Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Citation, please? I think you're making the error that the media loves to commit, which is to forcibly reinterpret everything as racism.

For example, in the recent Puerto Rican "garbage" kerfuffle, the comedian never said that Puerto Ricans as such were garbage - that was a fabrication of the media. What he said was that the island of Puerto Rico is an island of garbage, which is figuratively true as it has an acknowledged a problem with garbage disposal.

Similarly, Trump never said that Mexicans are rapists, etc.; that's another media fabrication. What he said was that those in America illegally are disproportionately criminals. That may or may not be true, but it's not a statement about Mexicans as a race, but about a particular subgroup set apart by their own behavior of illegal immigration, and notably NOT directed at their cousins in America legally, or still back in Mexico.

Trump says a lot of crap. But if you find it particularly egregious, chances are that it was fabricated by the media. Another very recent example is when the media told us that Trump said that Liz Cheney should be put in front of a firing squad. In reality, the topic of conversation was her attitude toward war, and his statement was that if there were guns pointed at her, she'd feel different about soldiering.



The comedian never said that Puerto Ricans as such were garbage - that was a fabrication of the media.

Of course he did. It's called innuendo, and everyone knew exactly what he was getting at. If you say an entire neighborhood, city or country is garbage, then you're saying that the people living there are garbage, too. There's no point pretending otherwise.

If you disagree, try walking to the other side of town, telling a few residents that "You know, nothing personal, but your whole neighborhood is big mountain of garbage", and feel free to share the results of your research with us.

Trump never said that Mexicans are rapists, etc.

What he did say was that women traveling through Central America en route to the United States were "raped at levels that nobody's ever seen before" (despite there being no evidence of this happening). Which again, amounts to exactly the same thing. Pretending otherwise is extremely naive.


> Citation please?

Behavior of Trump in the Black lives matter movement speaks for itself.

Muslim ban: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_travel_ban

Trump tried hard (but failed) to deport dreamers out of USA: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-dreamers-...

"Puerto Rico is a garbage island" and Trump trowing paper toilet rolls to victims of natural disasters with a clear purpose of humiliating them.

The problem in this thread is that everybody is trying to find what Democrats did wrong, or say that Kamala was not well known. Well, every voter knew who was Trump, and they still voted him, so changing the candidate by "better" does not matter if people wants "worse". If a country can't use the best people that they had ("elite thinks that are better than us") the outcome is predictable.

And we aren't even daring to discuss the elephant in the room that is "Can't be really, (really) sure that they didn't just cheated?

After all wouldn't be the first time, so is legit to speculate about it. Lets imagine [hypothetically] that in an alternate timeline they just learned from past fails and cheated better this time. How that could be disclosed or done? Was mail vote altered?. How could we spot it in this case?. This is the real meat in this discussion.

How strong or weak is a candidate does not matter if a party just can jump over the game rules.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: