by Noah Baron, Georgetown Law Professor
With increasing frequency, commentators and Facebook philosophers have taken to comparing Donald Trump to Hitler; they should stop. (snip – edited for breivity and accuracy)
These repeated comparisons are as ignorant of history as they are offensive to those of us who lost ancestors in the Holocaust. Trump’s ideology is substantively different than that espoused by Hitler. Trump is less likely to win than Hitler was. And if Trump wins, the result will not be the same as Hitler’s regime.
Let’s break this down.
First, fascism, and the ideology of Nazism in particular, blamed the Jews not only for the economic collapse of Germany in the late 1920s, but also for Germany’s loss in World War I. At no point did Hitler meaningfully distinguish between German Jews and non-German Jews, or between immigrant Jews and non-immigrant Jews.
In fact, for Hitler, it was the very fact that there existed German Jewish citizens at all that “endangered” the German nation and state. By contrast, Trump speaks specifically about undocumented immigrants—in a racist way, yes, but in a way substantively different than the way Hitler spoke about Jews. Trump does not have a problem with Latinos/Latinas per se. This contrasts starkly with Hitler’s concern: The existence of Jewish people and citizens, not Jewish immigrants.
Moreover, Trump, and other Republicans, evince a concern over assimilation and multiculturalism—they want immigrants who come here, legally or not, to assimilate into American culture, rather than retaining their own. This manifests itself in their support for policies such as English as an official language, language about “invasion,” and so on. Again, in stark contrast, Hitler did not care whether Jews were assimilated or not—all Jews were slated for extermination, regardless of whether they embraced German culture or not.
Trump’s rhetoric regarding Muslims is, admittedly, closer to the mark. That said, there remains a substantial difference between Trump’s underlying ideology of xenophobia and Islamophobia, and Hitler’s race-based ideology: Much of what Trump has had to say about Muslims has regarded Muslim immigrants, and specifically Muslim refugees. To a large extent, his fixture on Muslim immigrants is an outgrowth of his broader xenophobia. Moreover, Trump does not seem concerned with a “Muslim race” the way that Hitler was concerned about the “Jewish race.”
At this point it is also worth noting some key differences in the explicit political programs of Trump and Hitler. In February 1920, long before Holocaust was underway, Hitler announced the 25-point Programme. This included such points as “we demand land and territory [i.e., colonies] for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population,” the creation of a “Greater Germany,” and “Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.” The Programme also called for the expulsion of all Jews from the media or any ownership interest in it, and the establishment of a central authority with “unlimited authority.”
By contrast, Trump’s platform calls for the following: a wall along the southern border of the United States; more ICE officers; nationwide e-verify; the deportation of undocumented immigrants. The most radical points of his platform are (1) end to birthright citizenship and (2) preventing Muslims from entering the United States, but even so that pales in comparison to the specifically racialized and anti-Jew points of Hitler’s platform. At no point does Trump call for ending the citizenship of Muslims or Latinos/Latinas writ large, as Hitler did for Jews. (It is not even clear whether Trump actually supports a ” database” for American Muslims.)
Furthermore, Hitler and the Nazi Party used a private army, the Sturmabteilung (SA), to enforce their political will and, in an organized way, terrorize Jews, Jewish-owned businesses, and Jewish places of worship. The SA was formed in 1920, more than a decade before Hitler and the Nazis assumed power. The SA intimidated political opponents and Jews with violence. No such organization exists that is affiliated with Donald Trump’s campaign.
Second, Trump is less likely to win than Hitler was for a variety of reasons: Weimar Germany was particularly politically unstable; the Weimar constitution provided for a proportional representation system which enabled the election of radical parties and politicians (for example, it was possible to win seats in parliament with as little as 0.4 percent of the vote); and Hitler’s SA artificially created political emergencies which he then blamed on his political opponents. None of these things are the case in the United States today.
Third, even in the unlikely event that Trump did win, and even were it the case that Trump’s platform substantially mirrored Hitler’s (it doesn’t), he wouldn’t be able to enact it. This is attributable, again, to the vast differences between the American and Weimar constitutions.
For example, because the Weimar republic used a parliamentary system, a party’s choice for chancellor was also the head of the party. By contrast, in the United States, political parties are operated through a variety of political organs, and while the sitting president of a party has substantial influence, he does not have full control of the party. Another result of the parliamentary system meant that individual MPs were fully under the control of the party head—i.e., Hitler. Because the United States has no such system, members of Congress can (and often do) split with their party. Both of these things are of note because it was Hitler’s control over the Nazi Party, combined with the Party’s control of the parliament, that enabled him to become chancellor and subsequently suspend civil and political liberties. Even without any other American constitutional provisions in play, this alone would be sufficient to block any similar program.
There were other significant weaknesses in the Weimar constitution, such as Article 48, which allowed the president to suspend the constitution itself in cases of “emergency.” When Hitler became chancellor, it was this exact provision that enabled him to do away with the democratic regime and the Weimar constitution. By contrast, the U.S. constitution operates at all times, even (and perhaps especially) during emergencies. Without any mechanism by which to suspend the Constitution, Trump would be faced with the task of amending the Constitution itself—something exceedingly difficult and rarely accomplished.
In conclusion, Trump is not Hitler, and this is a bad comparison, and people should stop making it.
PS I disagree that Trump is a racist, a bigot or an Islamphobe. Gaining control over our borders does not a racist make! Nor does saying,”Mexico is not sending us their best and brightest.” Paraphrasing now…that sometimes we get criminals coming across the border (rapists, theives, drug dealers, etc.). That’s not a shocker is it? We do get those people right along with all other types.
He’s qualified his reasons for vetting refugees and while some of us may disagree with them, they fall far short of racist remarks. And that’s essentially all he was saying about Syrian refugees…we need to stop the immigration for safety reasons until we can vett who is entering. I’m sure the French and Belgiums would agree,
The re-interpretation of his words by the left are most definately racist words. But, that’s is not what we should judge because they are not Trump’s exact words nor intended meaning. The left is engaging in hyperbole for political reasons and we should not be misled.
I’m not a Trump fan, but I do believe in being fair. Trump has been visciously maligned by untruths and as an American I resent that and so should you.
Now, that being said Trump has engaged in hyperbole too and I strongly take offense to some of his remarks. When he does that he doesn’t come across as Presidential material and I’ve yet to hear a coherent plan for accomplishing his lofty goals..equally troubling.
Thanks for re-posting this Jack. Wish we could write it in the sky so the college kids could see that the label is pure political bologna.
I also agree completely with your post script.
The law professor’s article is a good one, and I agree with him.
Comparing one’s political opponents to Hitler is nothing new. Lefties did it to Bush, righties did it to Obama. Heck, at one point the Heartland Institute took out billboards comparing anyone who believed the scientific consensus regarding climate change as equivalent to Hitler. There’s even a term for it–“Godwin’s law”–that asserts the longer a political debate goes on, the more likely someone is going to accuse someone of being like Hitler. The first person to do so is generally considered the loser of the debate.
These comparisons are more common with Trump, and come from both sides, for several reasons. First, he’s been pretty transparent that he gives even less of a damn about the separation of powers than either Bush or Obama, and has said he would use his federal power to order war crimes such as torture (he’s honest enough to actually use that word) and murder of the family members of terrorists. When asked what he would do if the military refused to comply with such illegal orders, he simply said they wouldn’t refuse him. He’s also expressed admiration for Putin, and when asked about his practice of having journalists disappeared has said simply “At least he’s a leader,” which is extraordinarily creepy. He has exhorted his supporters to violence, and said he would cover their legal fees for attacking protesters. It doesn’t rise to the level of Hitler and his brown shirts, but Trump is clear about his dictatorial aspirations.
Second, there is his religious bigotry. Islamophobia does not equate directly with anti-Semitism, for the reason that radical Islam is truly a threat, and the professor gives other reasons why the Hitler comparison is overblown. Still, his proposal to ban Islamic immigration–yes, even temporarily, even while citing security concerns–is by definition religious bigotry. It’s also something no foreign policy expert has supported, and dozens have come out to condemn as unnecessary and counter-productive. This is unprecedented territory for modern US presidential candidates.
Finally, there is his racism. And yes, the full quote was racist:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Where to begin? How about with “They’re not sending you,” thus drawing an us vs. them duality between Americans and Mexicans (the people Mexico is sending), “you” being the good people and “them” being a scary foreign enemy. He uses “they’re” four times to refer to “Mexico’s people”–again, Mexicans–with ugly stereotypes that nearly rise to the level of blood libel. He concludes with “And some, I assume, are good people,” a laughable attempt to make his statement sound less bigoted, but really just implies that *most* are NOT good people (the opposites of “some” are “most,” “many,” and “all.”). Of course this is racist–it’s absurd to argue otherwise. It’s also completely false, as every single fact checker concluded immediately after the speech; the majority of Mexican immigrants are nothing like this (and the phrase “When Mexico sends its people” applies to both illegal and legal immigrants).
I don’t really care about Trump’s “intent”–if he didn’t intend for his words to sound racist, he should have chosen completely different words, and he has never apologized for this racist statements. I care much more about the effects of his words, which have largely been to strengthen white supremacist groups, which started endorsing Trump immediately after this speech (gee, why is that?) and also led to a hate crime against a Hispanic man done in Trump’s name, which Trump refused to condemn (gee, why is that?).
So no, Trump is not much like Hitler, but such comparisons arent necessary. Trump is bad enough on his own–there is no exaggeration necessary to condemn him. One only has to copy-paste his exact words to condemn him. He indicts himself as an unethical, hateful and stupid bully every time he opens his mouth.
Tina: “Paraphrasing now…that sometimes we get criminals coming across the border (rapists, theives, drug dealers, etc.). That’s not a shocker is it? We do get those people right along with all other types.”
Tina, the problem here is that that is NOT an accurate paraphrase of Trump’s words. You are changing the meaning entirely.
Trump said “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best.” That’s not a “sometimes” phrase. That’s an “always” or “mostly” phrase. It’s a broad generalization. If I say “When I go to the ice cream store, I get chocolate,” I’m generalizing; interpreting that to mean I “sometimes” get chocolate instead of mostly or always would not make sense within the rules of the English language.
This is further shown at the end of that quote, when he says, “And some, I assume, are good people,” meaning that his previous statements apply to the majority of Mexican immigrants, and only “some” do not fit those nasty generalizations.
The statement is thus false; it is a fact that most people that Mexico “sends” are not rapists, murderers, or thieves. So Trump is making a generalizing negative statement about a group of immigrants (both legal and illegal) from a particular country and ethnic group.
That’s racist by definition.
No one can dispute that some criminals come over the border. But that’s not what Trump said.
You accuse the left of “re-interpreting” Trump’s statement to make it seem more racist, but really you’re the one re-interpreting Trump’s statement to make it less.
Now, I understand Trump isn’t the greatest English speaker, despite his insistence that “I know words. I have the best words.” (Yes, he really said this. Look up the video. It’s hilarious.) Perhaps he didn’t mean to say what he said. But that doesn’t change the fact that he said it, and his gross sloppiness–and his complete refusal to acknowledge that there are any deficiencies in his bizarre stream-of-consciousness speaking style–is just one more reason he should never be trusted as president, a job that requires a great deal of clear speaking and careful diplomacy.
Apologies–I thought the post script was written by Tina, but I guess I should have addressed my comments to Jack.
Noah is being too literal. Trump is a decidedly totalitarian piece of work. He is wildly ignorant of, and impatient with, the workings of a democracy.
The form all this takes will be realized if, Lord help us all, the man is elected.
But Hilter’s regime was thoroughly racist, and so is Trump, so the comparison is entirely apt.
Can we at least agree that Trump is a raving mysoginist?
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/24/media/megyn-kelly-donald-trump-cruz/index.html
Read Bill O’Reilly’s “Hitler’s Last Days” for an eye-opening look at the man who was responsible for the deaths of millions.
TheDonald isn’t even in the running.
I think a valid argument can be made that the comparison could be made, but it has to be based on apples to apples and not apples to oranges. What are the common factors of both men prior to their coming into power. And not on one’s pre-election (Trump) to the other’s post-election? (Hitler)
We know both are/were driven by the need for power and control. Trump has imposed his will by force on those who have opposed him. He’s tried and succeeded to force people out of their homes for his personal and professional gains, and if the mob connection prove to be true he will do so by any and all means possible, legal or not.
Obama and past presidents have used their executive powers to circumvent congress. Obama has been forced in court to undo only some of his EOs. The stage, as Jonathan Turley has said, has been set for the next presidents to be “uber/emperors” and to rule by fiat.
We know the maniac Hitler became, we don’t know yet how far Trump will go. I for one hope we never find out.
Interesting read.
The analysis of Adolf Hitler’s personality: (Appears to be a translation of another language.)
“Alfred Adler’s psychoanalytic theory is, people have the feeling of insecurity and inferiority, they need to strive for success in their life. Just like Hitler, the driving force behind his thought, emotion, and behavior is the struggle of striving for superiority. Adolf Hitler’s young age is not easy, his inferiority and insecurity feeling caused him fall in to misery. Regardless of human’s ethic and moral, Adolf Hitler was an ambitious person. In young age, he dreamed to be an artist. Hitler work hard to strive for the success in life, he spend time to learn how to draw painting, he take long journey from a small town come to Vienna, leaving his mother just to achieve his dream. Even though he not selected from the art academy, but he never give up his dream, he never stop to draw, rather he still keep on learn to paint. During World War I, he wished he is a successful soldier, he never gave up even though German had surrendered. Eventually he became the successful dictator of Nazi Germany.
From the biopsychology perspective, Adolf Hitler’s temperament and personality inherited from his father. Both of them are rigid, stubborn, grumpy, and hostile person. Their relationship getting worst, when both of them are persist to their own will.
From the big five personality perspective, Adolf Hitler is a Neuroticism person, he was the person that often experience emotional instability, and much of them are negative emotions, like sad, anxiety, irritability and anger. From his book the “Mein Kamf”, when he described that how being despised, betrayed by Jews, we can see he was a neurotic, paranoid person. From his book, he interpreted the ordinary situation as threatening, and the minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. He can’t make rational judgement on what is the right and wrong, conversely bias, prejudice. Perhaps this the main reason that how he became extremely anti-Semitism.”
http://learningofpsychology.blogspot.com/2012/07/analysis-of-adolf-hitlers-personality.html
I’d like to know why someone like Trump, who works with and hires minorities, is labeled…permanently stamped, “racist,” but people like Bill Clinton and VP Biden are excused for racist comments. Bill and Joe are the good guys, loved, admired and elevated to high status. Trump is racist Hitler. Chris? Libby?
You need to be more specific, Tina. You’ve brought up specific statements from Biden and Clinton before that you viewed as racist, and I’ve addressed those individually. For example, Clinton’s (alleged) statement that “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee” could be taken as wistful longing for the “good old days,” or a simple acknowledgement of reality; it could even have a positive meaning of “look how far we’ve come.” Without context we don’t know. Biden’s “clean and articulate” comments were much worse, but he was still attempting to challenge stereotypes, he just did so in a very clumsy way which ended up reinforcing ugly stereotypes. He also, unless I’m mistaken, apologized for those comments.
Trump’s statement was clearly intended–and served–to create fear among Americans directed at a specific ethnic group. There was no possible alternate meaning to what he said; he was demonizing the majority of a country and its immigrants, for the purpose of creating an “us vs. them” mentality that he has consistently continued to fan for nearly a year now. He has also never apologized for his unambiguously racist statements. Trump also tweeted the ludicrously false claim that over 80% of white homicide victims are killed by blacks, another claim he never apologized for. Given his continued habit of spreading fear of Mexican immigrants, his initial refusal to condemn the KKK, as well as his religious bigotry and rampant sexism, I don’t think the racist label is at all unfair. He is what he is.
Not buying a word of it!
Your excuses for BC and JB are pathetic given your stance on Trump.
The so-called fear factor is easily explained by the number of race based organizations whose purpose is to agitate to create raw emotional responses and the media that feeds off of it. It’s as pathetic as the kids on the campus that were worked into a frenzy by Trumps name written in chalk on the sidewalk.
You are free to have your opinions about What Trump meant but be clear, it is just your opinion.
We vs them is the tactic used by your party. It is the game being played to deny Trump the presidency. You belong to the group that thrives on calling opponents racist, dividing people according to groups and pitting groups against each other.
When it comes to crossing our border it is a we vs them situation; they are breaking and disrespecting our immigration law.
I would also hope that when it comes to drug dealers, murderers and rapist you can get on board with a we vs them mentality. There are some things that need to be made distinct. We DO need to secure our border to minimize or eliminate the problems trump mentioned. See here
And I will remind all of us that Mexico DID/DOES have a program in place to help people coming from Central and South America to quickly move through Mexico and in to America.
You didn’t really answer the question I asked either. Doubt if you ever will.
What question? Why Trump is branded a racist and Biden and Clinton aren’t? Of course I answered that question; I analyzed their respective statements in great detail and pointed out the differences between them.
You called my answer an “excuse,” when really it was an explanation, and then failed to show why my explanation didn’t hold up. If you don’t like my answer, then explain why using logic. But don’t claim I didn’t answer it.
“Of course I answered that question; I analyzed their respective statements in great detail and pointed out the differences between them.”
Which doesn’t explain the left electorate.
Jo Biden has made numerous “racist” or condescending/pandering “other” comments:
Regarding Somali immigrants: ““If you ever come to the train station with me, you’ll notice that I have great relationships with them because there’s an awful lot of them driving cabs and are friends of mine. For real. I’m not being solicitous. I’m being serious.”
Referring to Mitt Romney: “He is going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, unchain Wall Street. He is going to put y’all back in chains.”
Biden uses Jewish slur referring to subprime crisis: ” “People would come to him and talk about what was happening at home in terms of foreclosure, in terms of bad loans that were being—I mean, these Shylocks who took advantage of these women and men while overseas.”
Biden at a campaign event: “You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking!”
Then there was his remark about Obama: “I mean you’ve got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking guy.”
And hey…he’s “not joking!”
Huffington Post comments on Joe using the same tired excuses:
Controversial is not a label and, tee hee, he adds humor to the world of politics.
How is it that your side can can so easily dismiss the words and actions of your candidates and spokespersons?
Bill Clinton, was freed from negative labels and he was elevated to “stardom” while you continually apply different standards to others with a less violent, and far less vile, records.
How is it that the charges of rape and assault didn’t permanently tarnish BC’s reputation?
I called your analysis an excuse because from my perspective that’s the purpose for all of that analysis…avoiding the bottom line to continue in the Alinsky game.
BC is accused by more than one woman of rape and assault. He settled out of court with one of them. His workplace flirtation, and then affair, with a young intern, close to his daughters age, was inexcusable but was quietly, and not so quietly applauded. Feminists stood in line to offer their services.
Mr. Trump is a misogynist over words; Mr. Clinton is a hottie, a man to emulate and admire even with his despicable record of using and abusing women and young girls.
From my perspective you’re all a bunch of phonies and o your accusations are meaningless.
Tina, you’ve shown that Biden has a disturbing pattern of racist and anti-Semitic statements. I cannot argue that.
All I will say is that the statements you highlighted seem to be the result of ignorance. Inexcusable ignorance, but ignorance all the same. Most racism is based on ignorance; that’s why I try, when practical, to apply the term “racist” to words and statements, not people. Everyone is ignorant in some aspect of racial sensitivity, and everyone has learned prejudices and beliefs based on stereotypes, because those are all around us.
What I don’t see in Biden’s statements is malice. His statements on Indians and Syrian immigrants seemed to be meant to be playful and even, in his mind, friendly. That doesn’t excuse them; he is the Vice President, he should know better. But he doesn’t seem to hate or distrust any particular ethnic group.
Trump goes further, and his statements are downright malicious. Sure, saying Syrian immigrants all drive cabs and Indians all own convenience stores is offensive. But if you can see that, how can you not see labeling Mexican immigrants as rapists (which is what Trump did) as far worse? How can you not see proposing we ban all Muslim immigration as worse?
Biden’s racism is still racism, but it’s manageable. It’s the kind of thing you roll your eyes at when you uncle starts talking at Thanksgiving dinner, before giving him a polite correction. Saying that Mexican immigrants are mostly criminals and rapists, or that we need to ban an entire religious group from entering the US, goes beyond that. That’s the kind of thing where you either condemn the words explicitly, or get up and leave the table.
There is a difference.
“How is it the charges of rape and assault didn’t permanently tarnish BC’s reputation.”
Because people didn’t believe the charges. It’s really that simple.
*SIGH*
Here we go again with the specious PC twits spewing the usual hand-wringing, brain dead left-wing nonsense about “Islamphobia” and racism and such.
A few points —
It is not Islamophobic to recognize that Islam and the language and directives of the Koran is at the root of Islamic terrorism and that Islamic terrorism is a huge global problem.
There is also a huge problem with illegal immigrants flooding our country. Immigrants that bring a plethora of problems along with them. Recognizing that drug trafficking, human trafficking, sex slavery, and violent crime are part and parcel of the problem with a porous boarder is not racist. This is not about any identifiable racial group. It is not bigotry. These are real problems. By the way, we do not see a whole lot of doctors and lawyers and engineers and business professionals and skilled workers coming here illegally by the truck load.
Besides the glaring fact Mexican, Central American, South American is not race. These people are no more of a race than North Americans are a race. If you want to identify true racism, you need look no further than La Raza.
As for misogyny, complaining about Trump being a jerk when Islam is a virulently misogynist religion that suppresses, oppresses, and abuses girls and women world wide rings a bit hollow if not just plain stupid.
But then, that is the left for you.
Pie: “It is not Islamophobic to recognize that Islam and the language and directives of the Koran is at the root of Islamic terrorism and that Islamic terrorism is a huge global problem…Recognizing that drug trafficking, human trafficking, sex slavery, and violent crime are part and parcel of the problem with a porous boarder is not racist…”
Ok. Fine. I never said any of that WAS Islamophobic or racist.
In fact, I was very, very clear about which of Trump’s statements I *was* referring to as racist and Islamophobic. For some reason, you chose not to address any of those, and to instead argue with a strawman. I don’t know why you did that, unless you found my actual argument too hard to rebut, and felt like you had to make up an argument and attribute it to me in order to respond.
You do this a lot.
As usual, I invite you to reply to the arguments I’ve actually made, not arguments that I have not made.
“There is also a huge problem with illegal immigrants flooding our country”
There really, really isn’t.
More Mexican immigrants have returned to Mexico from the U.S. than have migrated here since the end of the Great Recession, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of newly available government data from both countries. The same data sources also show the overall flow of Mexican immigrants between the two countries is at its smallest since the 1990s, mostly due to a drop in the number of Mexican immigrants coming to the U.S.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/
The ones that went home aren’t the problem.
Breitbart:
The left CAN”T talk about this for fear of being labeled a bigot. The little soldiers all march in a row. But the problem is real and it is a problem that affects people on both sides of the border.
The current president has been as inept/AWOL on this issue as he has at everything else.
Sheesh Chris, do you always have to be such a two faced liar? You just went on a rant declaring “Trump’s underlying ideology of xenophobia and Islamophobia” and more.
You make broad, statements and then run from them in denial. It is an annoying and tiresome sophomoric . little game you play
Yes, and I gave specific examples of Trump’s racism and xenophobia, which were very different from the examples you said were NOT racism or xenophobia.
Again, if you would like to address my specific arguements, do so. You are still playing your game of ignoring those and engaging in false accusations and insults, because that’s all you have.
Chris makes some good points about Trumps use of the language. I don’t think misuse of the language constitutes racism nor do I think it should be translated to a a permanent label…but that is the intent behind all of this speculation and attitude. There is much more in Trumps everyday reality to suggest he is not racist.
Chris criticizes Trumps “generalized” statement: “That’s an “always” or “mostly” phrase. It’s a broad generalization.”
And later generalizes himself, in an effort to minimize the overall point being made by Trump: “No one can dispute that some criminals come over the border.”
Trump was speaking about those who ARE criminals, repeat criminals, cartel members, human traffickers, rapists, murderers, and kidnappers. It may not be most of them but it sure as hell remains a big problem. Landowners are being intimidated and their land trashed. Trump was talking about the elements that ARE a big problem because our border is not secure and not respected…INCLUDING by the Mexican government that strictly and brutally secures it’s southern border.
This is a common tactic of the left. A means of dismissing the problem to avoid honest debate, winning by intimidation and attempts to slander.
Our immigration system is NOT WORKING. That was Trumps point.
Chris: “Can we at least agree that Trump is a raving mysoginist?”
I’d argue that Trump can’t take criticism. He hits back and when he does he gets “nasty,” his favorite term for Cruz. The man hires too many women, adores and is adored by too many women to be called a “mysoginist.” This is, once again, a gross exaggeration designed to malign and dismiss. Same old lefty game.
Misogyny: the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.
It begins with hatred or dislike and the discrimination, belittling, violence, and objectification follows from that hatred. That’s different from making remarks about a specific person that may or may not be true for other reasons.
I repeat my earlier question on a different theme. Why is Bill Clinton held up as an icon and hero by the left and Donald Trump negatively labeled a misogynist? I’d say Bill Clinton’s record of behavior and hid covert attitude is much more graphically and personally worse.
Tina: “The man hires too many women, adores and is adored by too many women to be called a “mysoginist””
Tina, that is a really silly and naive argument.
Surely you can understand that it is possible for someone to have female friends, even respect and look up to individual women, while still having negative and disrespectful views of women *as a whole?*
There’s a reason “Some of my best friends are black” is now a joke–as a defense against racism, it’s seen as extraordinarily stupid, because one can have black friends and still have prejudicial attitudes toward blacks as a whole. If you’re a white guy who has black friends but constantly calls black people you don’t like the “n” word or uses demeaning stereotypes to hurt them, that’s still racist.
Likewise, the fact that Trump hires minorities and women does nothing to disprove the fact that he displays a hostile attitude toward women and minorities when addressing them as groups.
Trump does attack everyone, but he has attacked the physical appearance of his female critics in ways that he would not attack men. Just the other day he tweeted out a side-by-side meme of his wife vs. Cruz’s, mocking Heidi Cruz’s physical appearance. He has also said “Who would vote for that face?” about Carly Fiorina, suggested Megyn Kelly asked him about his record of demeaning statements about women because she was on her period, and called women he disagrees with “fat pigs.” The sexist nature of his attacks on women makes the label “mysoginist” perfectly apt.
As for Clinton–the only proven allegation about him is that he’s an adulterer with a taste for younger women. The rest are accusations, some of which are more credible than others. Trump displays his misogyny openly. That’s the difference. Is it unfair? If the allegations against Clinton are true, then yes. If the allegations are false, then no. I don’t know whether they’re true, though, and you don’t either. (And it’s worth pointing out Trump has also been accused of rape by one of his former wives, though she later recanted.)
“Chris makes some good points about Trumps use of the language. I don’t think misuse of the language constitutes racism”
When it is used to smear immigrants from a particular nation, of course it does.
“Chris criticizes Trumps “generalized” statement: “That’s an “always” or “mostly” phrase. It’s a broad generalization.”
And later generalizes himself, in an effort to minimize the overall point being made by Trump: “No one can dispute that some criminals come over the border.””
Huh? What part of that are you saying is a generalization? “No one?” You’re right, but that’s not on par with Trump’s generalization smearing an entire ethnic group. Generalizations aren’t always bad. Trump’s generalization was dangerous, and people have used it to excuse actual violence in the case of anti-Latino hate crimes.
“Trump was speaking about those who ARE criminals, repeat criminals, cartel members, human traffickers, rapists, murderers, and kidnappers. It may not be most of them but it sure as hell remains a big problem.”
But Trump said it WAS most of them. That’s what makes his comments racist.
“Surely you can understand that it is possible for someone to have female friends, even respect and look up to individual women, while still having negative and disrespectful views of women *as a whole?*
I think that is a ridiculous statement. I wasn’t talking about friends and relatives or a few people he admires. I was talking about the numbers of women who hold executive positions in his businesses.
You have a whole set of PC rules Chris. I’m not interested in them. I’m not interested in measuring every word and making lists and dividing people into categories of good and bad. The whole game makes me what to vomit.
“one can have black friends and still have prejudicial attitudes toward blacks as a whole.”
That is true for any human being on any point of prejudice. It is meaningless garbage. It is the stuff of PC that drives everyone so flippin’ crazy today. People judge each other; get over it! Black people are no different. the only reason to keep track of that crap is to create division…to further division.
You don’t get Trump. You judge him and then place him in the undesirable box. Trump is a New Yorker. He’s “walkin here” and you are affronted. So be it.
I’m going to bed…night all.
Tina, saying people shouldn’t vote for Carly Fiorina because “who would vote for that face,” that Megyn Kelly asked Trump a tough question because she was on her period, and telling a female Apprentice contestant that she “would look good on her knees,” are all prima facie examples of misogyny. That’s simply by definition; there’s no debate here. And if liberal men had said these things, you’d be the first to say they are sexist. If Bill Maher (who is a misogynist) said them, you would have no trouble labeling him a misogynist. Heck, I can’t see you having a hard time labeling Trump this way back when he WAS a Democrat.
His slurs against women have been even more obvious and overt than his slurs against Mexicans and Muslims; I can’t believe we’re even debating whether they are misognystic.
“the only reason to keep track of that crap is to create division…to further division.”
What do you mean by “that crap?” Racism? Because the purpose of keeping track of that is to *point out* racism, which is necessary to *reduce* division.
I can understand that for someone whose primary experience with racism is hearing about it on the Internet, you might see “people talking about racism” as the problem. But that’s not the problem. Actual racism is.
“…you would have no trouble labeling him a misogynist”
The only time misogyny comes up is when you bring it but by up. I don’t spend a lot of time on the things people say or keeping score cards. I rebut what is said, not by defending it, but by pointing out the double standard.
I’m more interested in policy and the things they affect, like the economy, our wallets, the ability to do business, energy, the results in our schools and our liberties.
For a personal example, I’m sure your old friend OneVike greatly respects you personally, loves his wife, and if he has daughters, loves them too. But he still believes the world would be better off if women didn’t have the right to vote, because women are too emotional whereas men nearly always vote logically (and never just pick the guy they’d like to have a beer with). So he’s still a misogynist.
What? So there?
Pathetic.
A more substantive point has been made by Andrew C.McCarthy that includes revelations about how the term “Islamophobic” came to be:
As always McCarthy delivers…please read,
Incubators of Islamic Supremacism.
McCarthy is advising Ted Cruz, my choice for president.
The notions that Trump is a racist, an “Islamophobe” (if there is actually such a thing), a misogynist, and a xenophobe are just so much specious, poisonous, overblown left-wing PC hype, the sort of obnoxious hype that Trump supporters are so tired of.
Clearly Trump is a loose cannon jerk with a big fat mouth who says rude things and whose ideas and the way he presents them are not well thought out.
Trump recognizes the dangers inherent in Islam and the myriad of problems Europe is having with Muslim refugees and immigrants and the terrorism and Islamic extremism that follows them. This is not “Islamophobia.” “Islamophobia” is a slur tossed around liberally by Islamic activists and left-wing fools.
Trump recognizes the problems inherent with a porous southern boarder. This is not anti-ethnic, anti-Latino, racist bigotry. Latinos are not even a race, unless you subscribe to the racist rhetoric of La Raza.
Trump says stupid and rude things about women but that does not him a woman hater, he is just an obnoxious pig like Rosie O’Donnell.
Clearly, part of the phenomena of Trump is that so many Americans are completely fed up with the constant barrage of accusations of racism, xenophobia, bigotry, misogyny, Islamophobia, and a thousand other slurs the left like to sling about with gusto.
If there is any one group that is a significant contributor to the Trump phenomena, it is the obnoxious PC left in this country. It is people like Chris.
McCarthy is wrong. The term Islamophobe serves to describe people who impart the threat manifested by adherents of violent Jihad to the Islamic population entirely: people like Trump, Cruz, and you all, who insist that measures needed to deal with these nasty individuals should be applied to all members of the faith.
Libby there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about the way you hear something. You hear and believe what you want to hear and believe. You have also shown an incredible unwillingness to stop playing the stupid labeling game.
Just because you think that when people speak about Islamic terrorists they are “describing the Islamic population entirely,” doesn’t make it so. In fact, were it not for the insidious and this. But more importantly, the Muslim community would not be feeling the so-called “hate” you foster with these stupid, specious accusations.
The Islamic population does have a problem. Their holy book is being used as a guide by terrorists, enabling and empowering them to commit murder in the name of Allah. This isn’t a problem the West, or the Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Buddists, Yazidis, Satanists, Wiccans, or any other groups can change.
The enemy murders and oppresses all of us.
Get with the program or forever remain stuck in a dangerous and stupid political game for power that ultimately serves the ends of jihadist terrorists. Either way we have your number; we get what you’re doing.
Trump did no propose a total ban on Muslim immigration?
Cruz did not propose that Muslim communities in this country should be turned into some kind of ghettoised police state?
We hear real good. I don’t know why you bother with these non-denials denials.
In the NYT, I think it was called “Lose with Cruz – A Love Story” … a good read.
Your imagination once again runs wild…no wonder you hate on us with such a vitriolic poisonous mouth.
What you describe are a couple of sensible, TEMPORARY, tactics aimed at keeping the American people safe (including Muslim Americans, you twit). Ted Cruz is well aware of the Constitution and understands the law. He understands what is permissible and I imagine he would also seek assistance within the Muslim community and within our prisons.
Please explain how not doing these things makes better sense, given the poor record of the appeaser?
Please note too that nothing that’s been proposed is worse than effectively offering a free wide open door (Obama) or opening our intelligence to the enemy (Hillary Clinton).
Chris: “Everyone is ignorant in some aspect of racial sensitivity…”
Which is why we don’t need hall monitors or score cards.
Labeling, and negative campaigning have been a very effective political tools. It shouldn’t surprise you to hear this stuff. Trump has been called all kinds of names too and people have made fun of his hair. People say things. ALL people have the same capacity to be “insensitive.” You are incredibly insensitive to the plight of small business owners, I suspect due to your inexperience and ignorance. I don;t think Trump is any more malicious than anyone else in this race; he is right up front about it though. Some people appreciate that, especially now when we’ve been deceived and lied to so often by smooth talking politicians.
Racism > making fun of people’s hair.
Jeez, Tina.
Chris, If it’s “really that simple” why is the simplicity so partisan?
What happened to “the seriousness of the charge?” (Used against Clarence Thomas over a twenty year old, trumped up, specious charges – that HBO dragged out again in biased movie form to do damage)
You guys are making a really big deal, once again over words, about a republican candidate and at the same time making every excuse in the book for a woman candidate who’s under criminal investigation and with a husband who’s been accused of rape and assault by several women.
I’m having a bit of difficulty taking your objections seriously….as I wrote, Trump is just walking here. This New Yorker may not look “presidential” but neither does lying, acting like you get to have special accommodations, and putting at risk operatives in the field and the security of our nation.
Try thinking in terms of a double standard. Try admitting that when it comes to racist speech, misogyny, or criminality, Democrats rarely pay the price because you guys don’t hold them to the same standards.
Tina, saying that Trump simply has a “New Yorker attitude” is to condemn all New Yorkers as racist, sexist, ignorant pigs.
I don’t believe that’s true of most New Yorkers, and I think they’d be insulted by the comparison.
Trump. Is. Different. And nearly everyone worth respecting–on both the left and right–can see that.
Why can’t you?
A must read, especially for Trump supporters.
An Open Letter to Trump Voters from His Top Strategist-Turned-Defector:
“I respect Trump’s fans. That’s why I can no longer support the man himself.
Even Trump’s most trusted advisors didn’t expect him to fare this well.
Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it.
The Trump camp would have been satisfied to see him polling at 12% and taking second place to a candidate who might hold 50%. His candidacy was a protest candidacy.
It pains me to say, but he is the presidential equivalent of Sanjaya on American Idol. President Trump would be President Sanjaya in terms of legitimacy and authority.
And I am now taking full responsibility for helping create this monster — and reaching out directly to those voters who, like me, wanted Trump to be the real deal.
My support for Trump began probably like yours did. Similar to so many other Americans, I was tired of the rhetoric in Washington. Negativity and stubbornness were at an all-time high, and the presidential prospects didn’t look promising.
In 2015, I fell in love with the idea of the protest candidate who was not bought by corporations. A man who sat in a Manhattan high-rise he had built, making waves as a straight talker with a business background, full of successes and failures, who wanted America to return to greatness.
I was sold.”
continued..
http://www.xojane.com/issues/stephanie-cegielski-donald-trump-campaign-defector
Tina, this is going to sound harsh, but:
Describing Trump’s proposal of temporalily banning all Muslim immigration as “sensible” is a disqualifying statement; it’s enough to reveal that you know so little about foreign policy that you should avoid ever discussing the subject, lest you embarrass yourself further.
Not a single mainstream foreign policy expert has endorsed such a proposal, and many have spoken out against it, explaining that such a ban would only increase ISIS’ power; not only would Muslims feel further cut off from American’s culture, they would be physically cut off as well. Muslim refugees fleeing the violence of ISIS would be stuck there, giving ISIS more people to victimize as well as recruit. And make no mistake, a ban on Muslim immigration would be the ultimate recruiting tool, proof that America is unwelcoming to Muslims. This would encourage radicalism both abroad and at home; and the “at home” variety is the kind we need to be the most concerned about, as homegrown terrorism is much more common than terrorism by first generation immigrants. In addition, a ban on Muslim immigrants would increase hate crimes against Muslims in the US, which have already been growing since the Paris attack, and further divide Muslims from the mainstream of American society, perhaps leading to the type of self-segregation than exists in European countries (but has so far not been a big problem here).
One expert makes a similar case here:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/opinions/trump-isis/
It doesn’t take a foreign policy expert to make such predictions; all of these are obvious outcomes, and you could have easily predicted them yourself if you weren’t so desperate for an easy solution to the problem of terrorism. You’re not thinking about this problem logically, you’re thinking through the lens of fear.
You say you don’t generalize against all Muslims but you support a policy that would discriminate against all Muslim immigrants. That’s absurd.
A ban on Muslim immigration may be constitutional, but it would still damage our national security far more than it would improve it. It would increase terrorism and the power of groups like ISIS.
This is anything but a “sensible” plan. It’s perhaps the ugliest, most counter-productive, stupidest proposal made by a candidate known for his ugly, stupid, counter-productive proposals.
You really should know better than this.
Chris your condescending crap attitude has not inspired a desire in me to further read or respond to your closed minded, arrogant opinion. Given your past opinions on foreign policy and your propensity to embrace PC thought and control of language I’m even less inclined.
Have a nice day.
More:
“While Trump assumes that stopping Muslims from entering the U.S. would boost domestic security, experts say such rhetoric bolsters the message of extremist groups like ISIS and, in correlation, increases animosity and potential retribution attacks against the U.S.
“This is precisely what ISIS was aiming for — to provoke communities to commit actions against Muslims,” Arie Kruglanski, a professor of psychology at the University of Maryland who researches what motivates people to become terrorists, told the Washington Post. “Then ISIS will be able to say, ‘I told you so. These are your enemies, and the enemies of Islam.’”
Advertisement
One of ISIS’ primary talking points is about eliminating the “grayzone” of coexistence between Muslims and western society. ISIS gains support by convincing vulnerable youths prone to ideological radicalization that the west has an aversion to Islam and, by extension, their families, their various cultures and societies, and them as individuals.
“Muslims in the West will soon find themselves between one of two choices,” the group published in their online magazine, Dabiq.
Other statements released in Dabiq praised George W. Bush’s words in the aftermath of 9/11. “Bush spoke the truth when he said, ‘Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.’ I.e. either you are with the crusade or you are with Islam.”
During a reporting trip to Tripoli, Lebanon last year I met the family of Khaled, an 18-year-old who traveled to Iraq and performed a suicide operation for ISIS.
Interviews with his mother, eldest brother, mentor, and others shed light on a man driven by his perception of injustice against Sunnis in Iraq.
“He was a kid, a child,” Mohammad, his brother, told me. “He saw Sunni oppression in Iraq and he told me: ‘The American army is killing us. [Iraqi Grand Ayatollah Ali] al-Sistani and Shiite groups are killing us. The Iraqi government is killing us, oppressing us and raping women and killing kids. I want to kill them all.’”
His perception that the world is against Sunnis and contributes to their denigration, pushed him to run away from home and join ISIS. All of Khaled’s family and friends that I spoke to said his actions went against their beliefs, but that they still perceived the west as hostile to Islam. Statements like Trump’s latest only reinforce that perception and potentially influences people who are susceptible to ISIS propaganda.
“This matters…the world watches this. The world sees the leading political candidate from one party making these kind of statements and still doing well and having these rallies,” NBC’s Richard Engel told Rachel Maddow on Monday. “Those are going around the world right now, and people realize this person is leading in the polls. That must be what Americans think. I was today with an Ambassador from the Middle East.”
“And he said, well, people in our country watch what is going on, and it makes us very concerned,” Engel said. “So from the world perspective, it is absolutely an image, an impression, a black spot on our collective foreign policy and our conscience. And it also just feeds into the ISIS narrative.”
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/12/08/3729467/why-trumps-call-for-keeping-muslims-out-undermines-national-security/
If your goal is to help ISIS eliminate the “gray zone” between Islam and the West, and to help them further their goal of all-out war between Islam and the West, then by all means, Tina, support Trump’s plan to ban all members of the world’s third largest religion from entering the country (temporarily! That means it’s ok, like if the US “temporalily” bans women named Tina from blogging since some are inadvertently helping ISIS, that makes it better somehow!).
If, however, your goal is peace: don’t.
I haven’t supported the plan (really a proposal) but instead the right to make such a proposal without being labeled a Nazi!
Campaigns are rife wit nutty proposals, 90% tax rates for instance. Or the inane claim by a certain candidate that if his supporters worked hard to elect him, “…generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.”
Campaign rhetoric is what it is. I prefer substance.
Must I reiterate: I AM A CRUZ SUPPORTER!
Tina: “I haven’t supported the plan (really a proposal) but instead the right to make such a proposal without being labeled a Nazi!”
You called the proposal “sensible.” And I did not label Trump a Nazi for this proposal (in fact, I specifically said that was inappropriate hyperbole; I explained why it would be counter-productive, dangerous, bigoted, and morally wrong.
Yes, I have a condescending attitude toward people who think banning an entire religious group from entering the country is “sensible.” I have an extra condescending attitude toward people who say that, and then complain when they are accurately told that they are being intolerant of Muslims. That is a fair attitude to have toward such hypocritical and short-sighted people.
“Campaigns are rife wit nutty proposals, 90% tax rates for instance.”
What campaign has proposed 90% tax rates?
“Or the inane claim by a certain candidate that if his supporters worked hard to elect him, “…generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.””
That’s not what Obama said.
This is what he said:
“In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again…
…So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that’s better, and kinder, and more just.
And so it must be for us.
America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/03/obamas-nomination-victory_n_105028.html
Nowhere in there did he say that these things would happen simply because people elected Barack Obama. He was giving a speech to inspire people, and it worked; it was a great speech. You are twisting it into something selfish and cynical, as you always do with anything said by people of the party you oppose.
It is sensible. We are being told that terrorists are embedding in refugee groups. We have been told the vetting process is sketchy. We’ve experienced an uptick in terror attacks. We have intelligence and ISIS video that point to another big attack in America soon. We have evidence that a nuclear power plant may be compromised in Brussels.
ALL IDEAS ARE WORTHY OF SERIOUS CONSIDERATION!
Any fool who thinks we should worry about anything but the security of the nation first is nutty, especially when we are talking about proposals and ideas.
Hot Air post excerpt from interview with CNBC’s John harwood:
Think Progress, featured the interview in an article, “Bernie Sanders Would Tax The Income Of The Wealthiest Americans At 90 Percent” and then went on to quote the opinions of radical left economists spouting the usual about the wealthy and the effects of high rates.
There’s a rebuttal to that opinion here
Your full quote from Obama is even more insane…he was running for office and talking about what electing him would mean…inspiring them to ELECT HIM!!!!!
The fact remains that none of what he said reflects how he actually governed OR what he (or any human) could accomplish.
I repeat, campaigns are rife wit[h] nutty proposals: good jobs to the jobless; rise of the oceans to slow; planet to heal; ended a war; secured our nation; restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.
In every single one of these proposals Obama has failed. His ability to bring people together was dashed by his divisiveness (class and race) in practice, so his “inspiring political rhetoric” was so much dog droppings.
As I wrote elsewhere, I’m more interested in substantive policy proposals than I am in silly campaign rhetoric and spit ball fights. maybe if we all stopped reacting to the crap the media would stop slinging it.
Tina: “Any fool who thinks we should worry about anything but the security of the nation first is nutty…”
Tina, I have already explained that banning all Muslim immigration would *harm* the security of the nation, as well as our prestige around the world, our ability to fight ISIS, and our commitment to equality. So please do not pretend that I have not given thought the the security of the nation; I have. That’s why I oppose this crazy, stupid, counter-productive and dangerous plan.
I have also cited numerous foreign policy and national security experts who have condemned Trump’s proposal. You haven’t responded to any of their arguments against this policy, or any of mine, for that matter.
Can you cite any mainstream experts of this kind that have backed such a restrictive immigration policy? If so, I promise I’ll respond.
“ALL IDEAS ARE WORTHY OF SERIOUS CONSIDERATION!”
Really? “All” ideas? Communism? Nazism? Putting illegal immigrants on the moon? Come on, Tina–you don’t really believe this.
And I *did* seriously consider Trump’s plan, in the sense that I explained, in-depth, why it wouldn’t work. If you really are interested in serious consideration, rather than knee-jerk reactions to proposals that make you feel safer, why haven’t you addressed any of the rational objections to this proposal?
Yeah, the internment of the Japanese was “temporary”, also shameful. Some people don’t learn.
And any all out war between the West and Islam is a fantasy, a rather sick one, of the right. The fact is that, for all they are having a ghastly time getting themselves organized, all your Middle Eastern states recognize an enemy in the IS. We gotta let them deal with it.
As to Belguim. I’ve learned a lot about The social and political organization of Belgium in the last weeks. So have the Belgians, from the sound of things. And they will deal with it.
And the IS will continue to ferret out weaknesses. For heaven’s sake, don’t be one.
Libby: “Yeah, the internment of the Japanese was “temporary”, also shameful. Some people don’t learn.”
Exactly.
What “people” would that be, Libby?
NOBODY has suggested, hinted at, declared, or promoted an “all out war” with Islam. This is a specious radical left ACCUSATION in the Saul Alinsky tradition.
We don’t “gotta let them deal with it” when they are blowing up Americans on American soil, European soil, and Middle Eastern, African, and Asian soil. We do gotta have a leader capable of coordinating the efforts to defeat them and their twisted religious ideology with those who prefer to live free and in peace.
Of course Belgium will “deal with it.” Who has suggested otherwise?
Your concerns for me regarding “weakness” are hysterical, not to mention misplaced. A better target for your emotions would be the weak, feckless, enemy supporting place holder in the WH. And you, who has referred to these monsters as “poor boys.” How weak and mealy mouthed can you get?
“NOBODY has suggested, hinted at, declared, or promoted an “all out war” with Islam.”
Pie has come pretty close, writing that “President Bush was correct to emphasize that we are not at war with Islam, but Islam is at war with humanity and basic human rights.”
I’m not quite sure how war can be one-sided; how can a group be at war with us, if we are not at war with them?
But what we are saying is that the proposal to ban Muslim immigration gives off the perception that we are at war with Islam, which ISIS will use to their advantage. Other proposals that have been made here, such as refusing security clearance for Muslims, would have the same effect, basically making Muslims second-class citizens. (Part of Trump’s proposal was to not let Muslim Americans back into the country if they travel abroad. Travel would then become a luxury for non-Muslims only. How is that anything but religious discrimination? Banning Muslim immigration may be constitutional, but this more overlooked part of Trump’s proposal would certainly not be.)
Tina: “ThinkProgress, featured the interview in an article, “Bernie Sanders Would Tax the Income of the Wealthiest Americans at 90 Percent””
And their headline is obviously inaccurate, as the transcript of the interview shows; he never said that was his plan, just that such a rate on the top earners was not “obviously too high,” and he’s clarified numerous times he’s not supporting going back to that rate. He also correctly pointed out that this was the top rate in the early 1950s.
While I think 90% on the top earners is too high and would hurt the economy, and agree that Sanders shares some things in common with Trump (such as a tendency to promise big things and be very vague on how he can deliver), this is not even in the same league as proposing to ban all Muslim immigration. Trump’s proposal to do this isn’t just wrong because it’s impractical, it’s wrong because it’s bigoted, hateful, and contributes to targeting a minority group that already constitutes the second most common victims of hate crimes based on religion. It’s not just that the goal is impossible, it’s that the goal is disgusting.
Ditto for the Obama speech, which was overly optimistic, but still rousing and inspirational; the values imparted, other than nativity, were positive ones. Proposing to not let in any more Muslims into the US is sick, xenophobic, and monstrous. It has nothing to do with keeping America safe, since it would increase the power of ISIS, it’s about reaching the ignorant, hateful, anti-Muslim base that makes up Trump’s racist and bigoted followers.
Sorry, that should say, “the values imparted, other than naïveté, are positive ones.” And when I said “Ditto for the Obama speech,” I meant that, like Sanders’ comments, his goals were positive ones even though they were impractical, and thus do not compare to Trump’s blatant religious bigotry in his proposal to essentially ban Muslims from traveling into and out of the United States.
In the eyes and ears of a PC sniffing Stasi, a practical, temporary proposal becomes hatred and bigotry. Proposals are determined solely on the basis of race, sex, or religion…which is one of the major reasons the Obama administration has been such a failure.
It isn’t discrimination to propose this when bunches of them are exploiting the situation and trying to kill us…including free American Muslims!
Tina: “In the eyes and ears of a PC sniffing Stasi, a practical, temporary proposal becomes hatred and bigotry.”
Stop. You are being ridiculous. You are comparing liberals to Nazis for objecting to targeting one particular religion for discrimination. That makes absolutely no sense.
It also makes no sense to continue to pretend that a bigoted policy being “temporary” somehow makes it less bigoted. It doesn’t. Japanese internment was temporary; it was also bigoted. If we placed a ban on Christians owning guns due to shootings at Planned Parenthood, it wouldn’t matter if that ban lasts five years or five days; such a ban would still be bigoted.
It also makes no sense to continue to insist that banning Muslim immigration is in any way “practical,” when I and dozens of national security and foreign policy experts have explained to you the many, many factors that make such a policy impractical and counter-productive. You have offered not one single counter-argument to any of the practical objections to this policy. Not. One.
If you are going to continue to defend this policy, defend it on the merits, not by comparing your opponents to Nazis for being against religious discrimination.
“Proposals are determined solely on the basis of race, sex, or religion…”
You are not paying attention to what you are saying. You are the one defending a policy which would determine whether someone could immigrate based solely on their religion. No one else is doing that. Liberals aren’t doing that. Trump is doing that, and on this matter, he has your support. You have been unable to articulate any plausible reasons for why you support such a clearly damaging policy, one that would jeopardize our security and our reputation on the world stage, and empower ISIS. Because you’ve been unable to articulate any such reasons for religious discrimination, people are going to assume you are being motivated by religious bigotry. That is fair.
“…UNTIL WE CAN FIGURE THIS OUT”
America has in the past for many reasons changed immigration policy. Protecting the American people is job one for the President. This temporary proposal is not about the religion…it IS about the terrorists. Your problem is that you cannot make a distinction between a policy based on discrimination and a policy based on practicality…you automatically assume bigotry guides the thinking…a PC problem.
“We can’t protect and save the lives of our citizens, including Muslim citizens, because we have to cow tow to a ridiculous notion of what constitutes bigotry!” INSANE!
Our current White House occupant has the same position as you. How’s his PC position worked out for the “folks” at Fort Hood, Boston, San Benardino, and Little Rock?
Tina: “…UNTIL WE CAN FIGURE THIS OUT”
I have already explained that a policy being temporary does not make it less bigoted. If you have a counter-argument to this, present it. Otherwise, stop repeating yourself, and stop making me repeat myself.
“Protecting the American people is job one for the President.”
I have already explained that Trump’s policy would not protect the American people, and have cited numerous experts pointing out that it would in fact increase terrorism both at home and abroad. If you have a counter-argument to this, present it. Otherwise, stop repeating yourself, and stop making me repeat myself.
“This temporary proposal is not about the religion…it IS about the terrorists.”
I have already explained the obvious fact that a policy that, by definition, discriminates based on religion is indeed about the religion. If you have a counter-argument to this, present it. Otherwise, stop repeating yourself, and stop making me repeat myself.
“Your problem is that you cannot make a distinction between a policy based on discrimination and a policy based on practicality…”
I have already explained that the policy is wildly impractical, and would empower ISIS while hurting America’s ability to work with our allies. If you have a counter-argument to this, present it. Otherwise, stop repeating yourself, and stop making me repeat myself.
“you automatically assume bigotry guides the thinking…a PC problem.”
I have already explained EXACTLY how and why this policy is by definition bigoted, and I’ve “assumed nothing.” I have explained–not assumed–that the policy is bigoted because it holds an entire religion accountable for the actions of a few, and further isolates us from people we need to have as our allies, many of whom are victims of the very enemy we are fighting. If you have a counter-argument to this, present it. Otherwise, stop repeating yourself, and stop making me repeat myself
““We can’t protect and save the lives of our citizens, including Muslim citizens, because we have to cow tow to a ridiculous notion of what constitutes bigotry!” INSANE!”
I have already explained that this policy would protect no one, and would increase terrorism both at home and abroad by alienating Muslims further, encouraging division which would lead to hate crimes, strengthening ISIS and making us more at risk of a terrorist attack. If you have a counter-argument to this, present it. Otherwise, stop repeating yourself, and stop making me repeat myself.
Now, I am sure reading the last couple sentences of each of the above replies was annoying, Tina. Hopefully now you understand what this conversation has been like for me, since you have done nothing but repeat the exact same points I have already addressed over and over, while stubbornly refusing to present any new points that respond to my objections. Almost every single sentence of your above comment was a point I have already addressed, in detail, and you ignored literally every single thing I said so that you could do nothing but repeat yourself. This is rude; you’re wasting my time and your own.
So, one more time:
If you have a counter-argument to any of my points, present it. Otherwise, stop repeating yourself, and stop making me repeat myself.
Chris I get it; you think your explanations are enlightening. As usual you’re just arrogant.
I’ve also explained the policy proposal was not based on religion. Your assumption that it was is based on your PC training. You cannot think outside that box, so ingrained in social justice are you.
The religion is not the enemy. The religion is the source used by the enemy but it is not the enemy. Muslim Terrorist enemy combatants are the enemy, and they do not wear uniforms or fight on a field of battle. If YOU, with all of your PC rules can explain how to tell one refugee Muslim from another who happens to be an embedded terrorist you let me know. Since we have already experienced refugee terrorist attacks whatever we’re doing is not working. So…this temporary, sensible IDEA, that might or might not ever be adopted, is reasonable to be on the table. It’s a hell of a lot better to consider it than to continue to accept as reasonable collateral damage the hundreds of Americans who were blown to bits, shot up, or maimed because you and your ilk can’t stomach making hard choices or communicating in such a way that both the terrorists and peaceful Muslims could understand your determination and intent to end them. Instead you make me/us the bigger enemy and give terrorists public excuses for what they do over and over again.
You aren’t the only one with experts. There are plenty of experts that think what we’ve been doing has been a disaster. Almost eight years of listening to your expert/s has seen the rise of ISIS, the loss of ground in Iraq won with American blood, the spread of terrorists across the globe, an increase in terror attacks, the nations of the ME in chaos, a stronger Iran, allies that have lost faith in us, and enemies that laugh at us. Good job…well done…so much for your lousy experts!
You wouldn’t recognize a counter argument if it bit you. So do us all a favor; go ahead and STOP repeating yourself!
Tina,
I’ll ask again:
Can you cite any national security or foreign policy experts who have backed Trump’s proposal for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration?
Tina: “If YOU, with all of your PC rules can explain how to tell one refugee Muslim from another who happens to be an embedded terrorist you let me know.”
The same way you tell a normal white Christian American from a mass shooter: you can’t, until tragedy strikes, or until the *individual* acts in such a way as to raise massive red flags. Until that point, you judge people as individuals; you don’t demand that we exclude all people of a certain social group from the great American experiment. That’s Freedom 101.
For someone who so often rants about the evils of collectivism, your support of Trump’s proposal to temporarily ban Muslim immigration shows that you are perfectly willing to sign onto collectivism in your own blood if someone makes you afraid enough to think it will protect you.
Spoiler alert: it won’t. I’m sorry 9/11 broke your brain, and you are willing to give up basic American values in the name of safety, even when every rational and intelligent person of consequence is telling you this plan would not work. I feel sorry for you, but I won’t pretend your support for this policy is any less stupid, monstrous, or bigoted than it clearly is.
“you don’t demand that we exclude all people of a certain social group from the great American experiment.”
Well this explains your hysteria. A temporary ban “until we can figure this out” is not exclusion from the “great American experiment.”
Temporary means temporary.
“you judge people as individuals”
Which is why you lefties do politics by group because you give a crap about individuals. Police officers in America have been targeted and maligned as a group by our president and his justice department. The insinuation is they are out of control and killers of black kids. Bernie Sanders is threatening federal investigation of every police shooting.
I’m not supporting the idea other than to say the idea isn’t born of racism or bigotry. That is a specious, knee jerk PC accusation.
“…you are perfectly willing to sign onto collectivism in your own blood if someone makes you afraid enough to think it will protect you.”
Wow. The drama. It’s not like he’s already president and making deals with sponsors of terrorism, handing them billions of dollars while they laugh in his face or anything. I mean really! It’s not like his policies are flooding the free world with terrorists.
The President has shown a remarkable ability to actually do stupid things. This was an off hand remark on the campaign trail. You’ve had difficulty showing even the slightest concern about the ACTUAL damage done in the last seven years and yet this proposal has you twisted in knots.
Muslim Terrorists are not quietly following their religion in peace. They are waging war with the goal of taking political, legal, and social control over the entire population of the earth. This is a threat to Muslims who choose to live in peace and freedom as well as people of any other faith or none. Trumps proposal resonated because it demonstrated he would take that threat seriously, unlike the current occupant who has created this mess in the first place with stupid decisions compounded by more stupid decisions.
You have every right to think it was a stupid thing to say. The charge of bigotry is off base and nothing at all indicative of the thinking behind the remark. You’re making of yourself a very silly person.
“I feel sorry for you…”
Arrogance precedes much of what you think and say.
Tina: “Well this explains your hysteria. A temporary ban “until we can figure this out” is not exclusion from the “great American experiment.”
Temporary means temporary.”
OK.
I propose a ban on all white males owning guns until we can figure out the problem of mass shootings by white males.
It’s not bigoted, Tina, because it’s temporary.
Right?
“Trumps proposal resonated because it demonstrated he would take that threat seriously,”
THIS. IS. NOT. A. SERIOUS. PROPOSAL. AS. EVERY. SINGLE. NATIONAL. SECURITY. AND. FOREIGN. POLICY. EXPERT. HAS. EXPLAINED.
Unless you have *any* counter-arguments to their explanations of what this would do–strengthen ISIS, increase domestic terrorism, alienate our allies, damage our reputation, and give more people for ISIS to kill and oppress–stop describing this proposal as “serious” or “practical.” You have already been given ample evidence that it is none of those things, and you have ignored it every. Single. Time.
“It’s not like he’s already president and making deals with sponsors of terrorism, handing them billions of dollars while they laugh in his face or anything.”
Bush did this too. Reagan did this. You have never given a single s**** about presidents making deals with sponsors of terrorism until now.
“Bernie Sanders is threatening federal investigation of every police shooting.”
And that is stupid and bigoted. See? I criticized someone on my side of the aisle for bigotry, and I didn’t explode. You can do the same.
I’m also unsure when you are going to figure out that saying “Let’s temporarily ban all Muslims from immigrating to America, but don’t worry, it’s not a religious thing!” is hot nonsense, but I’m certainly not going to wait around for you to figure it out before telling you it’s a stupid thing to say, and you should stop saying such obviously stupid things.