Hacker News Reader

Comment by ubernostrum | Hacker News Reader

So... a guy who literally will be in charge of the executive branch, advocating these policies and positions, is fine because we have an executive branch that, um, somehow won't do what he tells them to because it's not like he's really in charge of it?

The amount of gymnastics you're trying to do here is amazing. At least the actual Nazis are open about this stuff.

View on HN

I'm not doing any gymnastics. I suspect you believe me to be a trump supporter, but I'm more like a grief counselor helping people like you work through the stages by keeping you grounded in reality.

So, repeating my question: is it "guilt by association" to say that when someone openly and loudly makes the favored policies of racist xenophobes into a centerpiece of his campaign, he's going to end up getting the support and votes of racist xenophobes? Is it unfair to question why he chose to openly and loudly make those policies a centerpiece of his campaign? Is it unfair to ask whether he was courting the votes of the racist xenophobes?

If someone loudly campaigned on a promise of, say, amnesty for immigrants who have no criminal record or who were brought here as children, would you call it unfair to conclude that the person was either courting the vote of immigrants and their sympathizers, or was an immigrant or sympathizer? Would you call that "bush league" and "guilt by association"?

Or does this standard magically only apply when it's Donald Trump?

I'm not sure I understand you clearly. Are you saying that Donald Trump is guilty because of who supported him, and that's not invoking guilt by association?

I'm saying that given the direct, plain and obvious connection between the policies he advocated for, and the groups who supported him, it is reasonable to ask whether it was his intent to court the support of those groups.

I notice you also haven't answered my question: does your sudden intense desire to pick apart any argument I make apply to all arguments, or only -- by complete coincidence -- to arguments made with respect to Donald Trump?

I have no intense desire. I'm simply bored on the internet and long ago accepted that trump had the election in hand.

I also have no obligation to detail to you which arguments I challenge. Sorry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com