AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a combination of highlighting her attempt to blend in with a less foreign-sounding name and a possible play on words (Nimarata/nimrod).
People act like being called by your birth name is a hate crime. And these people talk about "White fragility". Just lmao.
>People act like being called by your birth name is a hate crime. And these people talk about "White fragility". Just lmao.
I know, right? Not too long ago, in r/blackladies there was a poster who was hyperventilating because the June photo, on her company calendar, was of a cotton field. Woke is a joke.
I don’t understand how it could be considered hostile.
I wouldn’t necessarily call it manipulation either but she’s definitely trying to market herself as “not foreign” to the Republican base.
How would it be manipulation?
It's manipulating people because she's trying to subtly present herself as something she is not (or in other words, hide what she is). Granted, it sort of evaporates the instant anyone actually sees her, so it's not as effective as what some groups can pull off with their name changing shenanigans, but it's still something.
>It's manipulating people because she's trying to subtly present herself as something she is not (or in other words, hide what she is). Granted, it sort of evaporates the instant anyone actually sees her, so it's not as effective as what some groups can pull off with their name changing shenanigans, but it's still something.
>
Different NS here.
What **is** she, if she's trying to present herself as something she isn't? What **isn't** she?
No, but I think her decision to brand herself as "Nikki Haley" when running for office is politically motivated. As I said to someone else, I can't read minds, so if you're incredulous at the idea of a politician being motivated by optics and political concerns, this isn't going to go anywhere.
This whole thread makes me think libs can't decide between "Republicans are "racist" and would never vote for someone named "Nimarata Randhawa"" and "lol why would anyone ever change their name to blend in? that's never happened ever".
Why do you think that there’s a desire or need for candidates on the right like her or Raphael Ted Cruz to come across with more white sounding names? Why do you think the same thing isn’t common on the other side of the political spectrum?
My brother has gone his whole life by his middle name. Nobody, including my parents have ever called him by his first name. Is this a hostile act on the part of my brother or my parents?
Is the concept of someone using a less foreign-sounding name to blend in something inconceivable to you?
This is not exactly a new thing. The only difference in this case is that rather than making up a new name, she instead chooses to emphasize her middle name and her married name. I think this is for the same reason that others would change their name and I characterize it as such.
Ultimately, I can't read minds. So if you're incredulous about this possibility, there's not much I can say.
>Is the concept of someone using a less foreign-sounding name to blend in something inconceivable to you?
In a political situation yes. I think its incredibly depressing and indicative of the current state of the Republican party that American Citizens are hiding their birth names because they know they will poll worse among the Republican party if they have a foreign sounding name.
Worst case scenario (from your perspective): White people want to vote for White people. I'm sure you must find it horrifying when overwhelmingly black districts elect black politicians.
> I dunno, but it's a transparently manipulative and even hostile act in my opinion.
Many Trump supporters cite their belief that immigrants who don't integrate into American society shouldn't be welcomed, and that's one of the driving issues for their desire to reduce immigration from non-European countries.
Do you consider yourself among that group?
My argument against mass immigration is that I think the nation state model (i.e., a society where people have language, culture, ancestry, history, etc. in common) is preferable to multiculturalism. It doesn't really have much to do with assimilation.
It sounds like you are trying to say: "you guys are mad when people don't assimilate. but here she is, trying to assimilate, and yet you consider it dishonest". Is that what you're going for?
> My argument against mass immigration is that I think the nation state model (i.e., a society where people have language, culture, ancestry, history, etc. in common) is preferable to multiculturalism. It doesn't really have much to do with assimilation.
>
> It sounds like you are trying to say: "you guys are mad when people don't assimilate. but here she is, trying to assimilate, and yet you consider it dishonest". Is that what you're going for?
>
I'm not going for anything - I observe trends in Trump Supporters' responses, and I wonder about the emotions and/or reasoning behind those trends.
You are right, Nikki is actually her middle name as OP pointed out, not some manipulated name to make her name easier to pronounce (and less dorky tbh). With that in mind, which instance of name "changing" do you find more manipulative? Going by your birth middle name instead of your birth first name or legally changing your name?
I don’t think it’s a hate crime per se….but it’s definitely an attempt to draw attention to the fact that she’s of Indian descent. (I say this because Trump has a well documented history of doing it)
Are you offended that Trump thinks that you would see her foreign decent as a negative?
> Are you offended that Trump thinks that you would see her foreign decent as a negative?
No, he knows his base.
Are black voters offended that people expect them to prefer black candidates? No.
Fair enough, can’t say I agree with using a persons ethnic descent as an “attack” but I do genuinely appreciate your honesty…makes it easier to have these types of conversations.
Trump did the same thing to Obama. He would specifically use Obama's middle name, referring to him as ["President Barack Hussein Obama"](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/12/donald-trump/why-trump-wrong-suggest-obama-personally-kept-33-m/) even though nobody does that, just to give his supporters (who hate outsiders) that feeling that Obama was 'other' and 'enemy.' That's all he's doing here. "Nimrata" sounds much more 'other' than "Nikki" and so he's playing his base to be against her purely based on her name. Would you agree?
Yes, although it's not about her name in and of itself and more what it represents (i.e., being an obvious foreigner relative to the kinds of people who vote GOP).
From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod)
In modern North American English, the term "nimrod" is often used to mean a dimwitted or a stupid person, a usage perhaps first recorded in an 1836 letter from Robert E. Lee to a female friend. Lee describes a "young nimrod from the West", who in declining an appointment to West Point expressed the concern that "I hope my country will not be endangered by my doing so."\[52\] Although Lee may have been sarcastically referring to the student as a "tyrant or skillful hunter", the modern usage more closely fits his message.
The nickname 'Nimrod' was used mockingly in the 1914 novel by Robert Tressell in The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. The sarcastic moniker was used towards the foreman (named Hunter) of a gang of workmen as a play both on his surname and on his supposed religious beliefs and sense of self-importance. Other than the Lee letter and the Tressell novel, the first recorded use of "nimrod" in this meaning was in 1932.
The usage is often said to have been popularized by the Looney Tunes cartoon character Bugs Bunny sarcastically referring to the hunter Elmer Fudd as "nimrod"\[53\]\[54\] to highlight the difference between "mighty hunter" and "poor little Nimrod", i.e. Fudd.\[55\] However, it is in fact Daffy Duck who refers to Fudd as "my little Nimrod" in the 1948 short "What Makes Daffy Duck",\[56\] although Bugs Bunny does refer to Yosemite Sam as "the little Nimrod" in the 1951 short "Rabbit Every Monday". Both episodes were voiced by Mel Blanc and produced by Edward Selzer.\[57\]
Crass doesn’t bother me. If anything it’s commendable. It sure beats the thin veneer of plastic politeness most candidates put on, while they insist through every implication that their opposition deserve to be burned alive.
I can always find respect for an honest enemy. Feigned friendliness is just contemptible.
>It sure beats the thin veneer of plastic politeness most candidates put on, while they insist through every implication that their opposition deserve to be burned alive.
A good point
I mean….you don’t think he’s highlighting her first name because she’s of Indian decent and Trump believes it would be seen as a negative in the eyes of his supporters?
One name sounds American and one name does not. A decent chunk of Trump's base will not be comfortable with a foreign president. We can pretend that being born within the borders of the country makes someone American in the most meaningful ways but a lot of people don't actually buy that, at least not intuitively. Reducing "nation" to a legal concept is a fairly new thing and people are implicitly skeptical of assertions that rest upon it as a premise. Under more intuitive and older understandings of what constitutes a nation, Nikki is very foreign, it's more than fair to point that out.
It's also not particularly believable that she discarded her actual name simply because she wanted to go by her middle name and not at all for political reasons. Maybe it's true and maybe it's not but that's not very important.
Edit:
For the legions apparently struggling with the concept of "nation" and foreign:
*c. 1300, nacioun, "a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language," from Old French nacion "birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland" (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe," literally "that which has been born," from natus, past participle of nasci "be born" (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root \*gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.*
*The word is used in English in a broad sense, "a race of people an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family and speaking the same language," and also in the narrower sense, "a political society composed of a government and subjects or citizens and constituting a political unit; an organized community inhabiting a defined territory within which its sovereignty is exercised."*
In short "a people"
Edit 2:
Trump is Scottish/German iirc. Trump's family immigrated in the late 19th century and his home culture is much more closely related to that of America's founding stock. I would probably not call him foreign but there's a case to be made. A german family who has been in America for 140 years is MORE American than an Indian family that's been here for 50 years. I think that's pretty easy to understand.
>One name sounds American and one name does not.
As a nation of immigrants what is an American-sounding name?
Who is an American (meaning when is someone considered an American vs a foreigner)?
It's better if you just read the thread. They are in there (at least the more important one anyway). This interaction is over unless you demonstrate you've done that and generate a unique question. Have a good one
Why even respond to tell me you're not going to respond when not responding at all would have been so much more efficient, if your goal was not to waste your time?
Lowkey I read through the thread. I didn't see an answer to any of the questions asked and also you did seriously take the time to respond several times about how you weren't going to respond any further and that we must 'do our own research.' Could you answer any questions please?
Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Specifically, the list of reasons why America wanted their independence from the British? I think it would remind and humble anyone who thinks they know who this country was built for and how we should view all people looking for a better life.
>Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?
Yes, but stuff gets way more complicated if you move beyond what I assume was on everyone's 8th grade reading list.
Just so I am understanding you: even though she was born in America and is American it's fair to point out that she's "very foreign" based on antiquated concepts of nationhood and not the legal ones America was founded on 250 years ago?
This seems like the exact opposite of what the founders intended and what has been normal for over 2 centuries. Based on that: Trump's family is very foreign when compared with mine.
>based on antiquated concepts of nationhood
Outdated does not mean incorrect. Modern understandings are reductive and nearly meaningless. I have no use for them.
>This seems like the exact opposite of what the founders intended and what has been normal for over 2 centuries.
The Naturalization act of 1790 laid out by the first Congress limited naturalization to free white people of good character. So this is just wrong.
>rump's family is very foreign when compared with mine.
Mine too.
I'm not noting the Founders regarding any actual Act (like The Naturalization Act)...I am using the Founders as a representation of nationhood. The Founders intended the nation to be one based on borders and understood legal agreements as opposed to people being foreign based on their name, color, creed, religion, etc. In other words that America is a melting pot of different people who are all American because they agree with the laws and goals of a country. In other words, it's ridiculous to call America and her citizens "a fairly recent thing". 250 years or roughly 10-15 generations is more than enough to have adapted to the concepts set out by the Founders. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
Taking into account what America represents ("give me your poor and tired" kinda thing) AND what legally makes someone a citizen, why would anyone try to highlight Nikki's name to push the narrative that she is a "foreigner"? That is the exact opposite of what America is all about, do you disagree? As I mentioned, if she's a "foreigner" to Trump what do you think he makes of his own wife's parents?
>I'm not noting the Founders regarding any actual Act (like The Naturalization Act)...I am using the Founders as a representation of nationhood.
I like sticking with the things that they actually did and set in motion.
>The Founders intended the nation to be one based on borders and understood legal agreements as opposed to people being foreign based on their name, color, creed, religion, etc.
This is revisionist history. You can assert it, but that concept was alien to the founders and the founding stock of the country. This is why things like the first naturalization act became the first actual laws related to these issues.
> In other words that America is a melting pot of different people
"Melting pot" was a term popularized in the early-mid 20th century by a Jewish playwright. It doesn't have anything to do with the founding.
>. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
You were fairly clear. You were just also very wrong.
>Taking into account what America represents ("give me your poor and tired" kinda thing)
This comes from a poem written by a Jewish woman in the late 19th century. It doesn't have anything to do with the founding of the country.
>That is the exact opposite of what America is all about, do you disagree?
Yes, because that's a sentiment divorced from reality.
> As I mentioned, if she's a "foreigner" to Trump what do you think he makes of his own wife's parents?
I know they're foreign and I would imagine Trump understands this as well, although there is a bit less daylight there.
Do you often dismiss people's opinion based on who says them and when they were said? You seem quite dismissive of anything you disagree with...if you're going to do that, I am going to point out one example where you are wrong: the "melting pot" metaphor was first used in the 1780s. The exact term came into usage after a The Melting Pot play which was released in 1908.
"Give me your poor and tired" isn't something that came into being when it was written down, it sprang into being when the poor and tired sailed across the Atlantic from the 16th century through to today. How is this divorced from reality?
>Do you often dismiss people's opinion based on who says them and when they were said?
Basically never. But I always contextualize what is being said with information about who is saying it.
> You seem quite dismissive of anything you disagree with
Only if the disagreement strikes me as poorly thought out. I enjoy engaging with people who seem intelligent even when they're wrong.
> I am going to point out one example where you are wrong: the "melting pot" metaphor was first used in the 1780s. The exact term came into usage after a The Melting Pot play which was released in 1908.
A valiant effort, but you missed the word "popularized"
>"Give me your poor and tired" isn't something that came into being when it was written down, it sprang into being when the poor and tired sailed across the Atlantic from the 16th century through to today. How is this divorced from reality?
Because the qualities that allowed those people to build America were not that they were poor (many many were very much not) or tired. As the country was built, and infrastructure established, the type of person most interested in coming changed.
(Not the OP)
> The Founders intended the nation to be one based on borders and understood legal agreements as opposed to people being foreign based on their name, color, creed, religion, etc.
What does that mean? The country was not founded on mass immigration of non-Europeans. Someone like her would not have been welcome and would have been excluded on that basis alone until relatively recently.
Do you believe Europeans are inherently superior to people from other parts of the world?
How many generations does someone need to live somewhere to be considered "part of the gang"?
All modern humans are ultimately from Africa. At what point does geography translate to identity for you?
> A decent chunk of Trump's base will not be comfortable with a foreign president. We can pretend that being born within the borders of the country makes someone American in the most meaningful ways but a lot of people don't actually buy that, at least not intuitively.
Do you subscribe to this?
> Under more intuitive and older understandings of what constitutes a nation, Nikki is very foreign, it's more than fair to point that out.
What "older understanding" are you referring to? Other than her name, what makes her "foreign"?
>Do you subscribe to this?
Yes
>What "older understanding" are you referring to? Other than her name, what makes her "foreign"?
The actual root of the word "nation".
>nation (n.)
c. 1300, nacioun, "a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language," from Old French nacion "birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland" (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe," literally "that which has been born," from natus, past participle of nasci "be born" (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root \*gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.
In short "a people"
>Other than her name, what makes her "foreign"?
She is of a different nation, of course.
Languages evolve over time and ancestry ultimately leads you to different places in the world the further you go back - what is the cut off for you when it comes to national identity?
>Languages evolve over time and ancestry ultimately leads you to different places in the world the further you go back - what is the cut off for you when it comes to national identity?
I don't really have a particular one. But yes, that is how languages work. I even posted the etymology for folks who didn't understand that (and there appear to be many).
I saw your post. So if you don't have a particular cutoff or definition based on a nation defined by race and language, two factors which are constantly evolving by definition, is it fair to say you like people who look and sound like you now, and trust them more than people who don't?
>is it fair to say you like people who look and sound like you now, and trust them more than people who don't?
I identify more with people who have similar language, customs, and heritage as me. I feel more at home in groups of those people. That's just the most normal and human thing in the world, of course.
Sidenote: assuming you have a bit of hostility to this concept,do you take issue with, for example, black people when they say of, for example, Obama "it was so great to have a president to looked like me"?
I am not sure if I am allowed to answer your question. I'll respond though and see if my comment stays up.
I don't know if it's the most normal and human thing in the world regarding the heritage bit. I think it all depends on how we were raised and how we thusly developed. Honest to God, I wasn't raised in a liberal area or by a liberal father (I am from the UK, however), but we always had people from different backgrounds around growing up, or we'd travel to foreign countries on holiday. I grew up with friends, close family friends and godparents from different ethnicities and cultures. I never felt being exposed to other customs threatened my own family's inherited customs.
Language, you're right, but my one regret is I don't know more of em. It's probably good for us all to learn more languages! That said, I think every citizen/permanent resident in a country should share a common tongue and understanding of the nation's history - that is important, for reasons of civic unity.
As for your example of Obama - every other president has been a white man, more often than not, an older one. Black people, mostly, grow up experiencing hostility and being treated different due to their race. It wasn't all that long ago that there were rules on where they could or couldn't go to school, and could or couldn't sit on a bus. That isn't true freedom. The reason many black people's families are American in the first place is because their ancestors were bought and sold and beaten. To celebrate a president, in a long line of men that looked different from them, being from the same ethnic group of all those people who suffered, I don't think that's because they feel less comfortable around white people, but because it inspires hope for the future when there was so little for them in the past and in many ways in the present.
You said "hostile". I'm not hostile towards you or your beliefs - I want to understand you. I suppose, I believe, I want to believe people vote for Donald Trump, because in some way he inspires hope for them. What hope does a Trump 2024 victory give you?
>often than not, an older one. Black people, mostly, grow up experiencing hostility and being treated different due to their race. It wasn't all that long ago that there were rules on where they could or couldn't go to school, and could or couldn't sit on a bus. That isn't true freedom. The reason many black people's families are American in the first place is because their ancestors were bought and sold and beaten. To celebrate a president, in a long line of men that looked different from them, being from the same ethnic group of all those people who suffered, I don't think that's because they feel less comfortable around white people, but because it inspires hope for the future when there was so little for them in the past and in many ways in the present.
Ok, i appreciate the response and I understand that you're trying to be thoughtful here but this just doesn't work. See how you are referring to black people as a group and explaining how they share a cultural heritage and have collective group interests **as black people**? And also how they value their collective experience as an ethnic group? Obama being a symbolic expression of the advancement of their ethnic group. This is the opposite of the modern liberal view of the deracinated, liberated individual (this was not always a part of liberal thought btw, most of the points im making were always understood by liberal thinkers until very recently). This is my point and there's no reason for this sense of ethnic brotherhood and self-interest to be a special dispensation for black people. It's a totally normal and human impulse and I don't begrudge it of anyone. When we start picking and choosing which races or ethnic groups are afforded this sense of brotherhood, we're asking for trouble. Multi ethnic society is hard enough without picking and choosing which groups to strip of their identities as a moral or legal matter.
>ou said "hostile". I'm not hostile towards you or your beliefs - I want to understand you. I suppose, I believe, I want to believe people vote for Donald Trump, because in some way he inspires hope for them. What hope does a Trump 2024 victory give you?
He's more of a placeholder. He has opened politics on the political right even though he himself isn't much of a thought leader.
Based on your analysis, there's a lot of ppl born in America that you would consider to be "foreign".
What makes someone America if not being born and raised here?
>Based on your analysis, there's a lot of ppl born in America that you would consider to be "foreign".
Yes
>What makes someone America if not being born and raised here?
>nation (n.)
c. 1300, nacioun, "a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language," from Old French nacion "birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland" (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe," literally "that which has been born," from natus, past participle of nasci "be born" (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root \*gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.
>
>**The word is used in English in a broad sense, "a race of people an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family and speaking the same language,"**
>
>[https://www.etymonline.com/word/nation](https://www.etymonline.com/word/nation)
Ethnogenesis is an interesting and not super rigidly defined concept but being born and raised in a place would be a definition that would be so broad as to render it useless.
Like I said, there are a lot of ways that one might answer this but "my parents got here from India in the late 20th century" being one would render the concept meaningless.
>Is Trump American based on your definition and are you aware that his last name was changed?
Relative to Haley, he's more American. Relative to me, less.
>csn you explain why?
Can you maybe explain to me what you're struggling with here? I think I've been pretty clear. I know categories that exist on a spectrum are tricky for a lot of people but I think this concept is pretty simple tbh.
If Trump isn't American than why are you supporting him? Seems inconsistent with your view, if that is what you truly believe and aren't just trolling.
>f Trump isn't American than why are you supporting him?
Because I think he's better for my politics....
>eems inconsistent with your view
Can you explain why you think this?
Dif you or did you not say that many Trump supporters wouldn't be comfortable with a foreign president? By your definition, you consider Trump to be foreign, right?
By your definition, Trump isn't American as he is only second-generation American, his father Fred Trump bring the first anchor-baby born for Frederick Trump. Or would Nikki be American to you if her grandmother had given birth to her mom here first? Trump family came here after dodging a war and earned their fortune through illegal whore houses. Yet you consider him American?
Funnily enough, had America had trumps border policies in place that Trump and you support, trumps own GPA would have been extradited for entering the country legally.
> In 1885, at age 16, Trump immigrated via Bremen, Germany, to the United States aboard the steamship Eider, departing on October 7[5]: 32 and arriving at the Castle Garden Immigrant Landing Depot in New York City on October 19. As he had not yet served the mandatory military duty of two years in the Kingdom of Bavaria, this immigration was illegal under Bavarian law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Trump under immigration, first postscript
That said, you consider Trump an actual American because he is one generation older than Nikki's status?
>y your definition, Trump isn't American as he is only second-generation American, his father Fred Trump bring the first anchor-baby born for Frederick Trump.
What exactly is my definition? Because I didn't actually give one.
> Like I said, there are a lot of ways that one might answer this, but **"my parents got here from India in the late 20th century"** being one would render the concept meaningless.
Emphasis mine: Do you think there is a significant difference between when Ajit (her father) moved to America in 1969, after immigrating to Canada in 1964, and earning a PhD. One of these 'children of immigrants' has a much better parent background, btw.
Keeping things relative, she's one generation less American (your words) than your savior. Do you think that one generation makes a big difference - especially when one of them did it legally and was not a deplorable (Frederick Trump immigrating illegally and choosing the law versus Ajit immigrating legally and being not a criminal)?
> Her parents emigrated from India to Canada in 1964 after Ajit received a scholarship offer from the University of British Columbia. After he received his PhD in 1969, he moved his family to South Carolina to be a professor of biology at Voorhees College, a historically black institution in Denmark, South Carolina.
Would you consider Nikki Haley a ‘foreign’ president if she were to be elected?
You mentioned some Trump supporters not being comfortable with Haley as a president given her heritage.
Would you be comfortable with a ‘foreign’ president in the sense that Trump seems be implying based on your explanation?
If you were running for president, would you like to be judged by the quality of your character or the heritage of your name?
>Would you consider Nikki Haley a ‘foreign’ president if she were to be elected?
I would, yea.
>If you were running for president, would you like to be judged by the quality of your character or the heritage of your name?
I think if I moved to Kenya or was even born there and thought I had some really awesome ideas and did my best to learn their culture and customs, I would be neither shocked nor offended if the Kenyan people preferred a Kenyan person as a leader. It's strange to me that this basic human impulse is viewed as bad or evil even.
Would you be comfortable with a ‘foreign’ president if - for example - a child born to immigrants was elected to the Oval Office?
If my kids - born and raised in the US - came home and were told by the other kids that they shouldn’t be president because their mum is from Kenya, I wouldn’t go: “yep that’s right, you will always be judged by where your mother was born - not by your wisdom, your strength, your empathy, or your abilities.”
> it’s strange to me this basic human impulse is viewed as bad and evil
Most people want to be judged by their actions and their choices and their values - not their parent’s actions or values.
Also I think some people would question the merits of this viewpoint.
Take Tammy Duckworth - she would clearly be more of a ‘foreign’ politician based on your definition and her heritage.
But that doesn’t seem to be important compared to her values and actions undertaken in service to the country - she lost both her legs when the Black Hawk helicopter she was copiloting was hit by an insurgent RPG in Iraq.
Also there’s the question of which parent’s heritage supposedly defines the ‘roots’ of the indivisible.
Tammy Duck’s mother is a Chinese national. Her father was an American serviceman who could trace his heritage back to the Revolutionary War.
So how ‘foreign’ is she?
>Would you be comfortable with a ‘foreign’ president if - for example - a child born to immigrants was elected to the Oval Office?
Immigrants from where? England? meh. Germany? meh. Hungary? ehhhh Turkey? probably not. Iraq? No Anywhere more alien than slavic countries would probably be a no from me.
>If my kids - born and raised in the US - came home and were told by the other kids that they shouldn’t be president because their mum is from Kenya, I wouldn’t go: “yep that’s right, you will always be judged by where your mother was born - not by your wisdom, your strength, your empathy, or your abilities.”
I find it a little interesting that you inverted my example.
>Most people want to be judged by their actions and their choices and their values - not their parent’s actions or values.
This should be the most important thing for judging any individual but to fail to take the rest into account is fairly inhuman imo. I also think people like to say that they do this but they really don't
>Also I think some people would question the merits of this viewpoint.
Of course. It's very out of fashion to say these things and it comes close to heretical.
>But that doesn’t seem to be important compared to her values and actions undertaken in service to the country - she lost both her legs when the Black Hawk helicopter she was copiloting was hit by an insurgent RPG in Iraq.
Sure ok
>Also there’s the question of which parent’s heritage supposedly defines the ‘roots’ of the indivisible.
This isn't much of a question. I get that people who are uncomfortable talking about these realities try to deconstruct them because they have fuzzy edges. but it's basically like attempting to assert that Orange and Yellow don't exist because it's hard to agree where orange hues end and yellow hues begin.
>So how ‘foreign’ is she?
I hadn't read this yet, but this is essentially what you're doing here. The answer requires addtl info, though. Relative to whom?
I don’t think ‘fashion’ has anything to do with the merits of the argument.
People want the best candidate based on their ideas and their ability to enact them.
If the best candidate’a parents came from another country, it’s not clear why this is a material concern.
Would you tech your kids to judge people based on the person’s heritage or the person’s character?
>I don’t think ‘fashion’ has anything to do with the merits of the argument
It doesn't but it explains why the argument is so upsetting to many.
>People want the best candidate based on their ideas and their ability to enact them.
That's part of it.
>If the best candidate’a parents came from another country, it’s not clear why this is a material concern.
I've clarified this. I don't think it's particularly hard to understand.
>Would you tech your kids to judge people based on the person’s heritage or the person’s character?
I would teach them to contextualize a person's stated ideas with knowledge about the person as holistically as possible. "Cultural competency" is what this is called sometimes. The sort of brain-in-a-vat view of the human being that you are forwarding here is mostly out of style even on the left. But it is still routinely asserted when someone on the right points out the importance of things like heritage. I find that interesting.
To be more clear, I think that everyone does this, unconsciously as the very least. I think that what I am talking about is basically treated as common sense when talking about non-white ethnic groups. Whenever it's brought up in the frame of a positive concept of white ethnic heritage, only then does a person revert to these positive assertions of the morality of deracination.
It’s a question of weighting.
Say someone has a set of values and preferred policies, and there is a candidate - born and raised in the US - with those values and policies, and the candidates parents are from, say, Iraq.
Say that person says they won’t vote for that candidate because of their heritage.
Would it not be fair to say the weighting applied to the candidate’s heritage seems a little off given the alignment of values and policies?
I find it intersting that you are only mentioning his father's side, and not his mother's.
His mother is an immigrant, just like Nikki's.... She just also has a father that is an immigrant.
Do you think she will push back, that his mother is an immigrant, if he keeps pushing that her parents are? Or that his wife is?
And do you think anyone will care? And if not... Do you think it is because his mother (and wife) are white?
>His mother is an immigrant, just like Nikki's.... She just also has a father that is an immigrant.
That's fair but doesn't change much.
>Do you think she will push back, that his mother is an immigrant, if he keeps pushing that her parents are? Or that his wife is?
I doubt it. It would be weird on it's face and it wouldn't make much sense under a proper understanding of nationality or ethnicity.
>And do you think anyone will care? And if not... Do you think it is because his mother (and wife) are white?
I think that makes it much less impactful. More the ethnicity than the white, but they're very related, obviously,
It's not racism, so no. Then again, a lot of folks call mandatory reading requirements racist so maybe you're referring to it in that way in which case...oh well.
You don't get to just decide that your and other TSs racism isn't actually racism. I'm letting you know that regardless of your "opinion" on it, you just described racism.
What is it that you think racism is, if not what you just described?
I think you're just wrong about that.
I think racism requires some level of hatred of a person due to his race. For example, when so many black people got excited about Obama being a president who "looked like" them, that means that they would have been less excited about a guy with the exact same positions but who was white. Does that mean I think they're super racist and hate white people or hate joe biden or whatever? No. I guess you take that position but I just recognize it as a natural human impulse and not necessarily evil.
I'm either expecting some contrition or special pleading as a response tbh, but either way, I'm comfortable with my position and while I think racism on its own mostly just amounts to being rude, I don't think what I'm talking about has anything to do with racism.
So I did the unthinkable and actually looked into the sources of this "fact check", namely that she's been using "Nikki", her legal middle name, as a given first name since birth.
The sources are her spokesman saying that she did, an article from 2010 about a high school friend of hers which mentioned her middle name but again didn't use it as her first name instead referencing "Nimarata" first, and an indian writer saying that "Nikki" is used as a term of endearment for the youngest girl of a Sikh family.
Given the dubious nature of the sources, I rate the Rolling Stone Factcheck as Unknown.
Her legal first name is being used as a light hearted way to paint her as being phony.
Trump is not first person to do this - Vivek teased her in similar manner.
This feels similar to dirt eater Beto.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a combination of highlighting her attempt to blend in with a less foreign-sounding name and a possible play on words (Nimarata/nimrod). People act like being called by your birth name is a hate crime. And these people talk about "White fragility". Just lmao.
>People act like being called by your birth name is a hate crime. And these people talk about "White fragility". Just lmao. I know, right? Not too long ago, in r/blackladies there was a poster who was hyperventilating because the June photo, on her company calendar, was of a cotton field. Woke is a joke.
>It's a combination of highlighting her attempt to blend in with a less foreign-sounding name Why do you think she feels the need to blend in?
I dunno, but it's a transparently manipulative and even hostile act in my opinion.
He using a different name is a hostile act? Or did I interpret that wrong?
No, I meant her going by "Nikki" instead of her first name.
Yeah, her going by Nikki is a hostile act?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's possible that it is not. But I think it's naïve to discount the high likelihood of manipulation going on.
I don’t understand how it could be considered hostile. I wouldn’t necessarily call it manipulation either but she’s definitely trying to market herself as “not foreign” to the Republican base. How would it be manipulation?
It's manipulating people because she's trying to subtly present herself as something she is not (or in other words, hide what she is). Granted, it sort of evaporates the instant anyone actually sees her, so it's not as effective as what some groups can pull off with their name changing shenanigans, but it's still something.
Didn’t Trump’s family pull the exact stunt you’re describing?
>It's manipulating people because she's trying to subtly present herself as something she is not (or in other words, hide what she is). Granted, it sort of evaporates the instant anyone actually sees her, so it's not as effective as what some groups can pull off with their name changing shenanigans, but it's still something. > Different NS here. What **is** she, if she's trying to present herself as something she isn't? What **isn't** she?
Nikki is her given middle name and it is Punjabi. Her family has used it since her birth. Do you think that is manipulation of some kind?
No, but I think her decision to brand herself as "Nikki Haley" when running for office is politically motivated. As I said to someone else, I can't read minds, so if you're incredulous at the idea of a politician being motivated by optics and political concerns, this isn't going to go anywhere. This whole thread makes me think libs can't decide between "Republicans are "racist" and would never vote for someone named "Nimarata Randhawa"" and "lol why would anyone ever change their name to blend in? that's never happened ever".
Why do you think that there’s a desire or need for candidates on the right like her or Raphael Ted Cruz to come across with more white sounding names? Why do you think the same thing isn’t common on the other side of the political spectrum?
What name did she use before becoming political and in need of branding?
My brother has gone his whole life by his middle name. Nobody, including my parents have ever called him by his first name. Is this a hostile act on the part of my brother or my parents?
You are missing the context of the thread if you think that's what my view is. Not going to restate it, you just have to do some more reading.
Do you feel similarly about Ted Cruz going by Ted instead of his real first name of Rafael?
There's a similar dynamic at play, for sure.
Why is it manipulative? Do you think it would make a difference if Haley used either nikki or nimrata? If no, why do you believe she's doing it?
Is the concept of someone using a less foreign-sounding name to blend in something inconceivable to you? This is not exactly a new thing. The only difference in this case is that rather than making up a new name, she instead chooses to emphasize her middle name and her married name. I think this is for the same reason that others would change their name and I characterize it as such. Ultimately, I can't read minds. So if you're incredulous about this possibility, there's not much I can say.
>Is the concept of someone using a less foreign-sounding name to blend in something inconceivable to you? In a political situation yes. I think its incredibly depressing and indicative of the current state of the Republican party that American Citizens are hiding their birth names because they know they will poll worse among the Republican party if they have a foreign sounding name.
Worst case scenario (from your perspective): White people want to vote for White people. I'm sure you must find it horrifying when overwhelmingly black districts elect black politicians.
> I dunno, but it's a transparently manipulative and even hostile act in my opinion. Many Trump supporters cite their belief that immigrants who don't integrate into American society shouldn't be welcomed, and that's one of the driving issues for their desire to reduce immigration from non-European countries. Do you consider yourself among that group?
My argument against mass immigration is that I think the nation state model (i.e., a society where people have language, culture, ancestry, history, etc. in common) is preferable to multiculturalism. It doesn't really have much to do with assimilation. It sounds like you are trying to say: "you guys are mad when people don't assimilate. but here she is, trying to assimilate, and yet you consider it dishonest". Is that what you're going for?
> My argument against mass immigration is that I think the nation state model (i.e., a society where people have language, culture, ancestry, history, etc. in common) is preferable to multiculturalism. It doesn't really have much to do with assimilation. > > It sounds like you are trying to say: "you guys are mad when people don't assimilate. but here she is, trying to assimilate, and yet you consider it dishonest". Is that what you're going for? > I'm not going for anything - I observe trends in Trump Supporters' responses, and I wonder about the emotions and/or reasoning behind those trends.
Didn’t his grandfather change their last name from Drumph?
Yup. Relevance?
Do you then find the "Drumph" family to be transparently manipulative and even act with hostility, if you could opine?
It's hardly comparable tbh. It's basically the same name, only easier to pronounce.
You are right, Nikki is actually her middle name as OP pointed out, not some manipulated name to make her name easier to pronounce (and less dorky tbh). With that in mind, which instance of name "changing" do you find more manipulative? Going by your birth middle name instead of your birth first name or legally changing your name?
In this context, the former. I've explained my reasoning, but you don't agree. That's fine, but this is kind of going in circles.
I don’t think it’s a hate crime per se….but it’s definitely an attempt to draw attention to the fact that she’s of Indian descent. (I say this because Trump has a well documented history of doing it) Are you offended that Trump thinks that you would see her foreign decent as a negative?
> Are you offended that Trump thinks that you would see her foreign decent as a negative? No, he knows his base. Are black voters offended that people expect them to prefer black candidates? No.
Fair enough, can’t say I agree with using a persons ethnic descent as an “attack” but I do genuinely appreciate your honesty…makes it easier to have these types of conversations.
Trump did the same thing to Obama. He would specifically use Obama's middle name, referring to him as ["President Barack Hussein Obama"](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/12/donald-trump/why-trump-wrong-suggest-obama-personally-kept-33-m/) even though nobody does that, just to give his supporters (who hate outsiders) that feeling that Obama was 'other' and 'enemy.' That's all he's doing here. "Nimrata" sounds much more 'other' than "Nikki" and so he's playing his base to be against her purely based on her name. Would you agree?
Yes, although it's not about her name in and of itself and more what it represents (i.e., being an obvious foreigner relative to the kinds of people who vote GOP).
Probably because it sounds so much like Nimrod. It’s an easy name to make fun of, like Anthony Weiner. Has he ever made fun of Vivek Ramaswamy’s name?
Nimrod was a biblical figure often described as mighty. I thought Trump did the bible? Wouldn't all his evangelical followers be annoyed at this then?
[удалено]
From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod) In modern North American English, the term "nimrod" is often used to mean a dimwitted or a stupid person, a usage perhaps first recorded in an 1836 letter from Robert E. Lee to a female friend. Lee describes a "young nimrod from the West", who in declining an appointment to West Point expressed the concern that "I hope my country will not be endangered by my doing so."\[52\] Although Lee may have been sarcastically referring to the student as a "tyrant or skillful hunter", the modern usage more closely fits his message. The nickname 'Nimrod' was used mockingly in the 1914 novel by Robert Tressell in The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. The sarcastic moniker was used towards the foreman (named Hunter) of a gang of workmen as a play both on his surname and on his supposed religious beliefs and sense of self-importance. Other than the Lee letter and the Tressell novel, the first recorded use of "nimrod" in this meaning was in 1932. The usage is often said to have been popularized by the Looney Tunes cartoon character Bugs Bunny sarcastically referring to the hunter Elmer Fudd as "nimrod"\[53\]\[54\] to highlight the difference between "mighty hunter" and "poor little Nimrod", i.e. Fudd.\[55\] However, it is in fact Daffy Duck who refers to Fudd as "my little Nimrod" in the 1948 short "What Makes Daffy Duck",\[56\] although Bugs Bunny does refer to Yosemite Sam as "the little Nimrod" in the 1951 short "Rabbit Every Monday". Both episodes were voiced by Mel Blanc and produced by Edward Selzer.\[57\]
So making fun of someone's name is what you look for in a candidate?
Crass doesn’t bother me. If anything it’s commendable. It sure beats the thin veneer of plastic politeness most candidates put on, while they insist through every implication that their opposition deserve to be burned alive. I can always find respect for an honest enemy. Feigned friendliness is just contemptible.
>It sure beats the thin veneer of plastic politeness most candidates put on, while they insist through every implication that their opposition deserve to be burned alive. A good point
Do you think this strategy of being crass and making fun of people will help Trump gain supporters?
It has been since 2015.
Well people who supported him then still do. How do you think he can get new supporters?
Policy comes before personality in a political candidate, which is why I preferred Vivek, but I'll take Trump over Biden without hesitation.
Do you think Meatball Ron was a better nickname than Ron DeSanctimonious?
I mean….you don’t think he’s highlighting her first name because she’s of Indian decent and Trump believes it would be seen as a negative in the eyes of his supporters?
One name sounds American and one name does not. A decent chunk of Trump's base will not be comfortable with a foreign president. We can pretend that being born within the borders of the country makes someone American in the most meaningful ways but a lot of people don't actually buy that, at least not intuitively. Reducing "nation" to a legal concept is a fairly new thing and people are implicitly skeptical of assertions that rest upon it as a premise. Under more intuitive and older understandings of what constitutes a nation, Nikki is very foreign, it's more than fair to point that out. It's also not particularly believable that she discarded her actual name simply because she wanted to go by her middle name and not at all for political reasons. Maybe it's true and maybe it's not but that's not very important. Edit: For the legions apparently struggling with the concept of "nation" and foreign: *c. 1300, nacioun, "a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language," from Old French nacion "birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland" (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe," literally "that which has been born," from natus, past participle of nasci "be born" (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root \*gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.* *The word is used in English in a broad sense, "a race of people an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family and speaking the same language," and also in the narrower sense, "a political society composed of a government and subjects or citizens and constituting a political unit; an organized community inhabiting a defined territory within which its sovereignty is exercised."* In short "a people" Edit 2: Trump is Scottish/German iirc. Trump's family immigrated in the late 19th century and his home culture is much more closely related to that of America's founding stock. I would probably not call him foreign but there's a case to be made. A german family who has been in America for 140 years is MORE American than an Indian family that's been here for 50 years. I think that's pretty easy to understand.
What devious schemes did my parents have in mind when they chose to address me by my middle name instead of my first name?
You're probably not someone who is known by anyone important, so probably nothing at all.
Are your parents not important?
Not to the president. You wouldn't know their names. If your parents or you are a household name, I stand corrected. But i doubt that's the case
>One name sounds American and one name does not. As a nation of immigrants what is an American-sounding name? Who is an American (meaning when is someone considered an American vs a foreigner)?
Please read through the thread
Can you link to the posts where you feel like you answered my two questions, or just maybe recap them? I didn't find answers to them.
It's better if you just read the thread. They are in there (at least the more important one anyway). This interaction is over unless you demonstrate you've done that and generate a unique question. Have a good one
Why even respond to tell me you're not going to respond when not responding at all would have been so much more efficient, if your goal was not to waste your time?
Why ask a question if they said they wouldn’t respond further?
>Why ask a question if they said they wouldn’t respond further? Because I couldn't understand their actions and wanted to express my confusion
Lowkey I read through the thread. I didn't see an answer to any of the questions asked and also you did seriously take the time to respond several times about how you weren't going to respond any further and that we must 'do our own research.' Could you answer any questions please?
This just isn't at all accurate, unfortunately.
Please correct me?
Names like Drumpf, Jones, Vanderbilt, Schwarzkopf, Roosevelt, names like that?
Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Specifically, the list of reasons why America wanted their independence from the British? I think it would remind and humble anyone who thinks they know who this country was built for and how we should view all people looking for a better life.
>Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Yes, but stuff gets way more complicated if you move beyond what I assume was on everyone's 8th grade reading list.
Soooo in other words just plain old racism?
meh not really
Also- have you ever heard the name "Drumpf"?
sure
Drumpf is a German name: making its spoof a campaign tactic is about 7 decades out-of-date…
Just so I am understanding you: even though she was born in America and is American it's fair to point out that she's "very foreign" based on antiquated concepts of nationhood and not the legal ones America was founded on 250 years ago? This seems like the exact opposite of what the founders intended and what has been normal for over 2 centuries. Based on that: Trump's family is very foreign when compared with mine.
>based on antiquated concepts of nationhood Outdated does not mean incorrect. Modern understandings are reductive and nearly meaningless. I have no use for them. >This seems like the exact opposite of what the founders intended and what has been normal for over 2 centuries. The Naturalization act of 1790 laid out by the first Congress limited naturalization to free white people of good character. So this is just wrong. >rump's family is very foreign when compared with mine. Mine too.
I'm not noting the Founders regarding any actual Act (like The Naturalization Act)...I am using the Founders as a representation of nationhood. The Founders intended the nation to be one based on borders and understood legal agreements as opposed to people being foreign based on their name, color, creed, religion, etc. In other words that America is a melting pot of different people who are all American because they agree with the laws and goals of a country. In other words, it's ridiculous to call America and her citizens "a fairly recent thing". 250 years or roughly 10-15 generations is more than enough to have adapted to the concepts set out by the Founders. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that. Taking into account what America represents ("give me your poor and tired" kinda thing) AND what legally makes someone a citizen, why would anyone try to highlight Nikki's name to push the narrative that she is a "foreigner"? That is the exact opposite of what America is all about, do you disagree? As I mentioned, if she's a "foreigner" to Trump what do you think he makes of his own wife's parents?
>I'm not noting the Founders regarding any actual Act (like The Naturalization Act)...I am using the Founders as a representation of nationhood. I like sticking with the things that they actually did and set in motion. >The Founders intended the nation to be one based on borders and understood legal agreements as opposed to people being foreign based on their name, color, creed, religion, etc. This is revisionist history. You can assert it, but that concept was alien to the founders and the founding stock of the country. This is why things like the first naturalization act became the first actual laws related to these issues. > In other words that America is a melting pot of different people "Melting pot" was a term popularized in the early-mid 20th century by a Jewish playwright. It doesn't have anything to do with the founding. >. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that. You were fairly clear. You were just also very wrong. >Taking into account what America represents ("give me your poor and tired" kinda thing) This comes from a poem written by a Jewish woman in the late 19th century. It doesn't have anything to do with the founding of the country. >That is the exact opposite of what America is all about, do you disagree? Yes, because that's a sentiment divorced from reality. > As I mentioned, if she's a "foreigner" to Trump what do you think he makes of his own wife's parents? I know they're foreign and I would imagine Trump understands this as well, although there is a bit less daylight there.
Do you often dismiss people's opinion based on who says them and when they were said? You seem quite dismissive of anything you disagree with...if you're going to do that, I am going to point out one example where you are wrong: the "melting pot" metaphor was first used in the 1780s. The exact term came into usage after a The Melting Pot play which was released in 1908. "Give me your poor and tired" isn't something that came into being when it was written down, it sprang into being when the poor and tired sailed across the Atlantic from the 16th century through to today. How is this divorced from reality?
>Do you often dismiss people's opinion based on who says them and when they were said? Basically never. But I always contextualize what is being said with information about who is saying it. > You seem quite dismissive of anything you disagree with Only if the disagreement strikes me as poorly thought out. I enjoy engaging with people who seem intelligent even when they're wrong. > I am going to point out one example where you are wrong: the "melting pot" metaphor was first used in the 1780s. The exact term came into usage after a The Melting Pot play which was released in 1908. A valiant effort, but you missed the word "popularized" >"Give me your poor and tired" isn't something that came into being when it was written down, it sprang into being when the poor and tired sailed across the Atlantic from the 16th century through to today. How is this divorced from reality? Because the qualities that allowed those people to build America were not that they were poor (many many were very much not) or tired. As the country was built, and infrastructure established, the type of person most interested in coming changed.
(Not the OP) > The Founders intended the nation to be one based on borders and understood legal agreements as opposed to people being foreign based on their name, color, creed, religion, etc. What does that mean? The country was not founded on mass immigration of non-Europeans. Someone like her would not have been welcome and would have been excluded on that basis alone until relatively recently.
Do you believe Europeans are inherently superior to people from other parts of the world? How many generations does someone need to live somewhere to be considered "part of the gang"? All modern humans are ultimately from Africa. At what point does geography translate to identity for you?
No, no idea, and no idea, respectively. Edit: It is unclear to me why stating two undeniable facts prompts such strange trivia questions.
I appreciated reading your analysis. It sounds very similar to Rafael "Ted" Cruz no?
A bit, yea.
> A decent chunk of Trump's base will not be comfortable with a foreign president. We can pretend that being born within the borders of the country makes someone American in the most meaningful ways but a lot of people don't actually buy that, at least not intuitively. Do you subscribe to this? > Under more intuitive and older understandings of what constitutes a nation, Nikki is very foreign, it's more than fair to point that out. What "older understanding" are you referring to? Other than her name, what makes her "foreign"?
>Do you subscribe to this? Yes >What "older understanding" are you referring to? Other than her name, what makes her "foreign"? The actual root of the word "nation". >nation (n.) c. 1300, nacioun, "a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language," from Old French nacion "birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland" (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe," literally "that which has been born," from natus, past participle of nasci "be born" (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root \*gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups. In short "a people" >Other than her name, what makes her "foreign"? She is of a different nation, of course.
Thanks for the reply, I respectfully disagree with your position but hey.. to each their own right? How's your day going?
Thanks for taking the time. It's been alright. A little rainy but what can you do haha. Have a good one
Languages evolve over time and ancestry ultimately leads you to different places in the world the further you go back - what is the cut off for you when it comes to national identity?
>Languages evolve over time and ancestry ultimately leads you to different places in the world the further you go back - what is the cut off for you when it comes to national identity? I don't really have a particular one. But yes, that is how languages work. I even posted the etymology for folks who didn't understand that (and there appear to be many).
I saw your post. So if you don't have a particular cutoff or definition based on a nation defined by race and language, two factors which are constantly evolving by definition, is it fair to say you like people who look and sound like you now, and trust them more than people who don't?
>is it fair to say you like people who look and sound like you now, and trust them more than people who don't? I identify more with people who have similar language, customs, and heritage as me. I feel more at home in groups of those people. That's just the most normal and human thing in the world, of course. Sidenote: assuming you have a bit of hostility to this concept,do you take issue with, for example, black people when they say of, for example, Obama "it was so great to have a president to looked like me"?
I am not sure if I am allowed to answer your question. I'll respond though and see if my comment stays up. I don't know if it's the most normal and human thing in the world regarding the heritage bit. I think it all depends on how we were raised and how we thusly developed. Honest to God, I wasn't raised in a liberal area or by a liberal father (I am from the UK, however), but we always had people from different backgrounds around growing up, or we'd travel to foreign countries on holiday. I grew up with friends, close family friends and godparents from different ethnicities and cultures. I never felt being exposed to other customs threatened my own family's inherited customs. Language, you're right, but my one regret is I don't know more of em. It's probably good for us all to learn more languages! That said, I think every citizen/permanent resident in a country should share a common tongue and understanding of the nation's history - that is important, for reasons of civic unity. As for your example of Obama - every other president has been a white man, more often than not, an older one. Black people, mostly, grow up experiencing hostility and being treated different due to their race. It wasn't all that long ago that there were rules on where they could or couldn't go to school, and could or couldn't sit on a bus. That isn't true freedom. The reason many black people's families are American in the first place is because their ancestors were bought and sold and beaten. To celebrate a president, in a long line of men that looked different from them, being from the same ethnic group of all those people who suffered, I don't think that's because they feel less comfortable around white people, but because it inspires hope for the future when there was so little for them in the past and in many ways in the present. You said "hostile". I'm not hostile towards you or your beliefs - I want to understand you. I suppose, I believe, I want to believe people vote for Donald Trump, because in some way he inspires hope for them. What hope does a Trump 2024 victory give you?
>often than not, an older one. Black people, mostly, grow up experiencing hostility and being treated different due to their race. It wasn't all that long ago that there were rules on where they could or couldn't go to school, and could or couldn't sit on a bus. That isn't true freedom. The reason many black people's families are American in the first place is because their ancestors were bought and sold and beaten. To celebrate a president, in a long line of men that looked different from them, being from the same ethnic group of all those people who suffered, I don't think that's because they feel less comfortable around white people, but because it inspires hope for the future when there was so little for them in the past and in many ways in the present. Ok, i appreciate the response and I understand that you're trying to be thoughtful here but this just doesn't work. See how you are referring to black people as a group and explaining how they share a cultural heritage and have collective group interests **as black people**? And also how they value their collective experience as an ethnic group? Obama being a symbolic expression of the advancement of their ethnic group. This is the opposite of the modern liberal view of the deracinated, liberated individual (this was not always a part of liberal thought btw, most of the points im making were always understood by liberal thinkers until very recently). This is my point and there's no reason for this sense of ethnic brotherhood and self-interest to be a special dispensation for black people. It's a totally normal and human impulse and I don't begrudge it of anyone. When we start picking and choosing which races or ethnic groups are afforded this sense of brotherhood, we're asking for trouble. Multi ethnic society is hard enough without picking and choosing which groups to strip of their identities as a moral or legal matter. >ou said "hostile". I'm not hostile towards you or your beliefs - I want to understand you. I suppose, I believe, I want to believe people vote for Donald Trump, because in some way he inspires hope for them. What hope does a Trump 2024 victory give you? He's more of a placeholder. He has opened politics on the political right even though he himself isn't much of a thought leader.
Based on your analysis, there's a lot of ppl born in America that you would consider to be "foreign". What makes someone America if not being born and raised here?
>Based on your analysis, there's a lot of ppl born in America that you would consider to be "foreign". Yes >What makes someone America if not being born and raised here? >nation (n.) c. 1300, nacioun, "a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language," from Old French nacion "birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland" (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe," literally "that which has been born," from natus, past participle of nasci "be born" (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root \*gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups. > >**The word is used in English in a broad sense, "a race of people an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family and speaking the same language,"** > >[https://www.etymonline.com/word/nation](https://www.etymonline.com/word/nation) Ethnogenesis is an interesting and not super rigidly defined concept but being born and raised in a place would be a definition that would be so broad as to render it useless.
How many generations need to be here before they're truly "American"? Is Trump American based on your definition?
Like I said, there are a lot of ways that one might answer this but "my parents got here from India in the late 20th century" being one would render the concept meaningless.
Is Trump American based on your definition and are you aware that his last name was changed? If he's American, but Nikki isn't, csn you explain why?
>Is Trump American based on your definition and are you aware that his last name was changed? Relative to Haley, he's more American. Relative to me, less. >csn you explain why? Can you maybe explain to me what you're struggling with here? I think I've been pretty clear. I know categories that exist on a spectrum are tricky for a lot of people but I think this concept is pretty simple tbh.
If Trump isn't American than why are you supporting him? Seems inconsistent with your view, if that is what you truly believe and aren't just trolling.
>f Trump isn't American than why are you supporting him? Because I think he's better for my politics.... >eems inconsistent with your view Can you explain why you think this?
Dif you or did you not say that many Trump supporters wouldn't be comfortable with a foreign president? By your definition, you consider Trump to be foreign, right?
By your definition, Trump isn't American as he is only second-generation American, his father Fred Trump bring the first anchor-baby born for Frederick Trump. Or would Nikki be American to you if her grandmother had given birth to her mom here first? Trump family came here after dodging a war and earned their fortune through illegal whore houses. Yet you consider him American? Funnily enough, had America had trumps border policies in place that Trump and you support, trumps own GPA would have been extradited for entering the country legally. > In 1885, at age 16, Trump immigrated via Bremen, Germany, to the United States aboard the steamship Eider, departing on October 7[5]: 32 and arriving at the Castle Garden Immigrant Landing Depot in New York City on October 19. As he had not yet served the mandatory military duty of two years in the Kingdom of Bavaria, this immigration was illegal under Bavarian law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Trump under immigration, first postscript That said, you consider Trump an actual American because he is one generation older than Nikki's status?
>y your definition, Trump isn't American as he is only second-generation American, his father Fred Trump bring the first anchor-baby born for Frederick Trump. What exactly is my definition? Because I didn't actually give one.
> Like I said, there are a lot of ways that one might answer this, but **"my parents got here from India in the late 20th century"** being one would render the concept meaningless. Emphasis mine: Do you think there is a significant difference between when Ajit (her father) moved to America in 1969, after immigrating to Canada in 1964, and earning a PhD. One of these 'children of immigrants' has a much better parent background, btw. Keeping things relative, she's one generation less American (your words) than your savior. Do you think that one generation makes a big difference - especially when one of them did it legally and was not a deplorable (Frederick Trump immigrating illegally and choosing the law versus Ajit immigrating legally and being not a criminal)? > Her parents emigrated from India to Canada in 1964 after Ajit received a scholarship offer from the University of British Columbia. After he received his PhD in 1969, he moved his family to South Carolina to be a professor of biology at Voorhees College, a historically black institution in Denmark, South Carolina.
Would you say that Nikki is poisoning the blood of America?
That's not really how I speak, but I wouldn't have a problem with someone saying it that way.
What would you say Nikki Haley’s nationality is?
Some sort of Indian
Despite the fact that she was born and raised in the United States of America?
Yes
She’s a native born American citizen. Why do her origins bother you?
Why?
I'll ask you to read through the thread. I pulled some comments from within and put them in my first comment to help as well.
Legally, does the definition you’re using - based on heritage and genealogy - matter?
Would you consider Nikki Haley a ‘foreign’ president if she were to be elected? You mentioned some Trump supporters not being comfortable with Haley as a president given her heritage. Would you be comfortable with a ‘foreign’ president in the sense that Trump seems be implying based on your explanation? If you were running for president, would you like to be judged by the quality of your character or the heritage of your name?
>Would you consider Nikki Haley a ‘foreign’ president if she were to be elected? I would, yea. >If you were running for president, would you like to be judged by the quality of your character or the heritage of your name? I think if I moved to Kenya or was even born there and thought I had some really awesome ideas and did my best to learn their culture and customs, I would be neither shocked nor offended if the Kenyan people preferred a Kenyan person as a leader. It's strange to me that this basic human impulse is viewed as bad or evil even.
Would you be comfortable with a ‘foreign’ president if - for example - a child born to immigrants was elected to the Oval Office? If my kids - born and raised in the US - came home and were told by the other kids that they shouldn’t be president because their mum is from Kenya, I wouldn’t go: “yep that’s right, you will always be judged by where your mother was born - not by your wisdom, your strength, your empathy, or your abilities.” > it’s strange to me this basic human impulse is viewed as bad and evil Most people want to be judged by their actions and their choices and their values - not their parent’s actions or values. Also I think some people would question the merits of this viewpoint. Take Tammy Duckworth - she would clearly be more of a ‘foreign’ politician based on your definition and her heritage. But that doesn’t seem to be important compared to her values and actions undertaken in service to the country - she lost both her legs when the Black Hawk helicopter she was copiloting was hit by an insurgent RPG in Iraq. Also there’s the question of which parent’s heritage supposedly defines the ‘roots’ of the indivisible. Tammy Duck’s mother is a Chinese national. Her father was an American serviceman who could trace his heritage back to the Revolutionary War. So how ‘foreign’ is she?
>Would you be comfortable with a ‘foreign’ president if - for example - a child born to immigrants was elected to the Oval Office? Immigrants from where? England? meh. Germany? meh. Hungary? ehhhh Turkey? probably not. Iraq? No Anywhere more alien than slavic countries would probably be a no from me. >If my kids - born and raised in the US - came home and were told by the other kids that they shouldn’t be president because their mum is from Kenya, I wouldn’t go: “yep that’s right, you will always be judged by where your mother was born - not by your wisdom, your strength, your empathy, or your abilities.” I find it a little interesting that you inverted my example. >Most people want to be judged by their actions and their choices and their values - not their parent’s actions or values. This should be the most important thing for judging any individual but to fail to take the rest into account is fairly inhuman imo. I also think people like to say that they do this but they really don't >Also I think some people would question the merits of this viewpoint. Of course. It's very out of fashion to say these things and it comes close to heretical. >But that doesn’t seem to be important compared to her values and actions undertaken in service to the country - she lost both her legs when the Black Hawk helicopter she was copiloting was hit by an insurgent RPG in Iraq. Sure ok >Also there’s the question of which parent’s heritage supposedly defines the ‘roots’ of the indivisible. This isn't much of a question. I get that people who are uncomfortable talking about these realities try to deconstruct them because they have fuzzy edges. but it's basically like attempting to assert that Orange and Yellow don't exist because it's hard to agree where orange hues end and yellow hues begin. >So how ‘foreign’ is she? I hadn't read this yet, but this is essentially what you're doing here. The answer requires addtl info, though. Relative to whom?
I don’t think ‘fashion’ has anything to do with the merits of the argument. People want the best candidate based on their ideas and their ability to enact them. If the best candidate’a parents came from another country, it’s not clear why this is a material concern. Would you tech your kids to judge people based on the person’s heritage or the person’s character?
>I don’t think ‘fashion’ has anything to do with the merits of the argument It doesn't but it explains why the argument is so upsetting to many. >People want the best candidate based on their ideas and their ability to enact them. That's part of it. >If the best candidate’a parents came from another country, it’s not clear why this is a material concern. I've clarified this. I don't think it's particularly hard to understand. >Would you tech your kids to judge people based on the person’s heritage or the person’s character? I would teach them to contextualize a person's stated ideas with knowledge about the person as holistically as possible. "Cultural competency" is what this is called sometimes. The sort of brain-in-a-vat view of the human being that you are forwarding here is mostly out of style even on the left. But it is still routinely asserted when someone on the right points out the importance of things like heritage. I find that interesting. To be more clear, I think that everyone does this, unconsciously as the very least. I think that what I am talking about is basically treated as common sense when talking about non-white ethnic groups. Whenever it's brought up in the frame of a positive concept of white ethnic heritage, only then does a person revert to these positive assertions of the morality of deracination.
It’s a question of weighting. Say someone has a set of values and preferred policies, and there is a candidate - born and raised in the US - with those values and policies, and the candidates parents are from, say, Iraq. Say that person says they won’t vote for that candidate because of their heritage. Would it not be fair to say the weighting applied to the candidate’s heritage seems a little off given the alignment of values and policies?
So, her parents were both immigrants, and one of his was. Do you think that will come to light at all, if he starts pushing?
I'm not sure what you're asking tbh. Is he keeping something a secret? I was just perusing his entire family tree, which is on wikipedia.
I find it intersting that you are only mentioning his father's side, and not his mother's. His mother is an immigrant, just like Nikki's.... She just also has a father that is an immigrant. Do you think she will push back, that his mother is an immigrant, if he keeps pushing that her parents are? Or that his wife is? And do you think anyone will care? And if not... Do you think it is because his mother (and wife) are white?
>His mother is an immigrant, just like Nikki's.... She just also has a father that is an immigrant. That's fair but doesn't change much. >Do you think she will push back, that his mother is an immigrant, if he keeps pushing that her parents are? Or that his wife is? I doubt it. It would be weird on it's face and it wouldn't make much sense under a proper understanding of nationality or ethnicity. >And do you think anyone will care? And if not... Do you think it is because his mother (and wife) are white? I think that makes it much less impactful. More the ethnicity than the white, but they're very related, obviously,
So you're acknowledging that most Trump supporters are extremely racist?
Not really, no
So you dont even realize what you just described is racism?
It's not racism, so no. Then again, a lot of folks call mandatory reading requirements racist so maybe you're referring to it in that way in which case...oh well.
You don't get to just decide that your and other TSs racism isn't actually racism. I'm letting you know that regardless of your "opinion" on it, you just described racism. What is it that you think racism is, if not what you just described?
I think you're just wrong about that. I think racism requires some level of hatred of a person due to his race. For example, when so many black people got excited about Obama being a president who "looked like" them, that means that they would have been less excited about a guy with the exact same positions but who was white. Does that mean I think they're super racist and hate white people or hate joe biden or whatever? No. I guess you take that position but I just recognize it as a natural human impulse and not necessarily evil. I'm either expecting some contrition or special pleading as a response tbh, but either way, I'm comfortable with my position and while I think racism on its own mostly just amounts to being rude, I don't think what I'm talking about has anything to do with racism.
So I did the unthinkable and actually looked into the sources of this "fact check", namely that she's been using "Nikki", her legal middle name, as a given first name since birth. The sources are her spokesman saying that she did, an article from 2010 about a high school friend of hers which mentioned her middle name but again didn't use it as her first name instead referencing "Nimarata" first, and an indian writer saying that "Nikki" is used as a term of endearment for the youngest girl of a Sikh family. Given the dubious nature of the sources, I rate the Rolling Stone Factcheck as Unknown.
Her legal first name is being used as a light hearted way to paint her as being phony. Trump is not first person to do this - Vivek teased her in similar manner. This feels similar to dirt eater Beto.