If LGBT+ people voted as a large block for Trump because
... and then you filled in your theory for what the "because" was that caused the Latino community to vote for him.
If your "because" were completely accurate, I'd agree with you. But it's not. And since it's not, and because you're implying that every single religious Latino as a bloc has that hateful attitude and using that as your jumping off point, it's racist.
Anything else I can help you with?
Oh! So you weren't talking about the whole religious Hispanic community. You were talking about the subset of it who saw through Trump's performative embrace of the gay community and attempts to campaign on the exact opposite of what you said, were deeply aware of his actual actions on LGBTQ+ issues despite the fact that they're not part of that community directly and none of their media ever talked about it, managed to ignore all the propaganda telling them that he valued family and economic issues which were much more directly important to them directly, and decided to vote for him knowing full well that he was going to go after a bunch of people they didn't really have contact with even though nothing they ever did come into contact with ever reminded them of that reality. And specifically of course excluding from that grouping anyone who voted for him for some other reason, like that their families were struggling with groceries and their media was assuring them that he would fix it.
Yeah, fuck those guys. I thought somehow that instead of singling them out very specifically for their very specific actions and motives, you were painting the whole religious Hispanic community. I apologize for not reading more deeply into what you actually meant.
It wouldn't be racist if you had said they were bigoted (Although I do think it would be wrong, I think the issue is more awareness and education than it is just innate bigotry. They obviously didn't fully know what Trump was about, by definition, or they wouldn't have voted for him.)
Since you said the whole grouping is hypocritical and lacks compassion, that's the racist part. IDK how you can't see that, but it seems like you're just determined not to see it for whatever reason.
Hey, try this instead:
"We have an armed response force ready to protect you against ICE if they come to try to snatch you. We have lawyers at the ready, and we're fine mobilizing the state's National Guard if it comes to that. If you're in another part of the country and worried about your safety, come to Vegas! You can do some gambling and see the sights without worrying if you're going to make it home to your family or not."
Guaranteed spike in tourism. Don't just ask for what you want. Earn it.
"The lack of compassion and hypocrisy among the blacks came back to bite their own community in the ass"
"The lack of compassion and hypocrisy in the LGBTQ+ community came back to bite their own community in the ass"
See the problem now?
It's not automatically racist just to discuss significant problems in a particular racial community in a direct fashion of course... but just dismissing Latino support for Trump as a problem of "it's because they are bigoted hypocrites QED" is a bunch of racist crap.
My guy this is racist as fuck
I don't think he is useful (in either sense of the word). The whole format of Reddit sort of lends itself to long-form discussion and people disagreeing with their masters about things, and I think they will want to get rid of that whatever he tries to do to make it "compliant."
"Why don't they just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get educated about it"
Could a newly elected Congress deauthorize all of Trump's tariffs and defund most of ICE in 2026?
Honestly, I do agree with you on that but I also feel like any "system" is just never going to be the answer. The big lesson of all those Nepalis electing their new government over Discord isn't that Discord is the way, it is that if huge numbers of people are engaged and willing to fight for what they need and then engage to set up something sensible, there's a pretty good chance they'll get it.
The American people -- almost all of them, not 100% but the great majority -- have just been checked out of the concept of being involved in making sure their country runs right for too many decades now for things to stay on the rails.
Observers also look with concern at the growing number of heavily armed militias active in many parts of the country. Many of them had participated in Trump's instigated storming of the Capitol in Washington on January 6, 2021, were subsequently sentenced to partly lengthy prison terms, and were pardoned by him after Trump's re-election. Although the White House does not directly control them, they could be used as a weapon to intimidate opponents. In the left spectrum, there is also a violence-ready minority. During protests against racism or increasingly harsh policies against immigrants, riots repeatedly occur, which, however, contrary to claims from the Republican camp, are not organized.
All Americans who allegedly celebrated Kirk's death could also become victims of violence, which has happened rather rarely in the otherwise so tasteless social media. Ultimately, this could mean anyone who has ever expressed criticism of Kirk or his views. Ultra-right influencer Laura Loomer has already posted the first names of suspects, and the website charliesmurderers.com calls for naming people who would support political violence in order to then publish their names. They would all be acutely endangered.
(Eric Frey, 13.9.2025)
Full translation according to Claude:
After the assassination of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk, Trump and his supporters are inciting hatred against their opponents. Many now fear a wave of violence and repression
Eric FreySeptember 13, 2025, 06:001738 Comments
Whatever one might think of Charlie Kirk and his reactionary, often racist and homophobic views, one thing had to be granted to him: The charismatic ultra-right influencer never called for violence against political opponents. And unlike other demagogues of the MAGA movement, he was always ready for open debate with dissenters and critics, indeed making this his trademark.
An improvised memorial site for Charlie Kirk is decorated with the iconic image of the failed assassination attempt on Donald Trump in Butler. A new myth is emerging here for America's right.
REUTERS/Cheney Orr
Kirk's appearance at Utah Valley University, where an assassin's bullets cost him his life on Wednesday, was dedicated precisely to this purpose. He wanted to debate with students, many of whom hold liberal-left views, and convince them with great eloquence of their misguided ways. All the more tragic would it be if the murder of the 31-year-old now triggered a wave of violence, as numerous observers of American politics fear.
The first 48 hours after the bloodshed were marked by the frantic search for the assassin, led by the federal police FBI, which is going through severe turmoil under Donald Trump's presidency and whose director Kash Patel is being massively criticized for prematurely and falsely announcing the perpetrator's arrest via the messaging platform X. That the true murderer could apparently be captured on Friday was more a lucky coincidence than the result of careful police work.
Simultaneously, a wave of anger and verbal aggression broke out on X and other social media from Trump's MAGA camp, which blamed the "left" for Kirk's death and openly called for war against the president's political opponents. Even in Congress, some ultra-right representatives, such as Republican Anna Paulina Luna from Florida, made the Democrats and their allegedly radical rhetoric directly responsible for the assassination. "They caused it," she said.
This could, it is feared, motivate lone wolves to further acts of violence against elected Democratic representatives or progressive activists as a form of retaliation. The number of politically motivated crimes has increased significantly in the USA this year, including such prominent cases as the murder of a Democratic state representative from Minnesota and her husband, and an arson attack on the house of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. The two failed assassination attempts on Trump during the 2024 campaign are also ever-present.
More than 7,000 tips and hints about Charlie Kirk's murderer came in, police offered a reward of $100,000.
REUTERS/Jim Urquhart
"We are experiencing an era of violent populism," Robert Pope, an expert on political threats at the University of Chicago, is quoted in the Washington Post. The extent of political violence is higher than in the past 20 years and reminiscent of the 1960s, when the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King Jr. were murdered. According to a survey by a group of political scientists called Bright Line Watch, only very few Democrats and Republicans support political violence in general. But around one-tenth of the population considers it appropriate when representatives of the respective opposition are responsible for "harmful or exploitative measures."
The term "civil war" was used hundreds of thousands of times on the messaging platform X in recent days, mostly by right-wing publicists and podcasters. Some spoke of a cultural war, but others openly called for violence against their enemies. And these are not empty threats in today's America.
Besides the growing polarization and increasing aggressiveness in political discourse, it is the widespread availability of firearms that promotes violent acts. Virtually anyone in the USA can acquire powerful weapons, such as the high-performance repeating rifle with which Kirk was shot from a great distance; it is intended for military snipers. That Kirk himself was a radical advocate for the right to bear arms and described the many victims of gun violence as a necessary price for this right is a particular irony of this tragic story.
In the America of 2025, another factor is added that has the potential to fuel political violence: the president's rhetoric. In his initial reactions, Trump used the opportunity to threaten his political opponents. He described the "radical left" as accomplices, by which he always means everyone who is critical of his presidency, whether elected politicians, professors, or journalists. Their rhetoric is "directly responsible for the terrorism we see in our country today, and this must end," he said in a speech. "My administration will find everyone who contributed to this atrocity or other political acts of violence, including the organizations that finance and support it, and also those who attack our judges, executive officials, and all persons who bring order to our country."
While people mourn the murdered MAGA activist Kirk, US President Donald Trump said in an interview with Fox News that he hopes the perpetrator gets the death penalty.
REUTERS/Caitlin O'Hara
With the latter, Trump likely means the members of the immigration police ICE, which under his aegis is being expanded with a billion-dollar budget into a kind of shadow army that hunts masked people they suspect of not having legal residence permits. When protests broke out against ICE raids in Los Angeles, Trump deployed the National Guard to the city.
While Trump called on his supporters on Thursday to renounce violence, he simultaneously announced that he would severely beat up the "crazy left-wing radicals" ("Beat the hell out of them"). The president left open what concrete measures he would take, but concern is growing that he will use the assassination as an occasion to accelerate the previously gradual repression against political opponents. After all, one is already in the "authoritarian consolidation phase of this presidency," wrote prominent commentator Ezra Klein a few days before the attack.
Some historical comparisons suggest themselves. Ultra-right publicist Matt Forney speaks of Kirk's murder as the "American Reichstag Fire" that will initiate the authoritarian transformation of the country. The Berlin Reichstag fire of February 1933 gave Adolf Hitler the pretext to completely eliminate democracy through the Enabling Act. In the Soviet Union, the murder of Stalin's follower Sergei Kirov in December 1934 was the prelude to the great terror with its show trials, which cost tens of thousands their lives in the following years. And in Turkey, the failed coup attempt of 2016 against Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's government began a wave of repression against political rivals that continues unabated to this day.
From the perspective of a wannabe dictator, the timing for a crackdown would be just right. The American economy is increasingly suffering from the consequences of Trump's erratic tariff policy; the job market is weakening while inflation is gradually rising. Trump promised his electorate a great upswing with low prices. While his approval ratings have been stable at a low level for months, they could soon collapse if the population begins to personally feel the economic problems.
Trump is also facing increasingly strong headwinds from federal courts; so far the Supreme Court has given him free rein in most cases, but this could become increasingly difficult for him in several important cases concerning tariffs and the independence of the Federal Reserve.
A message reading "Make America Great Again" – the MAGA slogan on a makeshift monument for Kirk.
REUTERS/Cheney Orr
Trump could now quite deliberately seek confrontation with democratically governed federal states by, for example, sending soldiers to major cities like Chicago, Baltimore, or Philadelphia to combat allegedly rampant crime. While he was authorized to do so in the federal capital Washington, it would be a clear interference with states' rights and military abuse elsewhere in the country. Especially in California and Illinois, massive resistance would be expected from the confident governors there, Gavin Newsom and J.B. Pritzker. In extreme cases, this could escalate into violent clashes between armed local and national units – a first step toward civil war.
Oh, wait, maybe I am wrong. I thought that was when it was set up, but now I found something else that says 1986. Basically there were a series of gradual adjustments during a time of pretty intense racism within the system, this was back in the time period when a jury looked at the Rodney King beating and said it looked fine to them.
There's also this:
One of the most extensive mass expulsion campaigns in US history, on the premise that Mexican migrants and US-born Mexican Americans were responsible for significant aspects of the nation’s economic miseries. By the late 1930s, 2 million people had been expelled to Mexico; 60% are estimated to have been US citizens.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service launched Operation Wetback, a paramilitary campaign to expel Mexican migrants. Over 1 million people were apprehended; many families were separated by deportation. Operation Wetback reduced unauthorized crossings; the government replaced those workers—because of employer demands—with legal guest workers through the Bracero Program.
A November 2019 report by the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General found that "senior managers" involved in the hiring of Immigration Judges had used a system of "code words" to rate "the attractiveness" of female candidates.[32]
What the fuck
What the FUCK
Seriously. Biden raised tax rates on these megacorporations that run our society now, and used about a trillion dollars of the money he raised to take big action on climate change and manufacturing jobs. Because he was actually working on important boring issues, the news hated him and focused on all these weird sound-bite things and pointed out that he's old.
I'm not trying to give him a free pass on enabling Gaza or fucking up by failing to prosecute Trump when there was time for it, but the idea that he basically didn't do anything is entirely a function of our gross-negligence media. If Trump had opened one factory, we'd have heard about it for months.
I think a lot of it comes down to news and education. Every bit of media they consume assured them that Trump was a no-nonsense tough guy who would tackle head on some of the issues that were of genuine concern to them. There are billions of dollars that go into manipulating the landscape in all kinds of ways to make sure that is all they were presented with. And so, that's the basis they decided on. What else could they do?
Sure, you and me exist in a media landscape where that's a laughable joke, but I don't think you can necessarily blame them for not having lucked their way into the same places that we exist on. The white people, who were waving around signs saying "Mass Deportations Now" and then got all upset when it turned around on them, I think you can blame, but I think a lot of people of a lot of different ethnicities and backgrounds just got fooled by all the propaganda that is so polished and professional at this point.
I think the crisis of Trump is likely to be worse than any crisis in the Western world for the last 50 years. I think the closest analogue is probably the collapse of the USSR. So yes, some of the rich people upped their wealth by orders of magnitude, and honestly you might be right that Zuck might manage to be one of that category, but also some of them lost everything or got thrown out windows, or had to survive in reduced capacity within their new walled fortresses in the horrifying new meta. I feel like more likely is that the MAGA world will remember Facebook censoring their posts about ivermectin, and not feel like Zuck needs to have a seat at the table, no matter how many ass-kissing sessions he shows up at the White House to do.
For example I feel like breaking up Meta and mandating Truth Social and TikTok as the only new sanctioned social media going forward might be one possible outcome. It's kind of hard to say and I won't swear that you're definitely wrong that he might come out way ahead in the end. I'm just saying that this type of crisis is a very different type of crisis.
Part of my point is that the damage Trump is going to do will cost them tons more money than if they had helped to prop up the fairly safe and civil society they previously were allowed to exist within, under which secure umbrella they've been able to rake in money like leaves in autumn on a wide country estate.
"But we're one of the good ones! We were adding conservative columnists! We said bad things about Biden all the time!"
My sister had a cat who was declawed (not by her), medicated, old, sort of inbred, and had lived inside all his life. A more harmless cat you could barely imagine. He regularly found it a challenge to drink his water without fucking it up, and spent a lot of time just staring at the wall.
He once found a moth that was already damaged when he got to it, and successfully killed it. He carried the moth around in his mouth, clearly basking in the intoxicating flood of pride of the hunter he was feeling, for almost an hour before eating the whole thing.
https://prri.org/spotlight/hispanic-americans-evolving-support-for-lgbtq-rights/
The issue is not that there is some crazy 10% outlier of Hispanics who are not LGBTQ-bigoted, and I'm blaming you for not including them. The issue is that Hispanics are not bigoted as a majority-position bloc in the same way that you're asserting that they are (to such an extent that it overrode every single other consideration and is obviously why they voted the way they did in the election, which you seemed to take as axiomatic and obviously why they voted for Trump.)
I am helping you, I think. You're not open to accepting new information or having the flaws in your thinking pointed out, you perceive it as something else and a reason to argue with me and claim you're just right and I'm being incorrect at you, but I'm doing it anyway.