Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Trump: 'laziness is a trait in blacks ... I believe that'

By Mark Sumner
Wednesday Jul 20, 2016 · 1:29 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7/2...lieve-that

Republicans are very frustrated because the media just keeps making it seem like both the party and their candidate are racist.

Twelve years ago, the GOP seemed on its way toward broadening its base, boasting 167 black delegates at its convention. That year, President George W. Bush drew 16 percent of the black vote here in Ohio, unusually high for a Republican, to help secure his reelection, as well as 11 percent nationally, and party leaders had hoped to increase minority engagement in 2016. This year, the number of black delegates is 18. Out of 2,472. But that can’t be because of anything Trump has said! After all …

Trump has vowed that he would unify the races as president.

“I am not a racist,” he told The Washington Post in an interview earlier this year. “I’m the least racist person that you’ve ever interviewed.”

That’s right. Trump will unify the races around statements like this:

“I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is; I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”

The “laziness” statement came after Donald Trump started having financial difficulties at his casinos in Atlantic City. Trump’s response? He had black accountants. And he managed to squeeze two forms of racism into a single statement.

John O’Donnell, who was president of the Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino and later wrote a memoir about his experience, said Trump blamed financial difficulties partly on African American accountants.

“I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza — black guys counting my money!” O’Donnell’s book quoted Trump as saying. “I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else. . . . Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is; I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”

Of course, Trump hasn’t read O’Donnell’s book, because Donald Trump doesn't read.​ But he did give an interview. Trump told Playboy magazine that O’Donnell’s memoir was “probably true.”

For those who believe that racism isn’t inherent, but has to be taught. Trump apparently had plenty of opportunities to learn—going back at least to when he was working with his father in the 1970s.

When a black woman asked to rent an apartment in a Brooklyn complex managed by Donald Trump’s real estate company, she said she was told that nothing was available. A short time later, a white woman who made the same request was invited to choose between two available apartments. …

In October 1973, the Justice Department filed a civil rights case that accused the Trump firm, whose complexes contained 14,000 apartments, of violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

The Trumps hired Roy Cohn—yes, that Roy Cohn—to defend them in the case, They did what the Trumps always do, countersued for $100 million and made claims that the government was trying to force them to “rent to people on welfare.” Cohn also helped them concoct a series of claims that the Justice Department was employing “Gestapo tactics.” Cohn’s antics were thrown out. The Trumps settled the case.

But Trump already had a plan to keep from having to deal with that sort of problem again.

At the time the suit was filed, Trump had been thinking about veering away from his father’s ­focus on providing housing for ­lower- and middle-income residents of Brooklyn and Queens, and envisioning his future as a developer of luxury buildings for the rich in Manhattan.

The rest is history.

But Donald Trump’s attitude about race? That’s still very much the present.

(07-21-2016, 02:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]> As Bill Maher says, Ailes well that ends well!

> I can tell that you don't like feminists very much. I wonder how I
> got that impression, uh; but..........

> for me, I feel really ashamed to be a white male now; actual large
> majorities of us will actually vote for a lunatic, sub-human
> billionaire crony-capitalist xenophobic sociopath to be our
> president, just because he exploits the anger of old white
> guys. It doesn't speak well for our sub-species. As Trump would
> say, "that I can tell you; believe me"

During the 1990s, I was writing my book on fathers' rights. In
addition to reading dozens of feminist books and hundreds of feminist
articles, I also spent thousands of hours online in women's forums.
So I got to know feminists and the feminist culture very well.

The vast majority of the women that I met were, of course, exciting
and wonderful. But a small percentage were unbelievably nasty, not
just to me, but especially to other women who didn't toe the line.
One thing that I learned was that when a woman was being treated
abusively, it was most often by another woman, particularly one who
called herself a feminist.

In the feminist culture, a woman who denies being a feminist or who
says anything the criticizes feminists is treated extremely abusively
by other women. So this raises the question of what exactly is a
feminist.

Since women who deny being feminists are treated abusively by other
women, you can't simply take a poll to see what percentage are
feminists. But it was pretty clear to me that the women who were
thoughtful, engaging, intelligent and open did not talk much about
feminism, and sometimes even seemed ashamed of being associated with
the word. But the ones who "wore feminism on their sleeves" were the
nasty, abusive, intolerant women. So when you say that I don't like
feminists, my response is to say perhaps, but only applied to the
latter group, the nasty, abusive, intolerant minority.

If you really "feel ashamed to be a white male," then you really
should think about why you feel that way. Most young men who say
something like that hate their fathers, and you may be transferring
your hatred of your father to other older men who really don't deserve
your hatred. Whatever, the reason, that kind of self-hatred really
isn't healthy, and you really ought to try to get to the bottom of it.

You might want to read my book, "Fraternizing with the Enemy," which
is based on enormous amount of research. Most of what you read or
hear in the media, from either the left or the right, about gender
issues is total, absolute, incoherent garbage. (The same is true of
economic issues, incidentally.) Since my book is totally fact-based,
with everything carefully sourced, reading it might help you
understand what you're going through, and might put in perspective
whatever life experience you've had that you're reacting to.

My book is available for free as a PDF file from my download page:
http://generationaldynamics.com/download

(07-21-2016, 05:17 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2016, 04:46 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2016, 02:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]>   As Bill Maher says, Ailes well that ends well!

>   I can tell that you don't like feminists very much. I wonder how I
>   got that impression, uh; but..........

>   for me, I feel really ashamed to be a white male now; actual large
>   majorities of us will actually vote for a lunatic, sub-human
>   billionaire crony-capitalist xenophobic sociopath to be our
>   president, just because he exploits the anger of old white
>   guys. It doesn't speak well for our sub-species. As Trump would
>   say, "that I can tell you; believe me"

During the 1990s, I was writing my book on fathers' rights.  In
addition to reading dozens of feminist books and hundreds of feminist
articles, I also spent thousands of hours online in women's forums.
So I got to know feminists and the feminist culture very well.

The vast majority of the women that I met were, of course, exciting
and wonderful.  But a small percentage were unbelievably nasty, not
just to me, but especially to other women who didn't toe the line.
One thing that I learned was that when a woman was being treated
abusively, it was most often by another woman, particularly one who
called herself a feminist.

In the feminist culture, a woman who denies being a feminist or who
says anything the criticizes feminists is treated extremely abusively
by other women.  So this raises the question of what exactly is a
feminist.

Since women who deny being feminists are treated abusively by other
women, you can't simply take a poll to see what percentage are
feminists.  But it was pretty clear to me that the women who were
thoughtful, engaging, intelligent and open did not talk much about
feminism, and sometimes even seemed ashamed of being associated with
the word.  But the ones who "wore feminism on their sleeves" were the
nasty, abusive, intolerant women.  So when you say that I don't like
feminists, my response is to say perhaps, but only applied to the
latter group, the nasty, abusive, intolerant minority.

If you really "feel ashamed to be a white male," then you really
should think about why you feel that way.  Most young men who say
something like that hate their fathers, and you may be transferring
your hatred of your father to other older men who really don't deserve
your hatred.  Whatever, the reason, that kind of self-hatred really
isn't healthy, and you really ought to try to get to the bottom of it.

You might want to read my book, "Fraternizing with the Enemy," which
is based on enormous amount of research.  Most of what you read or
hear in the media, from either the left or the right, about gender
issues is total, absolute, incoherent garbage.  (The same is true of
economic issues, incidentally.)  Since my book is totally fact-based,
with everything carefully sourced, reading it might help you
understand what you're going through, and might put in perspective
whatever life experience you've had that you're reacting to.

My book is available for free as a PDF file from my download page:
http://generationaldynamics.com/download

I can only guess but i think he is saying he is ashamed to be a white male because of the fact the white male is being demonized as a majority right wing cohort who votes republican and all the stereotypes that follow being republican. I say demonized because of the stereotype which does not fit all. I do not think this would have anything to do with his father.

If I ever got involved with a woman to the extent of marriage, she would likely become a feminist if she weren't already one.

(07-21-2016, 05:17 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]I can only guess but i think he is saying he is ashamed to be a white male because of the fact the white male is being demonized as a majority right wing cohort who votes republican and all the stereotypes that follow being republican. I say demonized because of the stereotype which does not fit all. I do not think this would have anything to do with his father.

How about, I meant exactly what I said. The popularity of Donald Trump among white men (especially old white men) makes me ashamed to be one.

Did I post John Oliver's Trump rant here yet?

Demagogue Don gets a resolute endorsement:

Quote:David Duke
‏@DrDavidDuke

Great Trump Speech, America First! Stop Wars! Defeat the Corrupt elites! Protect our Borders!, Fair Trade! Couldn't have said it better!

...or as I love to distort his name, David DuKKKe.

Sleep with dogs and you will get fleas -- but you will still be human. Consort with fascist pigs enough, though, and you will become a fascist pig yourself.

...and an expression of one part of David DuKKKe's ideology:



With David DuKKKe the world's problems come with non-whites and non-Christians (so far his hate seems to not extend to Chinese, Koreans, or Japanese, maybe not to (Hindu) Indians or Filipinos -- are those "honorary whites" for now?) Anyone can put even tangential blame upon Jews, Judaism, or Israel upon a horror so traumatic as 9/11 is sick. A reminder -- Jews perished, too, in the 9/11 attacks, and the only people who think that the Jews were disproportionately few of the victims exaggerates the percentage of Jews in Greater New York City. (Greater New York City is more Puerto Rican and Irish than Jewish).

No. I say instead... imagine a world without hate. Imagine a world in which people recognize shared humanity. Sure, Death to ISIS! -- but for the same reason that I would say "Death to Nazis!" Just as British and American Christians harshly judged Nazis who shared the same sentimentality toward Christmas trees and Christmas carols for extreme violations of Christian morals, Muslims will largely judge ISIS war criminals for violation of Islamic morality.

As for Arabs and Muslims -- I love to contrast livable, family-friendly Dearborn to the vile nightmare that is the southwest side of Detroit. Better the Mosque than the whorehouse and strip club, don't you think? The Muslims of Dearborn insist that the Dearborn police bust the drunks, addicts, whores, and pimps who occasionally stumble into Dearborn... but so would I if I lived there. Many Jews and Christians like it that way.

Racial, religious, and ethnic bigotry can all go to Hell -- for racial, religious, and ethnic bigotry leads to Hell on Earth. An America without hate would have no place for the politics of Donald Trump.



DuKKKe sees such as Jewish "depravity"... letting in Syrian refugees (many of them Christians) fleeing both a genocidal tyrant and a cause that has more in common with Nazism than with orthodox Islam seems like a good idea.

But what can one say of someone who considers "righteous Jew" and "righteous Muslim" oxymora?

(07-21-2016, 11:44 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2016, 11:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2016, 05:17 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]I can only guess but i think he is saying he is ashamed to be a white male because of the fact the white male is being demonized as a majority right wing cohort who votes republican and all the stereotypes that follow being republican. I say demonized because of the stereotype which does not fit all. I do not think this would have anything to do with his father.

How about, I meant exactly what I said. The popularity of Donald Trump among white men (especially old white men) makes me ashamed to be one.

I believe i was closer to what you said than the guy who connected it to being upset about your father which i did not find to be true. So you can give me credit for that. I mentioned the fact they are commonly the ones who vote republican but also added the stereotype and it is there. You can't say it is not a negative stereotype. I hear dems bashing them all the time. I think it is closer to the truth than connecting it to a negative emotion regarding a father in your case.

I've been writing about generational issues and gender issues for over
20 years, and I've had many conversations and done lots of research,
and I don't think that I was as far off as you and Eric are
suggesting. Anyway, good luck Eric!

(07-21-2016, 04:46 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2016, 02:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]>   As Bill Maher says, Ailes well that ends well!

>   I can tell that you don't like feminists very much. I wonder how I
>   got that impression, uh; but..........

>   for me, I feel really ashamed to be a white male now; actual large
>   majorities of us will actually vote for a lunatic, sub-human
>   billionaire crony-capitalist xenophobic sociopath to be our
>   president, just because he exploits the anger of old white
>   guys. It doesn't speak well for our sub-species. As Trump would
>   say, "that I can tell you; believe me"

During the 1990s, I was writing my book on fathers' rights.  In
addition to reading dozens of feminist books and hundreds of feminist
articles, I also spent thousands of hours online in women's forums.
So I got to know feminists and the feminist culture very well.

The vast majority of the women that I met were, of course, exciting
and wonderful.  But a small percentage were unbelievably nasty, not
just to me, but especially to other women who didn't toe the line.
One thing that I learned was that when a woman was being treated
abusively, it was most often by another woman, particularly one who
called herself a feminist.

In the feminist culture, a woman who denies being a feminist or who
says anything the criticizes feminists is treated extremely abusively
by other women.  So this raises the question of what exactly is a
feminist.

Since women who deny being feminists are treated abusively by other
women, you can't simply take a poll to see what percentage are
feminists.  But it was pretty clear to me that the women who were
thoughtful, engaging, intelligent and open did not talk much about
feminism, and sometimes even seemed ashamed of being associated with
the word.  But the ones who "wore feminism on their sleeves" were the
nasty, abusive, intolerant women.  So when you say that I don't like
feminists, my response is to say perhaps, but only applied to the
latter group, the nasty, abusive, intolerant minority.

If you really "feel ashamed to be a white male," then you really
should think about why you feel that way.  Most young men who say
something like that hate their fathers, and you may be transferring
your hatred of your father to other older men who really don't deserve
your hatred.  Whatever, the reason, that kind of self-hatred really
isn't healthy, and you really ought to try to get to the bottom of it.

You might want to read my book, "Fraternizing with the Enemy," which
is based on enormous amount of research.  Most of what you read or
hear in the media, from either the left or the right, about gender
issues is total, absolute, incoherent garbage.  (The same is true of
economic issues, incidentally.)  Since my book is totally fact-based,
with everything carefully sourced, reading it might help you
understand what you're going through, and might put in perspective
whatever life experience you've had that you're reacting to.

My book is available for free as a PDF file from my download page:
http://generationaldynamics.com/download

You first state -

"The vast majority of the women [and you were already limiting that within the feminist sub-group!] that I met were, of course, exciting and wonderful.  But a small percentage were unbelievably nasty,.."

- to making complete generalizations about all feminists if not all women.

The lack of self-awareness is just weird.

(07-22-2016, 07:23 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]I've been writing about generational issues and gender issues for over
20 years, and I've had many conversations and done lots of research,
and I don't think that I was as far off as you and Eric are
suggesting. Anyway, good luck Eric!

Yes, I have made my prediction! Trump will lose. We'll see.

I already predicted that Trump would be nominated, here on this forum, before the primaries even began, and predicted that Sanders would run a strong campaign, here on this forum, before he even announced. No-one else did that, probably.

(07-22-2016, 10:43 AM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ]You first state -

"The vast majority of the women [and you were already limiting
that within the feminist sub-group!] that I met were, of course,
exciting and wonderful. But a small percentage were unbelievably
nasty,.."

- to making complete generalizations about all feminists if not all
women.

The lack of self-awareness is just weird.

Your remarks may apply to your father, but I'm not your father. In my
initial response to you. I made it clear that the most thoughtful,
engaging, intelligent and open women were not feminists, but only said
they were because otherwise they would be treated abusively by other
women. As I said, I spent thousands of hours in the 1990s in women's
forums doing research for my book on fathers' rights.

OK, so there are multiple manifestations of feminism. One of them is a mirror image of male-chauvinist-pig stereotypes. Female chauvinism can be as nasty as male chauvinism, just as black supremacists are as vile as white supremacists.

So what?

(07-22-2016, 11:27 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]> OK, so there are multiple manifestations of feminism. One of them
> is a mirror image of male-chauvinist-pig stereotypes. Female
> chauvinism can be as nasty as male chauvinism, just as black
> supremacists are as vile as white supremacists. So what?

But there's a problem with what you're saying: What is feminism?

Does feminist = woman?

Feminist organizations say that feminism is a political ideology,
bound to the concept of "The personal is political," meaning that
feminist women should use their sexuality to gain political advantage.

Of course, anyone can say feminism is anything they want, but I
actually disagree with your concept of "multiple manifestations of
feminism." In my view, if you say you're Canadian, then you have to
be a Canadian citizen, and if you say you're Catholic, then you have
to be a member of the Catholic church, and if you say you're a
feminist, then you're bound to the political ideology of using
sexuality to gain political advantage.

(07-22-2016, 11:16 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-22-2016, 10:43 AM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ]You first state -

"The vast majority of the women [and you were already limiting
that within the feminist sub-group!] that I met were, of course,
exciting and wonderful.  But a small percentage were unbelievably
nasty,.."

- to making complete generalizations about all feminists if not all
 women.

The lack of self-awareness is just weird.  

Your remarks may apply to your father, but I'm not your father.  In my
initial response to you. I made it clear that the most thoughtful,
engaging, intelligent and open women were not feminists, but only said
they were because otherwise they would be treated abusively by other
women.  As I said, I spent thousands of hours in the 1990s in women's
forums doing research for my book on fathers' rights.

On so many levels, your response makes clear that you're hopelessly confused.

Just try to stay away from women - it will be better for everyone including yourself.

(07-22-2016, 11:38 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-22-2016, 11:27 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]> OK, so there are multiple manifestations of feminism. One of them
> is a mirror image of male-chauvinist-pig stereotypes. Female
> chauvinism can be as nasty as male chauvinism, just as black
> supremacists are as vile as white supremacists. So what?

But there's a problem with what you're saying: What is feminism?

Does feminist = woman?

Feminist organizations say that feminism is a political ideology,
bound to the concept of "The personal is political," meaning that
feminist women should use their sexuality to gain political advantage.

Of course, anyone can say feminism is anything they want, but I
actually disagree with your concept of "multiple manifestations of
feminism." In my view, if you say you're Canadian, then you have to
be a Canadian citizen, and if you say you're Catholic, then you have
to be a member of the Catholic church, and if you say you're a
feminist, then you're bound to the political ideology of using
sexuality to gain political advantage.

When you say "using sexuality," do you mean sex appeal, sexual harassment, etc, or just their gender? If you use the word "sexuality," you imply the former.

And political advantage? Feminism seeks equality. An "advantage" in this case means to achieve equality, instead of the strong advantage that men now have in politics.

Hillary for example is "playing the woman card," meaning she touts her would-be status as the first-ever would-be US president. She says "deal me in," which means she supports family leave and equal pay. I don't see anything unfair there. What IS unfair is that there has never been a woman president, women get less pay, and women (and men) don't have paid family leave.

I probably have nothing against more rights for fathers in family disputes. Traditionally mothers may have more rights in dealing with family and children issues, custody battles, etc. By the same token, then, women should have more rights in spheres traditionally dominated by men.

The awesomely funny, and insightful, explanation of The Donald - awesome Family Feud player!

I am sure that comedians are rooting for Trump with all their hearts! So much material!





An alcoholic; Cruz runs on boos!

(07-22-2016, 11:43 AM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ]> On so many levels, your response makes clear that you're
> hopelessly confused. Just try to stay away from women - it will
> be better for everyone including yourself.

I realize that you're just a little child, which means that you think
you know everything, but I can assure you that you don't have a clue.
Furthermore, you would be a much better human being if you learned to
have respect for people who are older and have a lot more wisdom and
experience than you have. It may surprise you to learn this, but
older people know a great deal more than you do. I'm sure that your
parents must be telling you to have respect for your elders. You
ought to take their advice.

Rachel Maddow makes her picks for Donald Trump's cabinet.

(07-22-2016, 11:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]> When you say "using sexuality," do you mean sex appeal, sexual
> harassment, etc, or just their gender? If you use the word
> "sexuality," you imply the former.

> And political advantage? Feminism seeks equality. An "advantage"
> in this case means to achieve equality, instead of the strong
> advantage that men now have in politics.

> Hillary for example is "playing the woman card," meaning she touts
> her would-be status as the first-ever would-be US president. She
> says "deal me in," which means she supports family leave and equal
> pay. I don't see anything unfair there. What IS unfair is that
> there has never been a woman president, women get less pay, and
> women (and men) don't have paid family leave.

> I probably have nothing against more rights for fathers in family
> disputes. Traditionally mothers may have more rights in dealing
> with family and children issues, custody battles, etc. By the same
> token, then, women should have more rights in spheres
> traditionally dominated by men.

An example of using sexuality to gain a political advantage is for an
incompetent woman who doesn't get a job to say, "I lost the job to a
man because I'm a woman." Pretending to be a female victim is
extremely common.

Here's another common example. I heard variations of this many
times from men that I interviewed for my book, and from women as well.

By the way, there's one group of women who, generally speaking,
vitriolically hate feminists: Second wives. That's because
when the ex-wife screws her ex-husband, she screws his second
wife as well.

Feminists also vitriolically hate second wives, because they destroy
the whole feminist mystique that all men are batterers. If an ex-wife
claims that her ex-husband is a batterer, then why did some other
woman marry him? If an ex-wife uses the children as leverage to screw
the father (and the children), then the second wife suffers as well.

So here's the kind of story that I heard many, many times, from
both men and women (second wives):

An ex-wife beats the shit out of the kids, or her new boyfriend
beats the shit out of the kids, or her new boyfriend sexually
abuses the kids.

Feminists LOVE this situation because they stand to make so much
money from it. The father, of course, is extremely distraught
by this, and is devastated by how his kids are being beaten and
molested. So he turns to the courts.

The situation is turned over to the feminist social workers, who are
some of the most vile people on earth. They couldn't care less if the
mother is feeding the children to a meat grinder, as long as they get
their money. So when the father complains that his ex-wife is beating
the children or that her boyfriend is sexually molesting them, then
the father is sent from one social worker to another and to another
and to another. Each time a social worker sees the father, she gets
another fat fee, either from the father or from some grant. Either
way, nothing happens, and the children continue to be beaten and
sexually molested.

This is what feminism is really about. If you go into a divorce
court, there is only one person there who cares about the welfare of
the children, and that's the father. In addition, the only person
there who actually works for a living in a productive job is the
father. Everyone else in the courtroom is there to extract as much
money from the father, or to get as much money as possible in grants,
etc.

One more example:

In 2001, a man in Texas came home one day and found that his wife,
Andrea Yates, killed all five of her children. The mother had
planned the crime for weeks. She beat each of the children into
submission and drowned them. Bruises on some of children indicated
that they had struggled as their mother was drowning them.

This became a nationwide story. In my book (which you really ought to
read) in chapter one, I quote several feminists who said that she was
a victim, and that it was society's fault (or her husband's fault)
that she killed her five children. Katie Couric led a nationwide
feminist drive to raise funds for her. In actuality, this gruesome
murder was used by feminists to raise funds for their own
organizations.

Once again, that's what feminism is all about.

If you want to read more stories about feminism, you really ought
to read my book, which is available for free on my download page.
http://generationaldynamics.com/download