Who Is To Blame For The Rise of Trump? Everyone! | Hit Coffee

Avatar

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

126 Responses

  1. Avatar nevermoor says:

    Umm… GOP voters.

    They are who I thought they were. The surprising thing is how many in their own party are having trouble accepting that.

    Now, I didn’t expect Trump would actually win because I thought the party retained some control. But I’m not at all surprised that a huge percentage of GOP voters want a bloviating know-nothing asshole to be president, purely on the strength of his ability to entertainingly tell of democrats. They are who I thought they were.Report

  2. Avatar Stillwater says:

    He failed to include the national level GOP! Why’d he fail to include the national level GOP?Report

  3. (Not that anyone needs to read 135. It’s just that this is one of those cases where it pays to actually follow the link.)Report

  4. Avatar Jaybird says:

    Let me please introduce myself.

    I’m a man of wealth and taste.Report

  5. Avatar Damon says:

    To quote Steel Pulse, “Who responsible”.

    Every
    Single
    Voter
    who
    VotedReport

  6. Avatar Kazzy says:

    If we are seriously considering the question in the title, than the obvious and only correct answer is the people who voted for Trump. They and they alone are responsible for him now having the nomination.

    Now, if we want to look at the myriad influences and factors that went into those people choosing to vote for Trump, yea, we can probably identify 135+ influences and factors. But, ultimately, the people who voted for Trump (or who didn’t not vote for Trump or “the electorate” or however we want to parse those words) chose to vote for him of their own volition and it is their collective votes that made him a legitimate candidate for the Presidency.Report

    • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Kazzy says:

      I think there are different layers of culpability. I think primary culpability, and primary moral culpability especially, does indeed lie with his supporters. Secondarily, though, I think a lot of people ought to ask themselves how they might have contributed to it without intending to. Especially Republicans, but not exclusively so.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Will Truman says:

        Agreed. But I will say that your use of terms like “blame”, “culpability”, and “moral culpability” are interesting because they seem to imply that the rise of Trump is an objectively bad thing. And while I think Trump winning the Presidency would be AWFUL, I do think that the “rise of Trump” is separate from “Trump winning the Presidency” (with possibly very different outcomes arising from each) and many folks who would argue quite differently.Report

        • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Kazzy says:

          Which leads me to an interesting follow up: if the “Rise of Trump” stops short of the Presidency, is it possible that this was all a good thing? I mean, Dems may see it as a good thing if his presents as a weak candidate that ushers in a Democratic Presidency. Even more so if he negative impacts the GOP down ticket. But could this end up being good for the GOP in other ways? Might it offer a course correction? Might a particularly ugly general election spearheaded by Trump encourage all folks to swing back towards decency, mutual respect, and bipartisanship (leaving aside policy specifics)? Is there a chance we look back in 10 or 20 or 50 years and think, “Trump winning would have been terrible but Trump losing was a huge positive”?Report

          • Avatar Barry in reply to Kazzy says:

            “But could this end up being good for the GOP in other ways? Might it offer a course correction? Might a particularly ugly general election spearheaded by Trump encourage all folks to swing back towards decency, mutual respect, and bipartisanship (leaving aside policy specifics)?”

            The reaction of the GOP to losses – Base and Elites alike – has been to increase the lying, nihilism, disloyalty and sheer evil.Report

        • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Kazzy says:

          The two are not the same, but I do believe that the rise of Trump is unambiguously bad. Now we’re just at the point where we’re determining how bad it’s going to be, and how long-lasting the bad will be. But even if Trump loses, unless it’s a level of blowout that seems unlikely to me at this point, it will be a bad thing to some extent or another.

          Others do disagree. Around 30-40% of the GOP is pretty happy with him, and another 35-45% are sufficiently okay with him to prefer him over Hillary Clinton. Some number of people outside the party like him, and another group of people on the left view him with some degree of favorability because of what he says about the Republicans or they view Republicans in such a way that Trump is no worse than or perhaps is better than the average one (at least he’s honest, etc).

          For my own part, even if Trump goes down, we now have a strong potential for Trumpism as a permanent fixture in our politics. I consider this to be qualitatively different than the GOP that we’ve seen. And worst of all, if the GOP sticks with it, I believe that they will win eventually.

          I could be wrong, and I hope I am. Hopefully it does lead to a “course correction.” But I consider the threat itself to be a bad thing, independent of whether Trump wins or loses in November.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Will Truman says:

            Personally, I think that the only thing likely to kick the what’s-bubbling-underneath-Trumpism down the road more than a little bit is Trump.

            Kick the can down the road may be the wrong metaphor.
            Let the steam out?Report

            • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

              Kick the can down the road may be the wrong metaphor.

              That they know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard, and only then rethink their priorities?

              I’m beginning to wonder if Trump’s general run isn’t basically dead in the water before the starting gun fires. The revelations from the Trump University case are pretty astounding and not easily spun away. Same with his shenanigans and outright lying about his donation to the vets.

              Well, let me rephrase that: he would be dead in the water if he were running against a candidate who lacked comparable baggage and whose team demonstrated any talent in the art of politics…Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

                What I see happening with Trump University:
                “Why are judges unsealing my court stuff? Judges are actively covering up Hillary’s court stuff!!! The system is corrupt! It’s trying to help Hillary and it’s trying to hurt Trump!”

                What I see happening with the vet donations:
                “Here’s another story about how Trump didn’t donate a million dollars to vets until we ran our story!”
                “So you’re saying that Trump donated a million dollars to vets after you ran your story? Did Hillary donate a million dollars to vets after any stories you wrote?”

                Trump will embrace his sauce and then ask whether Hillary got any.

                “What’s Hillary’s net worth *REALLY*?”
                Expect to see that question. Expect to see journalists explain why they’re not asking it.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

                You pretty much at everything that happens to His Trumpness or that he says is good for him. Nothing is bad for him ever.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

                Would you like me to go back to saying “okay, now *THIS* will destroy his campaign!”?

                Sure. Now *THIS* will destroy his campaign.

                Surely this time.

                This time he’ll go down.

                Hillary will win in a landslide.

                It’ll be Biblical.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

                Umm okay…i guess …. But that doesn’t actually respond to what i said.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to greginak says:

                greg,

                I think you’re mistaken to view JB’s comments about Trump as advocacy or support. What he’s saying is purely descriptive. And hopefully – HOPEFULLY! – there’s a smart dude or chick on Hillary’s team saying the exact same things to HER.

                If you know what I mean…Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Stillwater says:

                Not really sure what you mean. Pols have spinners to spin. Doesn’t’ mean anyone not in the tank has to believe them. Trumpy U. is an obvious problem for him that isn’t’ going to get better. If you need me to say it Hilz e-mail thing is a drag and for that matter so is BENGAZIGATE.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to greginak says:

                greg,

                And that’s all Jaybird was getting on about. If she attacks Trump on the Trump U corruption, Trump attacks her on the Benghazi corruption. If she attack Trump on the vet donations, Trump attacks her on not donating anything at all. If she attack him on his net-worth, he attack her not only on hers but also attacks her on how much she made from Wall Street speaking fees.

                She’s backed herself into a tight spot. All thru voluntary actions that a prospective Presidential Candidate simply shouldn’t have chosen to engage in.

                In my opinion…

                Edit: mispoke up there. The Banghazi thing isn’t an action a prospective Presidential candidate shouldn’t have chosen to engage in (I was thinking of the private server bulls*** that’s devolved from the investigation). Which isn’t to say that there aren’t substantive political problems with her advocacy of bombing Libya. In my opinion, there are.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Stillwater says:

                So what you are saying is that is going to be one long nasty mud slinging election. Agreed. Both sides are going to attack the other plenty, some of the attacks will even be substantive and non crazy pants territory.

                Edited to respond to you edit. I have always thought the server thing was stoopid on her part and thought she was wrong on Libya. But we are still going to hear about Benghazi and it is for dupes to believe that.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to greginak says:

                So what you are saying is that is going to be one long nasty mud slinging election.

                No, I’m saying something different: that Trump is an odious, corrupt, bankrupt, erupt(ing) candidate and on the level of retail politics he’s all square with Hillary!Report

              • Avatar Mo in reply to Stillwater says:

                Actually based on tax returns released by Clinton, she gave more money to charity than Trump did. He can’t even get her for giving it to the family charity because an even larger percentage of Trump donations went to the Donald Trump Foundation. Based on rumors, the Clintons may have given more on an absolute basis than Trump did despite, supposedly, having a smaller net worth.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Mo says:

                She oughta play that card, then, yeah?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Mo says:

                This is something that, seriously, Hillary should be hitting Trump on and hitting him on it *HARD*. (And if she’s keeping her powder dry for after the convention, that’s probably a good decision. But she should definitely use that powder.)

                (She should also have her foundation release a check for $1.5 million for some Veteran thing.)Report

              • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Jaybird says:

                Jaybird:
                This is something that, seriously, Hillary should be hitting Trump on and hitting him on it *HARD*. (And if she’s keeping her powder dry for after the convention, that’s probably a good decision. But she should definitely use that powder.)

                (She should also have her foundation release a check for $1.5 million for some Veteran thing.)

                The unexamined premise in all this (everywhere) is how much of a scam a whole heck of a lot of veterans organizations are (WWP has finally gotten some much needed sunshine, but that spring cleaning needs to be extended more generally)Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kolohe says:

                I’m certain that a whole heck of a lot of vet organizations are crooked. Donate $20 and 18 of those dollars go to “overhead”.

                That strikes me as being beside the point. Donating the money allows the candidate to say “Look at how much I support the troops!” and thus stave off the ghosts of Vietnam that still haunt every damned election.

                It’s not about helping vets. It’s never been about helping vets. If they wanted to help vets, they’d do something about allowing X and MMJ for PTSD treatments. They’d do something about the suicide rate of returning vets. I’m assuming that nobody really cares about actually changing things.

                It’s about what is signaled.

                And Donald Trump is one hell of a signaler.Report

              • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Jaybird says:

                Clinton’s other problem with a big vet charity donation is that it would draw attention to the fact that the VA is still an organization with a lot of ruin in it – a problem for someone who is running implicitly (but explicitly not explicitly) for the incumbent’s third term.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to greginak says:

                Oh, and to more specifically answer your question about what I mean…

                If Hillary’s people aren’t teasing out the political ramifications of attacking Trump along axis X (of the type Jaybird was describing), then she simply doesn’t have a very good political team.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

                I certainly hope that if someone on Hillary’s team points out something troublesome that the response isn’t “if you love Trump so much, why don’t you marry him?”

                But it wouldn’t surprise me overly much if it was.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

                Hillary: “All right. Let’s get to work. We’re all positive, yes? Everyone on board? OK. I’m thinking we attack Trump on the VA donation thing. Something like: It took a reporter to shame him into actually making his contribution and getting the money to veterans.”

                Concerned Team Member 1: “Eh, Ms Clinton? I don’t mean to be negative, but I think that might open you up to an attack that it took a reporter for you to admit that you used a private server while you were SoS. Because you didn’t want to carry two devices. And that you personally paid for the security and upkeep of that server. Oh, and that you wiped it with a cloth. So I’m not sure the “it took a reporter” line of attack is going to pay dividends. Just sayin.”

                Concerned Team Member Two: “I agree. I think the focus shouldn’t be on reporters exposing Trump, but that he was exposed.”

                Hillary: “….???”

                Concerned Team Member 1: “I just think it could open you up to a counterattack s’all.”

                Hillary: “Get out. GET OUT!!!!”Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

                “He only did the right thing after we badgered him into it!” has hidden little positive messages in there including “he did the right thing” and “he can be badgered into doing the right thing”.

                How much oxygen is Trump sucking up by reporters breathlessly reporting that Trump gave money to Veterans?Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

                Ooh, even better.

                You’re fired!Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

                It begins…

                How much money has warmongering Hillary Clinton, who voted for the Iraq war, given to veterans groups?— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) June 1, 2016

                Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

                That didn’t take long…Report

              • Avatar Barry in reply to Stillwater says:

                “That they know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard, and only then rethink their priorities?”

                I’m sick and tired of people who take that vein. I notice that Jaybird didn’t suggest that maybe electing Clinton would get liberalism out of our systesm.Report

              • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to Barry says:

                The left got liberalism out of its system a long, long time ago. If, indeed, it was ever there in the first place.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Will Truman says:

            Interesting, Will. Thanks for sharing your perspective. You are more tuned into politics in general and I think you have your finger on the pulse of a more varied/diverse cross section of the electorate so I trust your analysis over my own.Report

          • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:

            Will,

            I hear ya, and agree with what you’ve written. And my worry is the same: that both parties (but especially the GOP) will be incapable of responding to the newly-defined post-Trump political landscape in ways that mitigate its worst aspects from gaining political power.Report

          • Avatar Brit in reply to Will Truman says:

            By your estimated figures, 65% to 85% of republicans are willing to support Trump. That suggests he is, indeed, no worse than the median republican. And there is an article up on fivethirtyeight i just read suggesting its more like 85%.

            #nevertrump needs to recognise Trump isnt the outsider to the Republican party – they are.

            But i agree with you that if the GOP sticks with trumpism they will win in the end. And it is because – and i see on on this site again and again – there is a tendenfy to see dems and repubs as symmetrical, in the way european parties are. And they arentReport

            • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Brit says:

              Being willing to vote for Trump over Hillary is not the same as embracing Trumpism. In terms of internal party politics, they’re uncommitted. They’re committed to Hillary losing.

              I’m an outsider insofar as I’m voting against Trump, but I’m not an outsider for not being enthusiastic about him.

              I lay out the argument more completely in the first half of this post: http://hitcoffee.com/file/12299Report

              • Avatar Brit in reply to Will Truman says:

                Whats so awful about Hilary? Shes a machine politician who seeks the centre. She would fit in either the labour or conservative parties in the UK. Seeing Trump as a better choice than her is… either crazy or blind partisanship.Report

              • Avatar Brit in reply to Brit says:

                The more i think about it, i think she’s basically the same in terms of political positions as David Cameron.Report

              • Avatar Barry in reply to Will Truman says:

                “Being willing to vote for Trump over Hillary is not the same as embracing Trumpism. In terms of internal party politics, they’re uncommitted. They’re committed to Hillary losing.”

                They are committed to Clinton[1] losing, to the point where they are willing to trash the USA, and much of the world.

                Now, this is not news – the GOP has been amazingly disloyal for the past decade or two, but it’s clear by now that they are true nihilists.

                [1] Trump’s last name is ‘Trump’; Clinton’s last name is ‘Clinton’.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Barry says:

                Trump’s last name is ‘Trump’; Clinton’s last name is ‘Clinton’.

                Indeed it is. I was referring to her by her first name, which is “Hillary.”

                If there was any confusion.Report

              • Well, one could refer to the presumptive Republican candidate as “Donald” or as “Trump.” Similarly, one could refer to the presumptive Democratic candidate as “Hillary” or as “Clinton.” You can use a first name, or a last name. The candidates and campaigns themselves vary on which of those forms of identification they use, based on whether they want to emphasize formality versus familiarity.

                They are counterparts and to the extent that they fill almost identical roles in the political landscape at the moment, they are equals. But referring to one of them by first name and the other by last name isn’t treating them equally.

                I propose we establish a preference (going forward) that if one candidate is referred to by a last name, so too should the other be, at least within that communication. If one is “Trump,” the other should be “Clinton;” similarly, if one is “Hillary,” the other should be “Donald.”

                Initials (DJT, HRC) seem somehow very disrespectful of both, although I confess that I’m a bit pressed to articulate a reason why. This next sentence compels me to experience a small amount of revulsion: at some point in the future, one or the other of them will get the honorific title and appellation “the President,” or the use of the title “President” preceding the last name. But we aren’t there yet.Report

              • I tried to be meticulous about declining to refer to her simply as “Hillary” right up until she definitively embraced it. Then Hillary it was.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:

                Is the issue that calling Hillary “Hillary”, Trump “Trump” and Bernie “Bernie” is sexist?Report

              • I think the issue is that Clinton has adopted “Hillary” in a way that Trump hasn’t adopted “Donald.” Trump does seem okay (I suppose, I actually haven’t paid much attention) with “The Donald,” but that adoption seems less official than Hillary’s self-branding as “Hillary.”Report

              • Even back in the eighties when he first started playing the media game, I always took the nickname “The Donald” to be an insult, a sneer at his ego.

                As I suggested above, I think that Clinton’s embrace of “Hillary” is a calculated move (as are most things with her). It’s intended to make her seem more familiar, informal, and friendly. Trump’s embrace of “Trump” is also intentional — he wants to identify with the branding he’s built for himself over the past three decades, and he wants to underline the formality and respect that reference to a last name conveys. It’s intended to make you take him more seriously.

                That both of them make these moves indicate where they both feel a degree of insecurity.

                With all that said, it’s up to us how we refer to them. And I think the meticulous evenhandedness @will-truman describes above is the right way to go.Report

              • Avatar KenB in reply to Burt Likko says:

                Hillary is “Hillary!” not because of any latent/overt sexism but because there’s another politician named “Clinton” that comes to mind. If she were “Hillary Rodham” then people would generally be talking about Rodham and Trump.Report

              • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to KenB says:

                Oh noes. Has she embraced the risible exclamation point branding, á là Rudy! Giuliani and Jeb! Bush?

                Please tell me she’s not about to transform from “Hillary” to “Hillary!”. Please.

                This campaign is soul-crushing enough as it is.Report

              • A quick perusal of the bumper stickers for sale on her site demonstrates only one with an exclamation point, and it comes after the word “y’all” and not “Hillary.”Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Will Truman says:

                You should mention the “Hillary is on fleek!” bumpersticker.Report

              • Avatar KenB in reply to Burt Likko says:

                Sorry, I ad-libbed that bit — didn’t mean to instill panic and dread.Report

            • Avatar Brit in reply to Brit says:

              To clarify: unless americans wake up to how extreme the republicsn party is, and instead see them as a legitimate alternative to the democrats, they will win from the usual pendulum swing.

              I understand (and share) the desire for a reasonable conservative party, but the republicans are not it, and are nowhere near it, and pretending they are is distorting the debate.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Brit says:

                unless americans wake up to how extreme the republicsn party is, and instead see them as a legitimate alternative to the democrats, they will win from the usual pendulum swing.

                “In Birmingham they love the gubna. We all did what we could do…”

                I’m not sure what it means to say American’s aren’t aware of what Trump represents. More that there’s strenuous disagreement about whether it’s good or bad. As well as whether the alternative is better or worse.

                Sorry Brit. It’s the best we can do.Report

              • @stillwater Is that from the aforelinked Hit Coffee item, or do our minds sometimes work with such synchronicity?Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:

                Hah. No I hadn’t read that post until just now, and you lay out the conflicting tensions much better than I did. But apparently our minds gelled around the recognition that there’s only so much any of us can do.

                I mean, I didn’t vote for the guy…Report

          • Avatar Kim in reply to Will Truman says:

            Clinton’s a far worse threat than Trump.
            Clinton’s made many, many more promises — and she’s rigged the system to her own benefit.

            Besides, it’s not like ANY of the powers that be like Trump.Report

            • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to Kim says:

              Now, I think this is error: Clinton is corrupt, I presume, but within established parameters. If she is exactly as corrupt as her husband was, well, the country got through eight years of that pretty well.

              But, wasn’t it you, @kim, who just the other day was explaining how the “powers that be” have shockingly effective access to forcibly demonstrate their power and explain how things are going to be to a sitting President, lest his children face dire consequences? Trump has children; it’s a good bet that like any other father, he loves them. He’d not be immune to that sort of pressure. So if you’re right, why should we assume Trump versus Clinton matters at all? The powers that be will get their way no matter what.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Burt Likko says:

                Clinton’s Global “Charity” is a system by which they have created piles of obligations for themselves — with people worldwide. I’m not saying it’s outlandish (though running Democratic fundraising in general through it makes it harder to dismantle…), but it is significant, and following the money will provide significant guidance as to what Clinton will do.

                If we take at face the idea that Clinton as president gives us a 1 in 5 chance of world war three (I could explain a bit more on this, but please bear in mind that both China and Russia are increasingly unstable, and that authoritarians tend to externalize issues by invoking the patriotism of warfare)… Well, I say this much — it is in the power of the Chief Executive to be the commander in chief, and that is something the legislature has historically been unwilling to control.

                Trump’s come up with some extremely awful ideas — but he reads like another Jimmy Carter — with everyone’s powerbase (Democrat and republican) ready to push back against him.

                Yeah, some sort of coalition will hijack Trump and convince him to do stuff…

                But Trump will far more likely lead to institutional gridlock than Clinton.

                Besides, if the powers that be don’t really care about Clinton bombing places (so long as she stays away from the Important Places)… How much are they going to care about Trump doing stupid shit like starting a trade war with china?

                The answer to that lies in which coalition adopts Trump. Clinton has both the neoliberals and neocons backing her. That’s what we call a realignment.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Kim says:

                Vote for the Crooked. It’s important.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Will Truman says:

                Yes. but important for whom?Report

  7. Avatar Brit says:

    Will Truman:
    Being willing to vote for Trump over Hillary is not the same as embracing Trumpism. In terms of internal party politics, they’re uncommitted. They’re committed to Hillary losing.

    I’m an outsider insofar as I’m voting against Trump, but I’m not an outsider for not being enthusiastic about him.

    I lay out the argument more completely in the first half of this post: http://hitcoffee.com/file/12299

    I’ve now read your article, thank you for linking it.

    I think we are actually in broad agreenent, although i suspect you disagree with me on giving up on the republican party. I certainly agree with what you say in that article.Report

    • Avatar Barry in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Thanks, Saul – that was good.Report

    • Remember abstinence-only education? Of course you do; it’s how you had your first child. And your second. They’re so cute now! Hooray!

      The Democrats are now running against having children?Report

    • Avatar Damon in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      That tone and attitude demonstrate one of the various reasons why I’d never vote Democratic. (Don’t get me started on the Republican side)

      “You’re goddamn right I’m condescending to you. You deserve this.
      Get with the fucking program.”

      Thanks. I need to be told what to do by a condescending tool.Report

      • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Damon says:

        heh, rhetorically that seems like a trainwreck to me… if the intended target are Bernie supporters, does that really hit the mark? I’m not fully calibrated on the Bernista scale, so maybe its right on point. But hey, all that honey vs. vinegar stuff is all just hillbilly folklore anyway.Report

  8. The white working class votes for Trump because that’s who they aspire to be: rich, surrounded by beautiful woman, totally irresponsible, and able to do whatever they want without answering to anybody. Who’s responsible for this situation? Everyone who made that the American ideal.Report

  9. Avatar Stillwater says:

    Phase 2 of the Assumption of Trumpism has begun:

    Alberto Gonzalez: I am not judging whether Curiel is actually biased against Trump. … The test is whether there is an “appearance of impropriety” under the facts as they reasonably appear to a litigant in Trump’s position.

    Mark Halperin: “[Trump calling Curiel a Mexican] is not racial. … Mexico isn’t a race.”

    Of course, it’s also false, since Curiel was born in America. (Which makes Halperin’s argument even more bizzarre.)

    Taking the two together, Trump’s argument that Curiel recuse himself is that Curiel appears to be a Mexican.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *