Trump implies Slavery/Segregation were better for blacks than the Obama Years

[JA]

He's playing to the white nationalist once again.

I don't think that is the reasoning. Trump's team has told him that his biggest problem is with college white women, especially those who think he is racially insensitive. But I don't see how talking like this helps, even though I am guessing in his mind this is the way to solve his suburban mom problem. This is his way of saying "see look, I care about black people"

Yep, he is trying to get the vote of people who, mistakenly, do not consider themselves racist.

Pretty much.

This is aimed at on the fence voters who normally vote GOP, but are turned off by Trump's "open" racism, even though they are low-key racists themselves.

Like has been said here already, Trump is trying to sure up the votes of Whites who've been turned off due to the social stigma of his blatant racism. This statement by Trump demonstrates that he not only has absolutely no concern for nor conception of the experiences of African Americans, either today or historically, but neither do his overwhelmingly White potential supporters either.

[Maxwell]

Considering in 2000 he called out David Duke for the obvious...

and then 16 years later claimed to not know who David Duke or what "white supremacy" was. Either implying he has severe memory problems that need to be checked (#DonaldsHealth) or that he's pandering for the votes of racists.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

His statements regarding blacks have some truth in that poor blacks may not have much to gain no matter who is in office. Even if Hillary wins by a large margin, it's difficult to see the Senate being anything more than 54-46 D based on current polling (IL, WI, PA, NH, IN, NC, LA, MO. Those last three are definitely tough though. AZ/FL/OH are fading away very quickly.) So most of Hillary's policies will be DOA due to the 60 vote rule, especially since the republicans who are kicked out will be relatively moderate senators with the exception of Johnson, so the republican caucus will get more conservative. While some filibuster changes may be feasible under nuclear rules, I really doubt you could get a full scale repeal of the 60 vote rule for legislation. And of course the house will remain in republican hands, so good luck getting anything through. So it will basically be the "status quo" and poor blacks will generally stay poor. Yeah Hillary can pack the courts but how much does that really help - courts have to get actual cases, and are often sluggish. Plus she probably won't get her dream SCOTUS judge even if the SCOTUS filibuster is taken away due to resistance from the 9 romney-state (and probably trump-state for all but NC) dems who would be in the senate in this scenario (5 are already in the senate) - just 5/9 would have to vote against a "true liberal" nominee for it to fail, and that's not even counting other senators up in 2018 who might want to "demonstrate moderation".

This is not to suggest that Trump would institute policies helpful to the black community, or that I support the idea of voting for him. But since Hillary wouldn't be able to pass the policies the black community wants, there is a question of how much blacks really benefit from voting for Hillary.

[Figueira]

His statements regarding blacks have some truth in that poor blacks may not have much to gain no matter who is in office. Even if Hillary wins by a large margin, it's difficult to see the Senate being anything more than 54-46 D based on current polling (IL, WI, PA, NH, IN, NC, LA, MO. Those last three are definitely tough though. AZ/FL/OH are fading away very quickly.) So most of Hillary's policies will be DOA due to the 60 vote rule, especially since the republicans who are kicked out will be relatively moderate senators with the exception of Johnson, so the republican caucus will get more conservative. While some filibuster changes may be feasible under nuclear rules, I really doubt you could get a full scale repeal of the 60 vote rule for legislation. And of course the house will remain in republican hands, so good luck getting anything through. So it will basically be the "status quo" and poor blacks will generally stay poor. Yeah Hillary can pack the courts but how much does that really help - courts have to get actual cases, and are often sluggish. Plus she probably won't get her dream SCOTUS judge even if the SCOTUS filibuster is taken away due to resistance from the 9 romney-state (and probably trump-state for all but NC) dems who would be in the senate in this scenario (5 are already in the senate) - just 5/9 would have to vote against a "true liberal" nominee for it to fail, and that's not even counting other senators up in 2018 who might want to "demonstrate moderation".

This is not to suggest that Trump would institute policies helpful to the black community, or that I support the idea of voting for him. But since Hillary wouldn't be able to pass the policies the black community wants, there is a question of how much blacks really benefit from voting for Hillary.

They benefit by not having a racist as President.

[Roronoa D. Law]

I hate when politicians just start talking about black people. Like congressman Zeldin who just brought of Kaepernick because of the Chelsea situation. Or Fox New having a town hall in a black church when the only time blacks appear is when they are criminals or criticizing Obama. Can we have an election that does not have us as the scapegoat or pandered to? 

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I hate when politicians just start talking about black people. Like congressman Zeldin who just brought of Kaepernick because of the Chelsea situation. Or Fox New having a town hall in a black church when the only time blacks appear is when they are criminals or criticizing Obama. Can we have an election that does not have us as the scapegoat or pandered to? 

Since blacks vote 90% dem no matter what, it's pretty easy to see why politicians want to use them as a scapegoat. Republicans know it's useless to try to get black support, and Democrats know they have it without even trying. So there's no consequences for speaking negatively about/pandering to blacks unless you say something so offensive that even non-leftist whites start condemning it.

[pbrower2a]

Let's start with this obvious fact: the black middle class is growing rapidly (in part die to miscegenation, with many of its youngest members having one non-black parent...) and in part due to economic progress.  Working class? Blacks in manufacturing industries may be doing less well than their counterparts did in the 1950s, which reflects the economic regress that industrial workers of all races have done in America (cheap imports, weakening of unions, predatory lending).

For the poor, the argument is often made that poor blacks now do less well than blacks during slavery due to less cohesion of families. Saying that blacks were better off under slavery is otherwise obscene.

Where does Donald Trump get these crazy ideas? Does he simply make them up? If he were not the Republican nominee, then he would be ignored.

[Ljube]

It's a hyperbole. Simething I frequently use.

[Dr. Arch]

It's a hyperbole. Simething I frequently use.

As a presidential candidate (or as a person who is of any real societal worth), you don't go freaking making "hyperboles" (his message was actually very literal in my opinion and he deserves no BOTD) disrespecting the deeply scarring history of a whole demographic of Americans.

It's downright stupid, and I'm saddened, albeit not surprised, to see you defending such a disgusting display of ignorant rhetoric.

[Ljube]

It's a hyperbole. Simething I frequently use.

As a presidential candidate (or as a person who is of any real societal worth), you don't go freaking making "hyperboles" (his message was actually very literal in my opinion and he deserves no BOTD) disrespecting the deeply scarring history of a whole demographic of Americans.

It's downright stupid, and I'm saddened, albeit not surprised, to see you defending such a disgusting display of ignorant rhetoric.

Perhaps I don't see it as ignorant rhetoric. Interestingly enough, I didn't think for one second he was trying to say that slavery was better than what the African Americans have now. It's in the eyes of the beholder, I guess and you need to be a member of the PC police to be outraged.

[Alcon]

It's a hyperbole. Simething I frequently use.

As a presidential candidate (or as a person who is of any real societal worth), you don't go freaking making "hyperboles" (his message was actually very literal in my opinion and he deserves no BOTD) disrespecting the deeply scarring history of a whole demographic of Americans.

It's downright stupid, and I'm saddened, albeit not surprised, to see you defending such a disgusting display of ignorant rhetoric.

Perhaps I don't see it as ignorant rhetoric. Interestingly enough, I didn't think for one second he was trying to say that slavery was better than what the African Americans have now. It's in the eyes of the beholder, I guess and you need to be a member of the PC police to be outraged.

I mean, your argument basically is that he wasn't being offensive -- he was just using unthinking, alarmist hyperbole to make a vague point for political gain.  I agree.  I think he does that all of the time.  I think that's basically how his brain works, in fact.  None of that, uh, troubles you?

[DrScholl]

Right-wing types have said this for years, Trump has just taken it mainstream.

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

He can't control his mouth or impulses. The guy should be kept away from power.

[MK]

This just in: slavery and Jim Crow were easy on African-Americans, compared to the dreaded Obama Years! Time to let people know that having Obama as president was so much worse for African-Americans than being enslaved or segregated, I'm sure they'll be relieved to learn the plantation life and sitting at the back of the bus wasn't that bad!

Trump: “Our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape that they’ve ever been in before. Ever, ever, ever.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-african-american-communities_us_57e1b099e4b0e28b2b50d74c

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not what he said.


By the way its liberal democrats like you that have did nothing for blacks after years and years of scapegoating.   

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Ugh, this guy has gone completely mental...

Really?

South Park was right, he's trying to lose now. I may have to reconsider Jill Stein :/

It's so hard to tell when you're being serious or not...

[Simfan34]

I think this interpretation is a stretch that would be decried as intellectually dishonest if you were to say it publicly.

[pbrower2a]

When one makes absolute, blanket statements one opens oneself to criticism if one seems to ignore a reality more extreme and complete.

There can be no question that slavery was atrocious, with only two modern realities (being on death row or being sexual traffic) even worse. Begin with the Atlantic slave trade, a horror in some ways comparable to the Holocaust. Then recognize that people who could never choose how to live under control by people who want to exploit them most completely can only impose suffering.

Let us all remember: we have no excuse for evil.

[Wiz in Wis]

His statements regarding blacks have some truth in that poor blacks may not have much to gain no matter who is in office. Even if Hillary wins by a large margin, it's difficult to see the Senate being anything more than 54-46 D based on current polling (IL, WI, PA, NH, IN, NC, LA, MO. Those last three are definitely tough though. AZ/FL/OH are fading away very quickly.) So most of Hillary's policies will be DOA due to the 60 vote rule, especially since the republicans who are kicked out will be relatively moderate senators with the exception of Johnson, so the republican caucus will get more conservative. While some filibuster changes may be feasible under nuclear rules, I really doubt you could get a full scale repeal of the 60 vote rule for legislation. And of course the house will remain in republican hands, so good luck getting anything through. So it will basically be the "status quo" and poor blacks will generally stay poor. Yeah Hillary can pack the courts but how much does that really help - courts have to get actual cases, and are often sluggish. Plus she probably won't get her dream SCOTUS judge even if the SCOTUS filibuster is taken away due to resistance from the 9 romney-state (and probably trump-state for all but NC) dems who would be in the senate in this scenario (5 are already in the senate) - just 5/9 would have to vote against a "true liberal" nominee for it to fail, and that's not even counting other senators up in 2018 who might want to "demonstrate moderation".

This is not to suggest that Trump would institute policies helpful to the black community, or that I support the idea of voting for him. But since Hillary wouldn't be able to pass the policies the black community wants, there is a question of how much blacks really benefit from voting for Hillary.

They benefit by not having a racist as President.

[Sir Mohamed]

I've fixed the quote from Mr. Drumpf:

“Our This African-American communities Republican nominee is the are absolutely in the worst shape that they’ve we've ever bseen in before. Ever, ever, ever.”

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Come on, guys. Hyperbole =/= intentional implication

This. As stupid as his statement was, I don't think he really meant to imply blacks were better off under Jim Crow or slavery. I doubt he thought that deep into it. I doubt he thinks deeply much at all honestly but who knows.

I mean, sure, I don't think he was intentionally trying to say that slavery was better for AAs, but you have to admit that this is another case of him not thinking before he opened his mouth. Even a tiny bit of thought could have avoided such an idiotic statement.

I mean he said "Ever, ever, ever." That much emphasis has to mean something beyond a lack of thought.

Yes, it means Trump likes to emphasize things, believing it somehow makes it true. 

[ag]

Come on, guys. Hyperbole =/= intentional implication

This. As stupid as his statement was, I don't think he really meant to imply blacks were better off under Jim Crow or slavery. I doubt he thought that deep into it. I doubt he thinks deeply much at all honestly but who knows.

I mean, sure, I don't think he was intentionally trying to say that slavery was better for AAs, but you have to admit that this is another case of him not thinking before he opened his mouth. Even a tiny bit of thought could have avoided such an idiotic statement.

I mean he said "Ever, ever, ever." That much emphasis has to mean something beyond a lack of thought.

Yes, it means Trump likes to emphasize things, believing it somehow makes it true. 

Exactly as Dr. Goebbels did.

[pbrower2a]

I hate comparing Donald Trump to fascists because such reflects badly upon  America -- but Donald Trump has learned the art of the Big Lie.

[MasterJedi]

Trump probably wants a bunch of corporate serfs who make nothing so he gets all the profit and gets breadcrumbs in return.