This is the kind of person Trump hired as his butler and historian

[320 Years of History]

Is this guy typical of the white males that purportedly comprise the bulk of Trump's base of support? If so, I'm embarassed to be a white male.

Anthony Senecal, who worked as Donald Trump's butler for 17 years before being named the in-house historian at the tycoon's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, has repeatedly published posts on his Facebook page that express profound hatred for President Barack Obama and declare he should be killed.

On Wednesday, Senecal put up a post that read:

To all my friends on FB, just a short note to you on our pus headed "president" !!!! This character who I refer to as zero (0) should have been taken out by our military and shot as an enemy agent in his first term !!!!!​

On June 6, 2015, one of his Facebook friends wrote a comment on Senecal's page saying, "We need to send the seals to SOROS and ROTHCHILD [sic] and REMOVE them and their cronies--then HANG BO and most of Washington--and we'll have a CHANCE to get things straightened out." This person added, "everyone knows they're CRIMINAL - HANG ALL OF THEM." Senecal replied, "I love the idea."​

The above is taken from here.

Come on! I don't care how much one differs with any given politician, much less a sitting President, advocating for them or anyone to have been shot or hung is going too far, way too far. Seeing that, it's no wonder Trump didn't unequivocally denounce David Duke's endorsement.

What is wrong with white men in the U.S? For literally over 200 years and even now, we've had birthright advantages unavailable to anyone else in the country; white men have for the vast majority of the U.S.' history been more equal than all other persons who were presumably . It seems to me that all that's wrong is over the years a ton of us have failed to take advantage of those advantages and now that the playing field has more or less been leveled, some, a lot but nonetheless not all, don't like it.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
​

Trump "disavowed" the remark from his butler, and that's better than some of the things he might have done in response. Now here's the thing..."disavow" is somewhat similar in tone/connotation to "denounce," but it isn't denotatively the same as "denounce."

• Disavow can mean either to deny responsibility for, or to fail to acknowledge. Well, Trump clearly acknowledged -- recognized -- that the man said what he said and Trump obviously thinks it's important enough that he respond to the remark. We know this is so because Trump has responded to the remark. That leaves the other meaning of disavow, which is to deny responsibility for.
  
  Well, okay, I suspect Trump didn't instruct the man to post that comment. So, sure, I believe Trump's disavowal of the remark.
• Denounce is a stronger term and it's meaning is materially different: "to pronounce especially publicly to be blameworthy or evil." That is to say, denouncing carries with it not only abjuration, but adds to it condemnation.

And therein we find the problem. Trump went to precisely the same sort of fancy Northeast boarding schools I did. That they are fancy schools isn't the point; what one learns there is the point. I know perfectly well that he was taught there because exactly the same sorts of things are still taught in those schools, and among them are the connotative and denotative distinctions between words like "disavow" and "denounce." For folks coming through that kind of curriculum, those distinctions aren't ever lost or overlooked.

Thus the substance of Trump's remarks pertaining to his butler's comments as well as David Duke's and those of other white supremacist groups is this. "I didn't make them say those things and I didn't ask them to say them." It is not "I condemn the sentiments expressed in their statements." The latter is what folks are looking to hear, and they simply aren't hearing it.

Whether or not one is speaking in a political arena isn't even relevant because (1) the political arena is one occupied only by adults, and (2) what is relevant is that Trump has the background to know how to communicate precisely what he means and doesn't mean by carefully choosing his words. The fact of the matter is that with folks whom one knows they know the difference between simple words, one has to give them the benefit of the doubt, the respect, for (1) knowing precisely what they mean and (2) for knowing how to communicate what they mean. That's the difference between how one interprets the words of children versus how one interprets those of adults.

 

[1stRambo]

Is this guy typical of the white males that purportedly comprise the bulk of Trump's base of support? If so, I'm embarassed to be a white male.

Anthony Senecal, who worked as Donald Trump's butler for 17 years before being named the in-house historian at the tycoon's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, has repeatedly published posts on his Facebook page that express profound hatred for President Barack Obama and declare he should be killed.

On Wednesday, Senecal put up a post that read:

To all my friends on FB, just a short note to you on our pus headed "president" !!!! This character who I refer to as zero (0) should have been taken out by our military and shot as an enemy agent in his first term !!!!!​

On June 6, 2015, one of his Facebook friends wrote a comment on Senecal's page saying, "We need to send the seals to SOROS and ROTHCHILD [sic] and REMOVE them and their cronies--then HANG BO and most of Washington--and we'll have a CHANCE to get things straightened out." This person added, "everyone knows they're CRIMINAL - HANG ALL OF THEM." Senecal replied, "I love the idea."​

The above is taken from here.

Come on! I don't care how much one differs with any given politician, much less a sitting President, advocating for them or anyone to have been shot or hung is going too far, way too far. Seeing that, it's no wonder Trump didn't unequivocally denounce David Duke's endorsement.

What is wrong with white men in the U.S? For literally over 200 years and even now, we've had birthright advantages unavailable to anyone else in the country; white men have for the vast majority of the U.S.' history been more equal than all other persons who were presumably . It seems to me that all that's wrong is over the years a ton of us have failed to take advantage of those advantages and now that the playing field has more or less been leveled, some, a lot but nonetheless not all, don't like it.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
​

Trump "disavowed" the remark from his butler, and that's better than some of the things he might have done in response. Now here's the thing..."disavow" is somewhat similar in tone/connotation to "denounce," but it isn't denotatively the same as "denounce."

• Disavow can mean either to deny responsibility for, or to fail to acknowledge. Well, Trump clearly acknowledged -- recognized -- that the man said what he said and Trump obviously thinks it's important enough that he respond to the remark. We know this is so because Trump has responded to the remark. That leaves the other meaning of disavow, which is to deny responsibility for.
  
  Well, okay, I suspect Trump didn't instruct the man to post that comment. So, sure, I believe Trump's disavowal of the remark.
• Denounce is a stronger term and it's meaning is materially different: "to pronounce especially publicly to be blameworthy or evil." That is to say, denouncing carries with it not only abjuration, but adds to it condemnation.

And therein we find the problem. Trump went to precisely the same sort of fancy Northeast boarding schools I did. That they are fancy schools isn't the point; what one learns there is the point. I know perfectly well that he was taught there because exactly the same sorts of things are still taught in those schools, and among them are the connotative and denotative distinctions between words like "disavow" and "denounce." For folks coming through that kind of curriculum, those distinctions aren't ever lost or overlooked.

Thus the substance of Trump's remarks pertaining to his butler's comments as well as David Duke's and those of other white supremacist groups is this. "I didn't make them say those things and I didn't ask them to say them." It is not "I condemn the sentiments expressed in their statements." The latter is what folks are looking to hear, and they simply aren't hearing it.

Whether or not one is speaking in a political arena isn't even relevant because (1) the political arena is one occupied only by adults, and (2) what is relevant is that Trump has the background to know how to communicate precisely what he means and doesn't mean by carefully choosing his words. The fact of the matter is that with folks whom one knows they know the difference between simple words, one has to give them the benefit of the doubt, the respect, for (1) knowing precisely what they mean and (2) for knowing how to communicate what they mean. That's the difference between how one interprets the words of children versus how one interprets those of adults.

Yo, MINI Socialist? If the shoe fits? Wear It!!! The guy sounds like a Real American? What has Obama done for America? Put it down, Put Christians down, Put Whites Down, Put Gun Owners Down, Let`s anybody and everybody come across the Border, Fuck the American Lives, Put Coal Miners Out Of Jobs, Took Land away from Americans, Put the EPA on Americans, Put the Justice Department on Americans, Put the IRS on Conservatives, Lied for Hillary Clinton, Lied about Obama-Care, ETC., I`m sick of coming up with all the BS this President has done!!! Take him OUTBACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



"GTP"

 

[Never3ndr]

Is this guy typical of the white males that purportedly comprise the bulk of Trump's base of support? If so, I'm embarassed to be a white male.

Anthony Senecal, who worked as Donald Trump's butler for 17 years before being named the in-house historian at the tycoon's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, has repeatedly published posts on his Facebook page that express profound hatred for President Barack Obama and declare he should be killed.

On Wednesday, Senecal put up a post that read:

To all my friends on FB, just a short note to you on our pus headed "president" !!!! This character who I refer to as zero (0) should have been taken out by our military and shot as an enemy agent in his first term !!!!!​

On June 6, 2015, one of his Facebook friends wrote a comment on Senecal's page saying, "We need to send the seals to SOROS and ROTHCHILD [sic] and REMOVE them and their cronies--then HANG BO and most of Washington--and we'll have a CHANCE to get things straightened out." This person added, "everyone knows they're CRIMINAL - HANG ALL OF THEM." Senecal replied, "I love the idea."​

The above is taken from here.

Come on! I don't care how much one differs with any given politician, much less a sitting President, advocating for them or anyone to have been shot or hung is going too far, way too far. Seeing that, it's no wonder Trump didn't unequivocally denounce David Duke's endorsement.

What is wrong with white men in the U.S? For literally over 200 years and even now, we've had birthright advantages unavailable to anyone else in the country; white men have for the vast majority of the U.S.' history been more equal than all other persons who were presumably . It seems to me that all that's wrong is over the years a ton of us have failed to take advantage of those advantages and now that the playing field has more or less been leveled, some, a lot but nonetheless not all, don't like it.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
​

Trump "disavowed" the remark from his butler, and that's better than some of the things he might have done in response. Now here's the thing..."disavow" is somewhat similar in tone/connotation to "denounce," but it isn't denotatively the same as "denounce."

• Disavow can mean either to deny responsibility for, or to fail to acknowledge. Well, Trump clearly acknowledged -- recognized -- that the man said what he said and Trump obviously thinks it's important enough that he respond to the remark. We know this is so because Trump has responded to the remark. That leaves the other meaning of disavow, which is to deny responsibility for.
  
  Well, okay, I suspect Trump didn't instruct the man to post that comment. So, sure, I believe Trump's disavowal of the remark.
• Denounce is a stronger term and it's meaning is materially different: "to pronounce especially publicly to be blameworthy or evil." That is to say, denouncing carries with it not only abjuration, but adds to it condemnation.

And therein we find the problem. Trump went to precisely the same sort of fancy Northeast boarding schools I did. That they are fancy schools isn't the point; what one learns there is the point. I know perfectly well that he was taught there because exactly the same sorts of things are still taught in those schools, and among them are the connotative and denotative distinctions between words like "disavow" and "denounce." For folks coming through that kind of curriculum, those distinctions aren't ever lost or overlooked.

Thus the substance of Trump's remarks pertaining to his butler's comments as well as David Duke's and those of other white supremacist groups is this. "I didn't make them say those things and I didn't ask them to say them." It is not "I condemn the sentiments expressed in their statements." The latter is what folks are looking to hear, and they simply aren't hearing it.

Whether or not one is speaking in a political arena isn't even relevant because (1) the political arena is one occupied only by adults, and (2) what is relevant is that Trump has the background to know how to communicate precisely what he means and doesn't mean by carefully choosing his words. The fact of the matter is that with folks whom one knows they know the difference between simple words, one has to give them the benefit of the doubt, the respect, for (1) knowing precisely what they mean and (2) for knowing how to communicate what they mean. That's the difference between how one interprets the words of children versus how one interprets those of adults.

Yo, MINI Socialist? If the shoe fits? Wear It!!! The guy sounds like a Real American? What has Obama done for America? Put it down, Put Christians down, Put Whites Down, Put Gun Owners Down, Let`s anybody and everybody come across the Border, Fuck the American Lives, Put Coal Miners Out Of Jobs, Took Land away from Americans, Put the EPA on Americans, Put the Justice Department on Americans, Put the IRS on Conservatives, Lied for Hillary Clinton, Lied about Obama-Care, ETC., I`m sick of coming up with all the BS this President has done!!! Take him OUTBACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This Fucker is a real Traitor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 74617

The amount of red media you must consume would probably boggle my mind.

 

[MarathonMike]

Hillary is under CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI but Liberals and their media are all squealing about what Trump's FORMER butler posted on Facebook. For God's sake's wake up. You are backing a felon and attacking a true American.

 

[rightwinger]

Hillary is under CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI but Liberals and their media are all squealing about what Trump's FORMER butler posted on Facebook. For God's sake's wake up. You are backing a felon and attacking a true American.

The FBI has repeatedly stated that Hillary is not under criminal investigation

 

[320 Years of History]

under CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

"Under investigation" does not equal "indicted/charged."

 

[320 Years of History]

squealing about what Trump's FORMER butler posted

Clearly you missed the theme of the OP. The object of disdain in those posts is first the mindset of the people who support Trump and second Trump. The prioritization is important, for while Trump is scary, it's even scarier that there literally exist 10M+ U.S. citizens who presumably think as do that macabre majordomo and his feckless friends. The moral turpitude and fecund fictions fomented by Trump's free flowing falsehoods is the first failing from which we must forfend family, folk and fatherland.

 

[westwall]

Hillary is under CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI but Liberals and their media are all squealing about what Trump's FORMER butler posted on Facebook. For God's sake's wake up. You are backing a felon and attacking a true American.

The FBI has repeatedly stated that Hillary is not under criminal investigation

Ummm, no they haven't. What the director of the FBI did say is he is not familiar with the term that hillary's sycophants were using.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Butler and historian?

So when you see Trump sweeping things from his past under the rug you know who gave him the idea! This whole trump thing is so f'ing bizarre. He's crazier than Ross Perot ever thought of being.

 

[sakinago]

Is this guy typical of the white males that purportedly comprise the bulk of Trump's base of support? If so, I'm embarassed to be a white male.

Anthony Senecal, who worked as Donald Trump's butler for 17 years before being named the in-house historian at the tycoon's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, has repeatedly published posts on his Facebook page that express profound hatred for President Barack Obama and declare he should be killed.

On Wednesday, Senecal put up a post that read:

To all my friends on FB, just a short note to you on our pus headed "president" !!!! This character who I refer to as zero (0) should have been taken out by our military and shot as an enemy agent in his first term !!!!!​

On June 6, 2015, one of his Facebook friends wrote a comment on Senecal's page saying, "We need to send the seals to SOROS and ROTHCHILD [sic] and REMOVE them and their cronies--then HANG BO and most of Washington--and we'll have a CHANCE to get things straightened out." This person added, "everyone knows they're CRIMINAL - HANG ALL OF THEM." Senecal replied, "I love the idea."​

The above is taken from here.

Come on! I don't care how much one differs with any given politician, much less a sitting President, advocating for them or anyone to have been shot or hung is going too far, way too far. Seeing that, it's no wonder Trump didn't unequivocally denounce David Duke's endorsement.

What is wrong with white men in the U.S? For literally over 200 years and even now, we've had birthright advantages unavailable to anyone else in the country; white men have for the vast majority of the U.S.' history been more equal than all other persons who were presumably . It seems to me that all that's wrong is over the years a ton of us have failed to take advantage of those advantages and now that the playing field has more or less been leveled, some, a lot but nonetheless not all, don't like it.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
​

Trump "disavowed" the remark from his butler, and that's better than some of the things he might have done in response. Now here's the thing..."disavow" is somewhat similar in tone/connotation to "denounce," but it isn't denotatively the same as "denounce."

• Disavow can mean either to deny responsibility for, or to fail to acknowledge. Well, Trump clearly acknowledged -- recognized -- that the man said what he said and Trump obviously thinks it's important enough that he respond to the remark. We know this is so because Trump has responded to the remark. That leaves the other meaning of disavow, which is to deny responsibility for.
  
  Well, okay, I suspect Trump didn't instruct the man to post that comment. So, sure, I believe Trump's disavowal of the remark.
• Denounce is a stronger term and it's meaning is materially different: "to pronounce especially publicly to be blameworthy or evil." That is to say, denouncing carries with it not only abjuration, but adds to it condemnation.

And therein we find the problem. Trump went to precisely the same sort of fancy Northeast boarding schools I did. That they are fancy schools isn't the point; what one learns there is the point. I know perfectly well that he was taught there because exactly the same sorts of things are still taught in those schools, and among them are the connotative and denotative distinctions between words like "disavow" and "denounce." For folks coming through that kind of curriculum, those distinctions aren't ever lost or overlooked.

Thus the substance of Trump's remarks pertaining to his butler's comments as well as David Duke's and those of other white supremacist groups is this. "I didn't make them say those things and I didn't ask them to say them." It is not "I condemn the sentiments expressed in their statements." The latter is what folks are looking to hear, and they simply aren't hearing it.

Whether or not one is speaking in a political arena isn't even relevant because (1) the political arena is one occupied only by adults, and (2) what is relevant is that Trump has the background to know how to communicate precisely what he means and doesn't mean by carefully choosing his words. The fact of the matter is that with folks whom one knows they know the difference between simple words, one has to give them the benefit of the doubt, the respect, for (1) knowing precisely what they mean and (2) for knowing how to communicate what they mean. That's the difference between how one interprets the words of children versus how one interprets those of adults.

Orwell was referencing the pigs in power who write the rules on the farm, but I guess the quote can be applied this way too. Now I am the furthest thing from a trump supporter, but as for the Facebook post, I don't see where racism plays a role in it. Bc he didn't like Obama? There are many reasons to not like Obama that have nothing to do with race. And I don't see what sort of advantage white folk have today over any other race, 60 50 years ago sure, but now a days it has kind of has gone the other way. Actually so far the other way that affirmative action has created disadvantages for some minorities (Asians) when it comes to getting into competitive schools.

I guess you could say there's s disadvantage within inner city schools delivering sub par education. But they aren't dolling out sub par education based on color, a bad school is a bad school for all who attend. Nor can the education disparities be blamed on the schools alone, there is a cultural problem there as well in these inner city schools. What I'm asking is this white privelage based in reality in this day and age, and is it appropriate to say, based on color you are born into disadvantage or privilege? This is the same kind of thinking that justified slavery, where blacks were mentally at a disadvantage and slavery helped them out of their own squaller, and they could not do that on their own.

I digress, and while it isn't appropriate to voice a desire to kill someone, I don't think that sentiment is anything new. Let's not act like no one wanted bush or Clinton to die. Because of social media, these thoughts spoken between peers of similar beliefs are now out in the open for all to see. We have seen the emergence of trolls, people who will say anything, whether they believe it or not, to get under someone's skin behind the safety of their computer. Is this butler an idiot, yes, should his political opinions cause him loose his job when he speaks in hyperbole?

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't see where racism plays a role in it.

I think racism may have a role, but there's no clear evidence re: the butler that it did or did not. That's why I didn't copy/paste those aspects of the article. I don't have any desire to drive this thread down the path of whether the remarks are racist. The theme of this thread is about the character of the people who support Trump, the character of the people whom Trump employs or surrounds himself, and Trump's character.

I'm all but certain that Trump is not an overt racist, but it's far from clear to me whether he does or does not harbor some degree of indifference regarding racist ideals. The matter of Trump and racism is, for me, one of at most tacit acquiescence and acceptance, and in that regard, Trump has been less than crystal clear.

The problem for me isn't, however, one of the extent to which he may tolerate racist views and sentiments, but instead that he's not been unequivocally clear about just where he stands. From everything I've read or heard from Trump, all he's done is assert that he's not responsible for the words and deeds of others.

Well, I never thought him responsible for them or their actions, and I doubt anyone does or did. So his telling us that he's not responsible for their acts/words isn't enlightening, but his failure to condemn those folks hateful words and deeds points in a direction a thoughtful person cannot overlook, at least they cannot if they see racism as repugnant.

I don't see what sort of advantage white folk have today over any other race

Okay. You may find the content in these scholarly articles informative in helping you strengthen or alter your thoughts on that matter.

• White Privilege: A History of the Concept

• Cultural Explanations for Racial and Ethnic Stratification in Academic Achievement: A Call for a New and Improved Theory

• The Highest Stage of White Supremacy

• Toward a White Discourse on White Racism

• Confronting One's Own Racism

• White Bread Weaving Cultural Past into the Present

• White Racial Identity and Anti-Racist Education: A Catalyst for Change

• White Fragility

We have seen the emergence of trolls, people who will say anything, whether they believe it or not, to get under someone's skin

Hmmm...that sounds like Trump himself is a "troll," although I think he's a boor/cad.

Sidebar:

I use the words "boor" or "cad" rather than "troll" because I know precisely what those words mean, both intellectually and experientially, but I have never actually seen or heard a troll, which is a fictitious character, and don't really understand how a troll differs from and is similar to a boor/cad. Call me crazy, but I just don't care to use terms I don't fully understand.​

End of sidebar.

Is this butler an idiot, yes, should his political opinions cause him loose his job when he speaks in hyperbole?

I'm in no position to say whether he should or shouldn't lose his job. That decision rests with his employer and derives from their standards of comportment. I just know the man is a cad.

 

[sakinago]

I don't see where racism plays a role in it.

I think racism may have a role, but there's no clear evidence re: the butler that it did or did not. That's why I didn't copy/paste those aspects of the article. I don't have any desire to drive this thread down the path of whether the remarks are racist. The theme of this thread is about the character of the people who support Trump, the character of the people whom Trump employs or surrounds himself, and Trump's character.

I'm all but certain that Trump is not an overt racist, but it's far from clear to me whether he does or does not harbor some degree of indifference regarding racist ideals. The matter of Trump and racism is, for me, one of at most tacit acquiescence and acceptance, and in that regard, Trump has been less than crystal clear.

The problem for me isn't, however, one of the extent to which he may tolerate racist views and sentiments, but instead that he's not been unequivocally clear about just where he stands. From everything I've read or heard from Trump, all he's done is assert that he's not responsible for the words and deeds of others.

Well, I never thought him responsible for them or their actions, and I doubt anyone does or did. So his telling us that he's not responsible for their acts/words isn't enlightening, but his failure to condemn those folks hateful words and deeds points in a direction a thoughtful person cannot overlook, at least they cannot if they see racism as repugnant.

I don't see what sort of advantage white folk have today over any other race

Okay. You may find the content in these scholarly articles informative in helping you strengthen or alter your thoughts on that matter.

• White Privilege: A History of the Concept

• Cultural Explanations for Racial and Ethnic Stratification in Academic Achievement: A Call for a New and Improved Theory

• The Highest Stage of White Supremacy

• Toward a White Discourse on White Racism

• Confronting One's Own Racism

• White Bread Weaving Cultural Past into the Present

• White Racial Identity and Anti-Racist Education: A Catalyst for Change

• White Fragility

We have seen the emergence of trolls, people who will say anything, whether they believe it or not, to get under someone's skin

Hmmm...that sounds like Trump himself is a "troll," although I think he's a boor/cad.

Sidebar:

I use the words "boor" or "cad" rather than "troll" because I know precisely what those words mean, both intellectually and experientially, but I have never actually seen or heard a troll, which is a fictitious character, and don't really understand how a troll differs from and is similar to a boor/cad. Call me crazy, but I just don't care to use terms I don't fully understand.​

End of sidebar.

Is this butler an idiot, yes, should his political opinions cause him loose his job when he speaks in hyperbole?

I'm in no position to say whether he should or shouldn't lose his job. That decision rests with his employer and derives from their standards of comportment. I just know the man is a cad.

Ugh your sending me 100 page thesis papers to read? Did you actually read all of these, or just the abstracts and conclusions?

 

[sakinago]

I don't see where racism plays a role in it.

I think racism may have a role, but there's no clear evidence re: the butler that it did or did not. That's why I didn't copy/paste those aspects of the article. I don't have any desire to drive this thread down the path of whether the remarks are racist. The theme of this thread is about the character of the people who support Trump, the character of the people whom Trump employs or surrounds himself, and Trump's character.

I'm all but certain that Trump is not an overt racist, but it's far from clear to me whether he does or does not harbor some degree of indifference regarding racist ideals. The matter of Trump and racism is, for me, one of at most tacit acquiescence and acceptance, and in that regard, Trump has been less than crystal clear.

The problem for me isn't, however, one of the extent to which he may tolerate racist views and sentiments, but instead that he's not been unequivocally clear about just where he stands. From everything I've read or heard from Trump, all he's done is assert that he's not responsible for the words and deeds of others.

Well, I never thought him responsible for them or their actions, and I doubt anyone does or did. So his telling us that he's not responsible for their acts/words isn't enlightening, but his failure to condemn those folks hateful words and deeds points in a direction a thoughtful person cannot overlook, at least they cannot if they see racism as repugnant.

I don't see what sort of advantage white folk have today over any other race

Okay. You may find the content in these scholarly articles informative in helping you strengthen or alter your thoughts on that matter.

• White Privilege: A History of the Concept

• Cultural Explanations for Racial and Ethnic Stratification in Academic Achievement: A Call for a New and Improved Theory

• The Highest Stage of White Supremacy

• Toward a White Discourse on White Racism

• Confronting One's Own Racism

• White Bread Weaving Cultural Past into the Present

• White Racial Identity and Anti-Racist Education: A Catalyst for Change

• White Fragility

We have seen the emergence of trolls, people who will say anything, whether they believe it or not, to get under someone's skin

Hmmm...that sounds like Trump himself is a "troll," although I think he's a boor/cad.

Sidebar:

I use the words "boor" or "cad" rather than "troll" because I know precisely what those words mean, both intellectually and experientially, but I have never actually seen or heard a troll, which is a fictitious character, and don't really understand how a troll differs from and is similar to a boor/cad. Call me crazy, but I just don't care to use terms I don't fully understand.​

End of sidebar.

Is this butler an idiot, yes, should his political opinions cause him loose his job when he speaks in hyperbole?

I'm in no position to say whether he should or shouldn't lose his job. That decision rests with his employer and derives from their standards of comportment. I just know the man is a cad.

And yes trump is pretty much a troll himself, especially if you disagree with him. When Ben Carson was in second place early on, trump essentially said Carson is weird in a pedophile way, the undertone in that was pretty clearly I think Carson is a pedophile.

And yes, trump does surround himself with bad people, and that does speak to his character. What speaks to his character more is when really bad people, like David duke, show their support...trump does not come out and say what every decent human being (let alone presidential candidate) should say, which is "David Duke, I don't want your support, you don't represent me in any way". Instead trump finesses his way around by saying "David duke, whose that?" Even though in a previous interview he says "I can't control David Duke." All that is, is a wink and a nod to white supremacists everywhere to go ahed and vote for me .

As for whether or not trump is actually racist himself, while it wouldn't surprise me if a racist audio rant came out of him, I couldn't tell you either way. What does matter is he is only saying whatever gets him more votes, from whoever, it doesn't matter to him one bit. And he saw he could get the most votes if he spoke out against immigration, whether it's the people who have non-racist legitiment concerns about illegal immigration, or it's the white supremacists who think whites are systematically being slaughtered by the (insert minority here). It doesn't matter to trump one bit, whatever it takes to win. One day romneys immigration plan was too harsh and idiotic, and now it's Romney was too soft on it and a loser.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't see where racism plays a role in it.

I think racism may have a role, but there's no clear evidence re: the butler that it did or did not. That's why I didn't copy/paste those aspects of the article. I don't have any desire to drive this thread down the path of whether the remarks are racist. The theme of this thread is about the character of the people who support Trump, the character of the people whom Trump employs or surrounds himself, and Trump's character.

I'm all but certain that Trump is not an overt racist, but it's far from clear to me whether he does or does not harbor some degree of indifference regarding racist ideals. The matter of Trump and racism is, for me, one of at most tacit acquiescence and acceptance, and in that regard, Trump has been less than crystal clear.

The problem for me isn't, however, one of the extent to which he may tolerate racist views and sentiments, but instead that he's not been unequivocally clear about just where he stands. From everything I've read or heard from Trump, all he's done is assert that he's not responsible for the words and deeds of others.

Well, I never thought him responsible for them or their actions, and I doubt anyone does or did. So his telling us that he's not responsible for their acts/words isn't enlightening, but his failure to condemn those folks hateful words and deeds points in a direction a thoughtful person cannot overlook, at least they cannot if they see racism as repugnant.

I don't see what sort of advantage white folk have today over any other race

Okay. You may find the content in these scholarly articles informative in helping you strengthen or alter your thoughts on that matter.

• White Privilege: A History of the Concept

• Cultural Explanations for Racial and Ethnic Stratification in Academic Achievement: A Call for a New and Improved Theory

• The Highest Stage of White Supremacy

• Toward a White Discourse on White Racism

• Confronting One's Own Racism

• White Bread Weaving Cultural Past into the Present

• White Racial Identity and Anti-Racist Education: A Catalyst for Change

• White Fragility

We have seen the emergence of trolls, people who will say anything, whether they believe it or not, to get under someone's skin

Hmmm...that sounds like Trump himself is a "troll," although I think he's a boor/cad.

Sidebar:

I use the words "boor" or "cad" rather than "troll" because I know precisely what those words mean, both intellectually and experientially, but I have never actually seen or heard a troll, which is a fictitious character, and don't really understand how a troll differs from and is similar to a boor/cad. Call me crazy, but I just don't care to use terms I don't fully understand.​

End of sidebar.

Is this butler an idiot, yes, should his political opinions cause him loose his job when he speaks in hyperbole?

I'm in no position to say whether he should or shouldn't lose his job. That decision rests with his employer and derives from their standards of comportment. I just know the man is a cad.

Ugh your sending me 100 page thesis papers to read? Did you actually read all of these, or just the abstracts and conclusions?

It depends.

• The ones on topics I have a strong understanding of to begin with, I just scan to make sure they say what I already know (from my own prior scholarly readings, usually books, but sometimes papers) to be so. I scan mainly to make sure the author's context corresponds to that of the subject of the thread/post. I present those papers because they are are cogent, objective and credible.
• The ones on topics with which I'm less familiar I do/did actually read.

I always read the abstracts and conclusions before I provide a scholarly paper link. Some of them are papers I've read before I began participating on USMB merely because the topic interests me. Some of them are papers cited in books I've read. Many are papers I look for because I prefer not to cite the books I've read on the topic, but having read a given book, I know that I can easily find a paper on the same topic, as well as occasionally recognizing the paper as one that I checked while reading a given book. I don't generally like to cite books because most of the time folks would have to buy the book to find the relevant passage(s), and I don't want to in this venue cite documents folks have to pay to read.

Once in a while, I'll cite a book, if it's an especially strong source of content. I do that when I find that enough of it is available for viewing on the WWW to make it applicable (literally and contextually) to the post.

Of the references I provided, I realise the first one listed is the most germane to your remark; however, it's the only one that's long. Unfortunately, it's among the shortest ones I came by that is comprehensive in scope and scholarly in nature.

• White Lies: A Critical Race Study of Power and Privilege (~200 pages; perfectly comprehensive and scholarly, but twice as long as the one I cited)
  
• White Privilege and Affirmative Action (27 pages; sufficiently scholarly, but focused expressly on white privilege in the context of AA and not in a larger societal context)
• White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women's Studies (8 pages, a well presented personal account, but not reaching the level of being scholarly)
• The Origins of “Privilege” - The New Yorker (an interview)
  
• Reflections on My White Privilege and Understanding It: Thoughts from a Teacher Educator (11 pages, another reflective rather than scholarly paper)
  
• To the Bone: Race and White Privilege (~30 "real" pages even though it shows as 44; essentially an excellently developed editorial that is almost scholarly)
• White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (7 pages; another editorial)

As you and other critical and objective thinkers can tell from the comparative lack of short and scholarly/objective works on the topic, the matter of white privilege, if one intends to consider it with rigorous integrity and completeness, isn't one that's easily addressed in just a few pages. Its dimensions span sociology, psychology, history, cultural anthropology, economics and politics at a minimum. It's a complex issue, and one that, while I'm not of a mind to tell folks what to think about it, requires reading more than a few short pages about it. Most importantly, from what I can tell, everything that's "short and sweet" on the matter is the result of the writer having already arrived at a conclusion and justifying that conclusion. It's usually only the longer "stuff" that presents the background, the facts, the intent, the perceptions, the actual outcomes, etc. and then uses them as the basis for a conclusion.

 

[sakinago]

I don't see where racism plays a role in it.

I think racism may have a role, but there's no clear evidence re: the butler that it did or did not. That's why I didn't copy/paste those aspects of the article. I don't have any desire to drive this thread down the path of whether the remarks are racist. The theme of this thread is about the character of the people who support Trump, the character of the people whom Trump employs or surrounds himself, and Trump's character.

I'm all but certain that Trump is not an overt racist, but it's far from clear to me whether he does or does not harbor some degree of indifference regarding racist ideals. The matter of Trump and racism is, for me, one of at most tacit acquiescence and acceptance, and in that regard, Trump has been less than crystal clear.

The problem for me isn't, however, one of the extent to which he may tolerate racist views and sentiments, but instead that he's not been unequivocally clear about just where he stands. From everything I've read or heard from Trump, all he's done is assert that he's not responsible for the words and deeds of others.

Well, I never thought him responsible for them or their actions, and I doubt anyone does or did. So his telling us that he's not responsible for their acts/words isn't enlightening, but his failure to condemn those folks hateful words and deeds points in a direction a thoughtful person cannot overlook, at least they cannot if they see racism as repugnant.

I don't see what sort of advantage white folk have today over any other race

Okay. You may find the content in these scholarly articles informative in helping you strengthen or alter your thoughts on that matter.

• White Privilege: A History of the Concept

• Cultural Explanations for Racial and Ethnic Stratification in Academic Achievement: A Call for a New and Improved Theory

• The Highest Stage of White Supremacy

• Toward a White Discourse on White Racism

• Confronting One's Own Racism

• White Bread Weaving Cultural Past into the Present

• White Racial Identity and Anti-Racist Education: A Catalyst for Change

• White Fragility

We have seen the emergence of trolls, people who will say anything, whether they believe it or not, to get under someone's skin

Hmmm...that sounds like Trump himself is a "troll," although I think he's a boor/cad.

Sidebar:

I use the words "boor" or "cad" rather than "troll" because I know precisely what those words mean, both intellectually and experientially, but I have never actually seen or heard a troll, which is a fictitious character, and don't really understand how a troll differs from and is similar to a boor/cad. Call me crazy, but I just don't care to use terms I don't fully understand.​

End of sidebar.

Is this butler an idiot, yes, should his political opinions cause him loose his job when he speaks in hyperbole?

I'm in no position to say whether he should or shouldn't lose his job. That decision rests with his employer and derives from their standards of comportment. I just know the man is a cad.

Ugh your sending me 100 page thesis papers to read? Did you actually read all of these, or just the abstracts and conclusions?

It depends.

• The ones on topics I have a strong understanding of to begin with, I just scan to make sure they say what I already know (from my own prior scholarly readings, usually books, but sometimes papers) to be so. I scan mainly to make sure the author's context corresponds to that of the subject of the thread/post. I present those papers because they are are cogent, objective and credible.
• The ones on topics with which I'm less familiar I do/did actually read.

I always read the abstracts and conclusions before I provide a scholarly paper link. Some of them are papers I've read before I began participating on USMB merely because the topic interests me. Some of them are papers cited in books I've read. Many are papers I look for because I prefer not to cite the books I've read on the topic, but having read a given book, I know that I can easily find a paper on the same topic, as well as occasionally recognizing the paper as one that I checked while reading a given book. I don't generally like to cite books because most of the time folks would have to buy the book to find the relevant passage(s), and I don't want to in this venue cite documents folks have to pay to read.

Once in a while, I'll cite a book, if it's an especially strong source of content. I do that when I find that enough of it is available for viewing on the WWW to make it applicable (literally and contextually) to the post.

Of the references I provided, I realise the first one listed is the most germane to your remark; however, it's the only one that's long. Unfortunately, it's among the shortest ones I came by that is comprehensive in scope and scholarly in nature.

• White Lies: A Critical Race Study of Power and Privilege (~200 pages; perfectly comprehensive and scholarly, but twice as long as the one I cited)
  
• White Privilege and Affirmative Action (27 pages; sufficiently scholarly, but focused expressly on white privilege in the context of AA and not in a larger societal context)
• White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women's Studies (8 pages, a well presented personal account, but not reaching the level of being scholarly)
• The Origins of “Privilege” - The New Yorker (an interview)
  
• Reflections on My White Privilege and Understanding It: Thoughts from a Teacher Educator (11 pages, another reflective rather than scholarly paper)
  
• To the Bone: Race and White Privilege (~30 "real" pages even though it shows as 44; essentially an excellently developed editorial that is almost scholarly)
• White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (7 pages; another editorial)

As you and other critical and objective thinkers can tell from the comparative lack of short and scholarly/objective works on the topic, the matter of white privilege, if one intends to consider it with rigorous integrity and completeness, isn't one that's easily addressed in just a few pages. Its dimensions span sociology, psychology, history, cultural anthropology, economics and politics at a minimum. It's a complex issue, and one that, while I'm not of a mind to tell folks what to think about it, requires reading more than a few short pages about it. Most importantly, from what I can tell, everything that's "short and sweet" on the matter is the result of the writer having already arrived at a conclusion and justifying that conclusion. It's usually only the longer "stuff" that presents the background, the facts, the intent, the perceptions, the actual outcomes, etc. and then uses them as the basis for a conclusion.

As I am going through the first two original papers you put forth. Mainly the abstracts and conclusions and scanning for words in the body to try to answer my questions about the authors conclusions. I am finding conclusions based on non-sequiturs, (need to grab a notepad to take notes on where). I'm finding this more in the first one, (and granted I'm just scanning to see if they're ruling out variables that make non-sequiturs), but I'm getting the drift of where they are going. But my question to you before I continue (and I realize that almost every minutia of this topic has a level subjectivity), is how much influence does the unconscious white privilege have on the choices of black Americans? And is whatever number you or whatever scholarly paper you can find regarding, reflective of the disparities between whites and blacks.

And if unconscious white privilege is given white to white, then shouldnt disparities of the lack of that privilege reflect the same or at least somewhat close in every other minority outside of black? Or even when comparing African immigrants to native African Americans? Shouldn't there be the same disparities between Cambodians/Laotians, as Chinese/southeast Asian?

And a third question what nation has taken in larger ammounts of different ethnicities and cultures, and has had as much success blending them as America? I I'm asking this question to add more context in this conversation

 

[Godboy]

Is this guy typical of the white males that purportedly comprise the bulk of Trump's base of support? If so, I'm embarassed to be a white male.

Anthony Senecal, who worked as Donald Trump's butler for 17 years before being named the in-house historian at the tycoon's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, has repeatedly published posts on his Facebook page that express profound hatred for President Barack Obama and declare he should be killed.

On Wednesday, Senecal put up a post that read:

To all my friends on FB, just a short note to you on our pus headed "president" !!!! This character who I refer to as zero (0) should have been taken out by our military and shot as an enemy agent in his first term !!!!!​

On June 6, 2015, one of his Facebook friends wrote a comment on Senecal's page saying, "We need to send the seals to SOROS and ROTHCHILD [sic] and REMOVE them and their cronies--then HANG BO and most of Washington--and we'll have a CHANCE to get things straightened out." This person added, "everyone knows they're CRIMINAL - HANG ALL OF THEM." Senecal replied, "I love the idea."​

The above is taken from here.

Come on! I don't care how much one differs with any given politician, much less a sitting President, advocating for them or anyone to have been shot or hung is going too far, way too far. Seeing that, it's no wonder Trump didn't unequivocally denounce David Duke's endorsement.

What is wrong with white men in the U.S? For literally over 200 years and even now, we've had birthright advantages unavailable to anyone else in the country; white men have for the vast majority of the U.S.' history been more equal than all other persons who were presumably . It seems to me that all that's wrong is over the years a ton of us have failed to take advantage of those advantages and now that the playing field has more or less been leveled, some, a lot but nonetheless not all, don't like it.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
​

Trump "disavowed" the remark from his butler, and that's better than some of the things he might have done in response. Now here's the thing..."disavow" is somewhat similar in tone/connotation to "denounce," but it isn't denotatively the same as "denounce."

• Disavow can mean either to deny responsibility for, or to fail to acknowledge. Well, Trump clearly acknowledged -- recognized -- that the man said what he said and Trump obviously thinks it's important enough that he respond to the remark. We know this is so because Trump has responded to the remark. That leaves the other meaning of disavow, which is to deny responsibility for.
  
  Well, okay, I suspect Trump didn't instruct the man to post that comment. So, sure, I believe Trump's disavowal of the remark.
• Denounce is a stronger term and it's meaning is materially different: "to pronounce especially publicly to be blameworthy or evil." That is to say, denouncing carries with it not only abjuration, but adds to it condemnation.

And therein we find the problem. Trump went to precisely the same sort of fancy Northeast boarding schools I did. That they are fancy schools isn't the point; what one learns there is the point. I know perfectly well that he was taught there because exactly the same sorts of things are still taught in those schools, and among them are the connotative and denotative distinctions between words like "disavow" and "denounce." For folks coming through that kind of curriculum, those distinctions aren't ever lost or overlooked.

Thus the substance of Trump's remarks pertaining to his butler's comments as well as David Duke's and those of other white supremacist groups is this. "I didn't make them say those things and I didn't ask them to say them." It is not "I condemn the sentiments expressed in their statements." The latter is what folks are looking to hear, and they simply aren't hearing it.

Whether or not one is speaking in a political arena isn't even relevant because (1) the political arena is one occupied only by adults, and (2) what is relevant is that Trump has the background to know how to communicate precisely what he means and doesn't mean by carefully choosing his words. The fact of the matter is that with folks whom one knows they know the difference between simple words, one has to give them the benefit of the doubt, the respect, for (1) knowing precisely what they mean and (2) for knowing how to communicate what they mean. That's the difference between how one interprets the words of children versus how one interprets those of adults.

Do you really think he was being literal? He was just making an obnoxious throw away comment on his FB page. If someone said that on this forum, no one would even blink, but since this is an election cycle and Trump knows this guy, it's being blown out of proportion. That comment is no different from the people who hate Bush that say, "he should be brought up on war crimes charges and executed".

This is a distraction from much more important issues, so we should treat it as such.