‘Go Back to Auschwitz’ and ‘Go Back to Africa’ Yelled Outside Trump Rally

[Jacque67 7,328]

Unfortunately, we can't always pick those we indirectly associate with. You might support a sports team. There may be guys who club baby seals for fun and kill babies who also support the same team. You'd rather these people are not supporting the same team, but you can't really control them. And you could switch teams, but the other team has some fans who like to drown kittens and commit arson.

Based on the abysmal membership numbers of white nationalist groups I'm confident in saying the huge bulk of Trump supporters do wish these groups would not stump for trump, even though the average group if it endorses anybody will pick trump.

I hope Trump can reinvent his platform in the next few months to move away from discontent over foreigners (and his discontent is with them, it's not racial per se) and focus more squarely on the economy.

admire your optimism

[smilesammich 10,727]

Unfortunately, we can't always pick those we indirectly associate with. You might support a sports team. There may be guys who club baby seals for fun and kill babies who also support the same team. You'd rather these people are not supporting the same team, but you can't really control them. And you could switch teams, but the other team has some fans who like to drown kittens and commit arson.

Based on the abysmal membership numbers of white nationalist groups I'm confident in saying the huge bulk of Trump supporters do wish these groups would not stump for trump, even though the average group if it endorses anybody will pick trump.

I hope Trump can reinvent his platform in the next few months to move away from discontent over foreigners (and his discontent is with them, it's not racial per se) and focus more squarely on the economy.

of course we can't always choose who is indirectly associated with us or the causes we support, but when it comes to politics and government, racists and nationalists are where i draw the line.

for example, i am a long time fan of punk and black metal; both of which have legions of fans that are or at one time have been skinheads/nazis. just because i enjoy some of the same music as them doesn't make me one of them. i have my own brain. but music choice and president of the united states are not comparable.all things are not equal.

and folks keep saying this stuff about white supremacists being few and far between, but honestly, actual membership counts and registries mean absolutely nothing to me. i'm basing my awareness of the existence of racists/extreme nationalists on my actual life experiences. and i'm not talking about the nineties or eighties, i'm talking about right now. also, like i've mentioned before; vocal extremists and outright violence are a minority when it comes to assessing the racial issues of the us and while this doesn't make them any less dangerous, it detracts from the majority of racial issues in this country - which are facilitated by silent racists who realize tattoos on your hands might stump the cause, that their real power lies in control of public institutions, and control of wealth.

end of the day, trump's dad was cool with the kkk. as shaun king said 'the apple doesn't fall far from the tree' and in my life experience that has most certainly proven true.

[yuna628 9,676]

of course we can't always choose who is indirectly associated with us or the causes we support, but when it comes to politics and government, racists and nationalists are where i draw the line.

for example, i am a long time fan of punk and black metal; both of which have legions of fans that are or at one time have been skinheads/nazis. just because i enjoy some of the same music as them doesn't make me one of them. i have my own brain. but music choice and president of the united states are not comparable.all things are not equal.

and folks keep saying this stuff about white supremacists being few and far between, but honestly, actual membership counts and registries mean absolutely nothing to me. i'm basing my awareness of the existence of racists/extreme nationalists on my actual life experiences. and i'm not talking about the nineties or eighties, i'm talking about right now. also, like i've mentioned before; vocal extremists and outright violence are a minority when it comes to assessing the racial issues of the us and while this doesn't make them any less dangerous, it detracts from the majority of racial issues in this country - which are facilitated by silent racists who realize tattoos on your hands might stump the cause, that their real power lies in control of public institutions, and control of wealth.

end of the day, trump's dad was cool with the kkk. as shaun king said 'the apple doesn't fall far from the tree' and in my life experience that has most certainly proven true.

Agreed. But one small point: my dad's dad was about as racist as you could get without running around with tattoos and a sheet (his one black 'friend' made it okay to him or whatever). Which is kind of ironic frankly, because his own ancestors (who were abolitionists) would have been ashamed of him. My dad was also ashamed of him, and mom pretty much refused to let him come over to visit the grandkids (because she was not about to let that sort of talk into her house). What I'm trying to say is, despite how your parents behave and the baggage they have, their children and future generations can grow and learn from their experiences and realize how it's nothing they would ever want to be. Everyone has a choice. Some kids don't ever make it, and some do.

I wouldn't put Trump in the column of the 'never made it' yet, because I think something far more insidious is at work - and that is intentionally pandering for a reason. He could be just as racist as his father, and it could all be a disgusting act... which is just as bad.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Agreed. But one small point: my dad's dad was about as racist as you could get without running around with tattoos and a sheet (his one black 'friend' made it okay to him or whatever). Which is kind of ironic frankly, because his own ancestors (who were abolitionists) would have been ashamed of him. My dad was also ashamed of him, and mom pretty much refused to let him come over to visit the grandkids (because she was not about to let that sort of talk into her house). What I'm trying to say is, despite how your parents behave and the baggage they have, their children and future generations can grow and learn from their experiences and realize how it's nothing they would ever want to be. Everyone has a choice. Some kids don't ever make it, and some do.

I wouldn't put Trump in the column of the 'never made it' yet, because I think something far more insidious is at work - and that is intentionally pandering for a reason. He could be just as racist as his father, and it could all be a disgusting act... which is just as bad.

i agree, however...i feel long-term trump's family's wealth creates a special protective bubble keeping trump's reality firmly within the elite. trump was raised that by and large, blacks, mexicans, foreigners etc etc can be equals - so long as the $$$ matches. michael jackson can be a great friend and awesome dude, but common folk (of all stripes) are to be avoided - they're nothing but trouble unless you've some use for them. trump has never needed minorities/commoners outside of objects to manipulate to reach his goals. he'll skim some minority votes off the top but for the most part minorities won't vote for him. so now, trump courts common whites toward the ultimate goal of becoming potus. same as minorities trump doesn't need white supremacist support, they're not going to make or break him obviously - which says a lot.

[Rob L 3,811]

of course we can't always choose who is indirectly associated with us or the causes we support, but when it comes to politics and government, racists and nationalists are where i draw the line.

for example, i am a long time fan of punk and black metal; both of which have legions of fans that are or at one time have been skinheads/nazis. just because i enjoy some of the same music as them doesn't make me one of them. i have my own brain. but music choice and president of the united states are not comparable.all things are not equal.

and folks keep saying this stuff about white supremacists being few and far between, but honestly, actual membership counts and registries mean absolutely nothing to me. i'm basing my awareness of the existence of racists/extreme nationalists on my actual life experiences. and i'm not talking about the nineties or eighties, i'm talking about right now. also, like i've mentioned before; vocal extremists and outright violence are a minority when it comes to assessing the racial issues of the us and while this doesn't make them any less dangerous, it detracts from the majority of racial issues in this country - which are facilitated by silent racists who realize tattoos on your hands might stump the cause, that their real power lies in control of public institutions, and control of wealth.

end of the day, trump's dad was cool with the kkk. as shaun king said 'the apple doesn't fall far from the tree' and in my life experience that has most certainly proven true.

Agreed. But one small point: my dad's dad was about as racist as you could get without running around with tattoos and a sheet (his one black 'friend' made it okay to him or whatever). Which is kind of ironic frankly, because his own ancestors (who were abolitionists) would have been ashamed of him. My dad was also ashamed of him, and mom pretty much refused to let him come over to visit the grandkids (because she was not about to let that sort of talk into her house). What I'm trying to say is, despite how your parents behave and the baggage they have, their children and future generations can grow and learn from their experiences and realize how it's nothing they would ever want to be. Everyone has a choice. Some kids don't ever make it, and some do.

I wouldn't put Trump in the column of the 'never made it' yet, because I think something far more insidious is at work - and that is intentionally pandering for a reason. He could be just as racist as his father, and it could all be a disgusting act... which is just as bad.

i agree, however...i feel long-term trump's family's wealth creates a special protective bubble keeping trump's reality firmly within the elite. trump was raised that by and large, blacks, mexicans, foreigners etc etc can be equals - so long as the $$$ matches. michael jackson can be a great friend and awesome dude, but common folk (of all stripes) are to be avoided - they're nothing but trouble unless you've some use for them. trump has never needed minorities/commoners outside of objects to manipulate to reach his goals. he'll skim some minority votes off the top but for the most part minorities won't vote for him. so now, trump courts common whites toward the ultimate goal of becoming potus. same as minorities trump doesn't need white supremacist support, they're not going to make or break him obviously - which says a lot.

I know the topic has turned to race but it is also about the mood in the country to return to our "back in the day" roots. I heard Adam Cohen speak on democracy now this morning. Fascinating book how the American supreme court laid the foundation for Eugenics in 19030s Germany and Oliver Wendell Holmes was actually quoted in the defense at the Nuremberg trials

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-national-book-review/essay-what-the-supreme-co_b_9355860.html

By Adam Cohen

In 1927, in Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that a poor white woman from Virginia should be sterilized for eugenic reasons. The opinion, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., did not merely uphold sterilizing Carrie Buck -- it issued a clarion call to the nation to sterilize many more "manifestly unfit" people to prevent them from reproducing. America had to sterilize those who "sap the strength of the State," the Court insisted, to avoid "being swamped with incompetence."

Buck v. Bell is undoubtedly one of the worst rulings in Supreme Court history. It cheered on a eugenic mania that, in the end, led to as many as 70,000 Americans being sterilized, including many -- like Buck -- who had nothing physically or mentally wrong with them. Many more Americans were locked away for years to prevent them from reproducing. Their "crime" was being labeled "feebleminded" or "diseased," or poor, or indolent -- or any of the other loosely defined, unscientific categories the eugenicists came up with.

There is a tendency to believe that terrible Supreme Court rulings like Buck v. Bellare the rare exception in American history, but they are not. In fact, the Court has from its earliest days regularly gotten the important issues of the day wrong -- almost always by siding with powerful interests against "little people," like Carrie Buck. This instinct to protect the powerful is a grave flaw how the Court has performed its constitutional role -- and one that President Obama, or his successor, should keep in mind when filling the vacancy created recently by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

The Supreme Court took the wrong side in the eugenics battles of the 1920s, with its ruling in Buck v. Bell -- but eugenics is hardly the only major issue the Court has gotten wrong. In the slavery era, the Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford that slaves had no right to sue for their freedom. In the Jim Crow era, the Court ruled inPlessy v. Ferguson that racially segregated railroad cars were constitutional. During World War II, the Court upheld the internment of Japanese-American citizens, inKorematsu v. United States. And midway through the gay rights movement, inBowers v. Hardwick, the Court upheld the criminal conviction of a gay man for having sex in his own home.

The Supreme Court has been wrong about the big issues in American history so often that it must be considered, as they say in Silicon Valley, a feature, not a bug. The dean of a leading law school recently concluded, after more than 30 years of teaching constitutional law, that "The Court has frequently failed, throughout American history, at its most important tasks, at its most important moments."

The Supreme Court has had a clear pattern in its worst decisions: it has wrongly sided with the powerful interests in society over the powerless. That was the case with Carrie Buck, who was hoping to be protected from the Commonwealth of Virginia, which wanted to sterilize her. And it was true with Dred Scott, Homer Plessy, Fred Korematsu, and Michael Hardwick -- all of whom hoped the Court would protect them from more powerful tormentors.

The Court has, of course, sometimes sided with weaker parties -- or seemed to. InBrown v. Board of Education it ruled for black students challenging segregated schools. But that ruling can also be seen as the Court -- after upholding racial segregation for so long -- finally siding with the North, and the great majority of the country that did not support segregation. On civil rights, gay rights, and many other major issues, the Court has generally only come around to protecting the weak when a majority of the country has done so.

Legal scholars say it is no accident that the Supreme Court has ruled so often in favor of the stronger parties in the cases before them. Donald Black, a legal sociologist at the University of Virginia, has written that law is a great respecter of hierarchy -- and that with near mathematical precision, it can be predicted that police, judges, and other actors in the justice system will overwhelmingly side with rich and powerful institutions and individuals when there is a significant status gap in a case.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has very much followed this formula. The most notorious example is the decision in Citizens United v. FEC, in which the Court ruled that corporations have a right to spend unlimited amounts of money in federal elections. Citizens United has dramatically reshaped the political landscape, giving unprecedented new power to corporate special interests.

There have been many more recent examples. In a landmark equal pay lawsuit, the Court rejected Lily Ledbetter's claim that her employer broke the law when it paid her less than her male co-workers -- a ruling that prompted Congress to pass a new equal pay law. In an infamous "three strikes and you're out" ruling awhile back, the Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment did not prevent a man from being sentenced to life in prison for shoplifting a few children's videos.

The vast majority of the Supreme Court's most oppressive recent rulings -- including Citizens United, and the equal pay and three-strikes cases -- have been by 5-4 votes, with Justice Scalia in the majority. His departure opens up the possibility that the Court could, after all of these years, have five justices who flip the conventional formula, and begin by looking out for the interests of the less powerful parties in a case. If the Court did that, the law could change dramatically in almost every area -- from campaign finance regulation, to employment discrimination, to the right of privacy against government intrusions.

The Code of Hammurabi, one of the great legal texts of the ancient world, declared that its purpose was "to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land . . . so the strong should not harm the weak." This simple ideal -- that the law should prevent the strong from harming the weak -- is the highest calling of courts and judges, but one that the Supreme Court has rarely been guided by. With the next appointment to the Court, that could finally change -- and the Carrie Bucks of the world could find that when powerful forces rise up against them, they have five votes on their side.

Adam Cohen is the author of Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck, published this week by Penguin Press.

[eieio 1,594]

The race baiters are barking up the wrong tree. Racism has nothing to do with Trumps popularity. Small minds just hope that #### sticks to the wall.

[smilesammich 10,727]

The race baiters are barking up the wrong tree. Racism has nothing to do with Trumps popularity. Small minds just hope that #### sticks to the wall.

sweet, remind me to catch up with you in five years or so i'm really interested to see how yer bum holds out after all the trump master potus manipulation.

[eieio 1,594]

sweet, remind me to catch up with you in five years or so i'm really interested to see how yer bum holds out after all the trump master potus manipulation.

Catch up with me in 5 years

Reminder given.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Catch up with me in 5 years

Reminder given.

i don't think the kegel equivalent will maintain, but we shall see. one minute, once or twice a day. keep a log if you're forgetful..

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.jsdev.pfei&hl=en

[Expat1 971]

Reminder: Send (1) log a day to Val

Got it

[smilesammich 10,727]

Reminder: Send (1) log a day to Val

Got it

no no no, keep the log to yourself it's for your own personal amusement. i'm only interested in the end result of constant trump reaming. big picture.

[Expat1 971]

no no no, keep the log to yourself it's for your own personal amusement. i'm only interested in the end result of constant trump reaming. big picture.

You're the one asking. Do you need me to show you where you said that?

[smilesammich 10,727]

You're the one asking. Do you need me to show you where you said that?

naw luv, you can keep your mansplainin to yerself, i know what i said. five years brother - keep a log for your own personal amusement with the end goal in sight.

Edited March 17, 2016 by elitesthuglib

[eieio 1,594]

naw luv, you can keep your mansplainin to yerself, i know what i said. five years brother - keep a log for your own personal amusement with the end goal in sight.

I'll get right on that

Now go make me a sandwich!

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

the tattoos are on his daughter. that isn't an 88 nascar tattoo. and that isn't a tribute to celts.

of course - because it's easier to paint someone with your own reality rather than give the benefit of the doubt.