourself up to see things their way.

[rayiner]

> That's because any Trump supporter (be it by privilege or other) seems to be unfazed by Trump's racism and xenophobia.

If you say that one cannot morally support Trump because Trump is a racist and xenophobe at heart, would you also say that one cannot support Hilary, because she is a drug warrior and "tough on crime" crusader at heart?

(I think the answer is no, because it's reasonable to support a politician without endorsing all of that politician's world views).

[diyorgasms]

I think you'd be surprised to find that the answer for many is yes. I for one cannot in good conscience support any politician whose economics are neoliberal and whose social policies are oppressive. I think Trump's xenophobia and Hillary's authoritarian social policies (which also disproportionally negatively affect disadvantaged minority groups) are absolutely immoral and moral people should not support these candidates.

I realize that I occupy a position outside of the political mainstream in America, but I suspect that is changing. I expect to see many more people rejecting neoliberal economics as a game rigged against workers by the bourgeoisie.

[capote]

No. I don't like Hillary by any means, and I don't like her attitude on drug war and crime and whatever else you wanna cite, but these things are mere political differences, whereas racism and xenophobia are immoral, utterly nauseating, and unamerican.

[bdavisx]

I think some (many? IDK) are not unfazed by the "bad" parts of Trump's message - it's just that they agree so strongly with the "good" parts (whatever they feel is "good") that they are willing to hold their nose and overlook the "bad" parts.

Mainly because the status quo on both the Republican and Democratic side supports the economic policies that have been so bad for them.

[oh_sigh]

Okay, I'll bite. I support Trump, and don't see him as racist or xenophobic. I don't see how enforcing laws already on the books regarding legal immigration is racist. If you are a white person from Canada here illegally, you would be subject to the same punishment/deportation as a brown person illegally here form Guatemala.

Trump has repeatedly said that immigrants are more than welcome, but they need to come legally. How is that racist?

[killbrad]

How about his comments regarding the judge?

[oh_sigh]

Are you suggesting that the judge is a robot and doesn't have any possibility of bias in the case, when his parents(illegal aliens) were exactly the people that Trump claims will be deported?

When Sotomayor said that a wise latina woman could come to better conclusions than old white men, was that racist too?

What about when Curiel himself admitted that his heritage has influenced his practice of the law in the past[1] (when he was a drug prosecutor in the late 90s)

> According to participants on both sides, the Mexicans looked across the table at Mr. Chavez, Mr. Vega and Mr. Curiel, all born of Mexican parents, and the spark of recognition lit a fire.

> "It couldn't but help," Mr. Curiel said. "We were working without the disconnect of interpreters and barriers of culture. When it comes down to it, this involves the country of our parents." Mr. Vega, now in private practice, said the simple fact that the meetings were conducted in Spanish "broke the ice."

> "It was confianza," he said, the Spanish word for trust.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/26/international/americas/26D...

[whamlastxmas]

>this will affect minorities, immigrants, and Muslims

It is possible to support policies that affect these groups without being racist or xenophobic. It's unfortunate that there are groups that will suffer as the result of things like immigration laws, but there are several very strong arguments to support immigration laws. Would we want unlimited, open immigration from Mexico? The vast majority of people would say no, but that's also affecting Mexican and South American people tremendously. Why is there no uproar about xenophobia directed at those people?

[flubert]

Is "culturalism" a better term than "racism"? As in, how many people are rejecting people because of their race, and how many are rejecting them because they want to live in the culture of their original homeland? Is "culturalism" just as bad as racism in your mind? Are any cultures more preferable to you than others? Seemingly yes, because you want a xenophilia culture?

[louithethrid]

I ve seen countrys run by those minorities you hold so high- and no, those are not values at all. The trump voters in a muslim country, just dont call there trump trump- they call him husseine, chomeini etc., they vote anti-immigrant (christian/jew) and they vote pro circle with theire feet. (poverty-> overpopulation -> religion -> war -> poverty ) What makes those trump voters from a distance so lovely?

[oh_sigh]

Is Trump even anti-immigration in general? The only immigration related topic I've heard him talk about is illegal immigration, not legal immigration.

[dragonwriter]

> The only immigration related topic I've heard him talk about is illegal immigration, not legal immigration.

Aside from talking about currently illegal immigration, he's also talked about a ban on foreign Muslims (the details of which have morphed over time), he's talked about curtailing existing legal immigration programs (focssing on the H-1B, but he's also said he'd implement an "absolute requirement to hire Americans first for every visa and immigration program" -- which doesn't even make sense for many visa categories and immigration programs [including the main US set of immigration visa categories, which are the family-based categories], but its what he said), he's suggested increased application and other fees for existing legal immigration programs.

[thescribe]

While I'm uncomfortable with the ban on Muslims, what is so bad about having fewer immigrants? It's just another policy that we could tweak.

[dragonwriter]

Whether it's bad or not is beside the point; the upthread question was whether Trump was only against illegal immigration or against immigration more broadly. His campaign statements make it clear that the latter is the case.

You are, of course, free to think that's a good thing.

[basseq]

With the caveat that his comments on Muslims are not part of the immigration debate, but rather the ISIS / terrorism / homeland security debate. I guess you can't have one without the other, but there is nuance there.

[dragonwriter]

His comments on Muslims are absolutely about banking certain immigrants. Like his comments about Mexicans being rapists, etc., they use safety issues as the justification for the stance against immigrants, but they are absolutely about immigration.