Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

This post is a reply to a series of questions I was asked on why I feel Trump would be a worse president than Hillary.

“What makes you think that there would be increased racial tension in the US during a Trump presidency as opposed to a Hillary presidency? What makes you think that there would be increased bigotry and sexism? Why do you think that protections and particularly rights for women will be decreased? And one last question that I'd like to preface with a statement. It appears as though you're one of the many who believe that Trump is an islamophobic, racist, sexist fearmonger. Why do you believe this? I'd like some direct quotes that show his apparent bigotry.”

Here’s an article listing the ways in which Trump has demonstrated his racism & bigotry:

Here’s a link to the VP debate transcript:

When Pence is asked about the issue of law enforcement and race relations, he said that Hillary Clinton used the Keith Lamont Scott shooting (murder) as an example of the implicit bias in the police force, and that “enough of this seeking every opportunity to demean law enforcement broadly by making the accusation of implicit bias every time a tragedy occurs.”

The problem is, there *is* implicit bias in everyone in the United States. /Everyone/ is slightly biased one way or another (not necessarily positively towards their own race), but humans are hard-wired to absorb bias as a learning tool. More information on Implicit Bias: http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/research/understanding-implicit-bias/
Quote: “Implicit biases are pervasive. Everyone possesses them, even people with avowed commitments to impartiality such as judges.”

Take the Implicit Bias test: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html
My mother and I, both white women, took the Black/White IAT and both showed a mild to moderate preference /for/ African Americans and /against/ European Americans. Though most people show a bias towards their own race, my mother and I are implicitly biased against it. So we’re still biased. Everyone is.

Ignoring implicit bias isn’t going to solve the problem. Pretending that police officers aren’t implicitly biased won’t let them learn to recognize and deal with the issue. Here’s a great article that lists the many types of bias. Being aware of these allows us to see them in ourselves and fight against them: https://betterhumans.coach.me/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18#.qzqq7pge4

All this is to say that, having a man with obviously racial views as president, and having a man who ignores the truth that we are all biased, and refuses to deal with the issue at large, will increase racial tensions. Police will be given a pass on violence spurred by racial bias. They won’t be forced to recognize the bias in themselves, nor learn to overcome it. They’ll have all the justification they need to continue “business as usual” from the highest levels of government.

Trump frequently judge a woman’s worth on her looks, and forces women to parade in front of him and his male coworkers so they can be “rated”.

Also, from: http://www.vox.com/2016/10/8/13110734/donald-trump-leaked-audio-recording-billy-bush-sexism
“The individual insults, though, are just one facet of Trump’s broader attitude toward women. Anecdotes spanning decades make clear that Trump considers it his right to be surrounded by ‘beautiful’ women. He has no boundaries about commenting on their appearance or sexuality. Twice before, he’s been accused of sexual assault, and he has reportedly kissed women on the lips without their consent.” There are several examples of derogatory behavior and outright assault listed in that article. It further states “When Trump dislikes a woman, his instinct is to insult her physical appearance. When he likes one, he does the opposite, and immediately praises her beauty. He does this even if the context is odd or inappropriate, as when he made sure to note that the victim of a murder committed by an unauthorized immigrant was beautiful.” […] “Would federal appointments in a Trump administration go to the prettiest faces rather than the most able policy hands? Would Trump create a diplomatic incident by leering at foreign leaders or their wives? Would Trump use the power of the presidency to extort sex from women too intimidated to say no? His track record suggests the answer to all of those questions could easily be yes.”

Trump is also very weak when it comes to women’s rights, and wouldn’t hesitate to roll back the progress women have managed to make in recent years. http://time.com/4441052/donald-trump-women-issues/

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/08/politics/mike-pence-women-donald-trump/
“In Congress, Pence was at the forefront of a conservative effort to block any federal funds from going to Planned Parenthood because the organization -- which provides women with cancer screenings, counseling services and tests -- also provides abortions.” [Note that Planned Parenthood does not use government funds for abortions, which are funded only with private donations.] Also: “But as governor he has not shied away from those issues, notably stumbling in the polls after he signed a "religious freedom" bill last year. That measure allowed businesses to decline services to same-sex couples if they cited religious objections. After days of intense national pressure -- including a push by the state's businesses to repeal the measure -- Pence backtracked and approved a ‘fix’ that said the law could not be used as a tool to discriminate.”

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20/opinions/obeidallah-trump-anti-muslim/
Link: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260727-trump-wont-rule-out-database-special-id-for-muslims
“Trump told Yahoo News that he would consider requiring Muslim-Americans to register with a government database, or worse, mandating that they carry special identification cards that note their faith.” […] “The GOP frontrunner explained that he was open to wholesale surveillance of Muslim-Americans and warrantless searches of mosques. He even praised past NYPD policies that spied on the New York City Muslim community as ‘great,’ despite the reality that this controversial program did not yield any leads or arrests. This means that under a Trump administration, Muslims would have fewer rights than other Americans simply because of our faith, which is no different than advocating for racial profiling of blacks or Latinos.” […] “And Trump then doubled down on his recent proclamation that he was open to shutting down American mosques, noting he'd have ‘absolutely no choice’ if ‘some bad things happen’ in a mosque. Consequently, if two or three people in a mosque of say 500 did ‘bad things,’ the entire mosque would be shuttered. It would be as outrageous as closing down a mega church because two or three members firebombed an abortion clinic. Our system of justice punishes specific wrongdoers, not all who simply share the same faith or race of a criminal.”

"Why do you predict that we'll receive more military action from countries we're not allied with and that we'll support our allies less?"

Link: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/russia-nato-trump-shirreff/492938/
“Donald Trump suggested to The New York Times last week that he might not provide military assistance to the Baltic countries—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—if they were invaded by Russia, even though they are part of NATO and the alliance’s treaty declares that an attack on one member is an attack on all members. The Republican presidential candidate indicated that his support would hinge on whether those under attack had fulfilled their financial obligations to the alliance, including a pledge by each country to spend at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense by 2024. Presently, only five of 28 NATO members—among them the U.S., the U.K., and Estonia—are hitting that target.”

[…] “NATO depends totally on American leadership and American willingness to come to the aid of allies unconditionally. Therefore, to have a president in the White House who is not necessarily prepared to do that weakens the alliance immeasurably and may well lead to [the] decoupling of America from European defense.” Such an outcome, [Shirreff] argued, is bad not only for Europe, but also for America. As NATO Secretary General‎ Jens Stoltenberg put it following the publication of Trump’s comments, “Two world wars have shown that peace in Europe is also important for the security of the United States.”

[…] I asked if he thought Trump’s approach to NATO could increase the likelihood of Russian aggression in the Baltics, given Trump’s skepticism about the alliance and apparent fondness for President Vladimir Putin and Putin’s worldview. Potentially, he said. “In terms of the risk equation for whoever’s sitting in the Kremlin, if he or she decides to have a go at the Baltic states, he may just decide, ‘Yeah I think the chances are I’ll get away with it,’” Shirreff told me. “And that, of course, makes the world more dangerous.”

Why do you think that our economy will tank under a Trump presidency as opposed to a Hillary presidency?

Link: https://www.thestreet.com/story/13335121/1/if-donald-trump-was-president-here-s-what-would-happen-to-the-u-s-economy.html

“Trump's immigration plans cost him a handful of business deals, but they might cost the United States much more. The American Action Forum, a right-leaning policy institute based in Washington D.C., estimates that immediately and fully enforcing current immigration law, as Trump has suggested, would cost the federal government from $400 billion to $600 billion. It would shrink the labor force by 11 million workers, reduce the real GDP by $1.6 trillion and take 20 years to complete (Trump has said he could do it in 18 months). ‘It will harm the U.S. economy,’ said Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and chief economic policy adviser to Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. ‘Immigration is an enormous source of economic vitality.’ The impact would be felt on both supply and demand.”

[…] [McLaren] pointed to the case of Postville, Iowa, where in 2008 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided a slaughterhouse and meat packing plant, detaining 389 undocumented workers (and jailing 300 of them). The raid caused most of the more than 1,000 immigrants not caught to leave the town of 2,300, devastating the local economy in the process.

[…]Trump has also discussed reducing the number of jobs held by legal immigrants, namely by increasing the prevailing wage requirements for H-1B visas (visas that allow U.S. employers to recruit and employ foreign professionals) -- an element of his plan that is often overlooked. The Republican contender's thesis is that doing so would force companies to give jobs to domestic employees instead of overseas workers. The maneuver would benefit some, but not most. “If I'm an American software programmer, I probably would benefit somewhat from making it harder for highly-skilled software programmers from elsewhere," McClaren said. "It's really hard to argue that the country, as a whole, benefits from that. It would be bad for most Americans, and it certainly would be bad for corporations."

[…] Trump's tax plan would reduce revenue enormously, and the federal budget deficit would almost inevitably skyrocket. Nonpartisan tax research group the Tax Foundation calculates that Trump's plan would cut taxes by $11.98 trillion over the course of a decade. It would lead to 11% growth in the GDP, 6.5% higher wages and 29% larger capital stock as well as 5.3 million jobs. However, *it would also reduce tax revenues by $10.14 trillion*, even when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital. "That tax cut would produce faster economic growth and a bigger economy -- as long as you pay zero attention to the fact that it would dramatically increase the deficit and budget debt," said Pethokoukis.

Trump in August adjusted his platform, calling for a top income tax rate of 33% rather than a past plan for 25% as well as the full expensing of capital investment and a deduction for childcare costs. The Tax Foundation notes that the change will reduce the revenue loss from his original plan, but it will depend significantly on how wide the new bracket thresholds are. Trump has promised to reduce spending, though he hasn't explicitly said how. Moreover, he has said he will maintain entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, two of the costliest parts of the federal budget.

[…] Trump has also pinpointed imposing tariffs on imported goods, for example, suggesting a 35% tax on automakers that manufacture cars in Mexico. Such a maneuver might bring jobs back stateside, but it might not. Instead, it could just mean people paying more for what they're buying. "If he puts 35% taxes on products, the manufacturing will still not come back to the U.S., and all it will mean is U.S. consumers have to pay 35% more for the products that are made outside the country," said Busler. "American consumers would end up paying more for things, and that hurts the economy if you're putting tariffs on those other things," said Matthews.

"Why do you think that Trump would cause worse impact to the environment to Hillary, a politician who it would seem cares quite a bit about taking money from the world's largest supporters of climate change?"

Link: https://thinkprogress.org/the-environmental-implications-of-a-trump-presidency-fc298e5fd83c#.lgoijp41b

“Trump has said explicitly that he wants to eliminate the EPA so there is no speculation on how far he would try to go,” Holly Shulman, a Sierra Club spokesperson, told ThinkProgress. Most Americans across the political spectrum support the EPA’s safeguards, she said, and coal is on its way out. “Donald Trump can talk about eliminating the EPA until his face turns blue but the market won’t support it,” Shulman said. […] If Trump can’t shut down the EPA, he will still do his best to stop it from doing much. Asked about regulating carbon pollution, Trump characterized the Obama administration’s actions as “an overreach that punishes rather than helps Americans” in the AEA questionnaire. He then went further. “Under my administration, all EPA rules will be reviewed. Any regulation that imposes undue costs on business enterprises will be eliminated.”

[…] Trump has said he would seek to renegotiate the “one-sided,” “bad,” Paris climate agreement, ignoring the fact that the agreement is one-sided in favor of the United States, not against it. The rest of the planet has agreed to cut emissions, which will help to save Trump specifically from ruin, as someone who owns a lot of coastal property.

[…] “Trump believes that when oil spills occur ‘you clean them up’ and called the push to develop renewable energy a ‘big mistake’ and ‘an expensive way of making treehuggers feel good about themselves,’” Shulman said. “The current GOP drive to subsidize fossil fuels at the expense of renewables would continue under a President Trump.”

[…] Trump has promised to bring back coal jobs when campaigning in West Virginia. Which is a problem when most of the coal jobs that have been lost were due to decisions made by the industry to mechanize their workforce. And the market is simply moving away from coal to natural gas and renewable energy. It’s unclear what Trump would do on this, other than blow smoke.

There’s a great infographic here that shows the differences between Clinton and Trump on “Energy and the Environment.”

As and aside:
I agree that Hillary is a career politician. Some of her actions (and even policies) are worrying to me. I put her in the same category as George W. Bush, whom I did not vote for, and did not want as our president. I don't like a lot of what Bush did, I don't like a lot of what Hillary has done, and I don't like the prospect of a Hillary presidency. However, I liken Hillary and Trump to the choice between a shit sandwich and being shot in the head. I may want cheesecake, but there's no cheesecake on the table. There's a shit sandwich, and a gun. I'd rather eat the shit sandwich.

Latest Month

May 2017
Powered by LiveJournal.com