So, when you think Muslim you think terrorist or refugee. (He isn’t proposing just a moratorium on immigration, but on letting any Muslim in.) You obviously don’t think of Muslims as government officials, or royalty, or brilliant students wanting to come here to grad school. (And I know lots of these kind of people who stayed and are working in Silicon Valley.) No one is proposing to throw open the borders - that is yet another Trump lie.
If what Trump is saying isn’t hate, I don’t know what is.
Daily News cover which sums it up nicely.
I’m not sure that’s where Trump is going. If Trump was a bigot we’d have heard about it before now, he probably would have been a target of major lawsuits for discrimination seeing as how he runs a lot of companies and all that. I don’t think there’s any place for political correctness in policymaking. Trump’s anti-Muslim plan should be rejected as not consistent with our values, but I’m actually glad someone brought it up. We shouldn’t have a democracy where a large portion of Americans believe something but no politician will represent them. If 37% of Americans think Muslims shouldn’t be allowed in the US, then a candidate should be advocating for that and it should be resolved through the processes we’ve put in place to resolve such issues: elections, and if that fails, the Constitution and the courts. The WORST thing you can do with bigots is to make them believe that they are right but no one is talking about their issues. Having a public debate about this is the right course for our public discourse.
There’s about as much support for our beliefs about Democrats as Democratic beliefs that Republicans are racist.
I’m a Jew, and I can take it as well as seen it dished out to others. If a candidate wants to address Jewish ownership of banks or the media, then let them make the case that overrepresentation of Jews in certain fields and businesses harms society in some way. Let’s have that debate in the open rather than letting the Jew haters act like its some kind of big conspiracy and that anyone who opens their mouths about it will be destroyed.
Heck, maybe we can get Trump to raise the subject.
Nonsense, Jews hate to argue.
Starving Artist, I am going to take a bit to think about how to respond to your post. Thanks for your answer. Chronos is technically correct though- you didn’t provide any clear specifics.
Don’t take that as a blanket rejection of your post- it’s not. Still, even if you don’t post a link as a cite, a specific event in the public consciousness or on public record such that it can be googled and discussed, y’know, specifically, would be appreciated. I only asked for one example, you don’t need to post an analytical dissertation on the progress of Western Civilization before I’ll be satisfied. I’ll respond to your original answer in time, but still, in the form of a specific example, how are Democrats/liberals utilizing hate to divide the nation?
The one I cited was a pretty clear, very recent example. It’s a direct appeal to racial fears. A very divisive message.
You said yourself it wasn’t hate.
That’s because I don’t throw the word around lightly the way some folks do.
Well touche, sir. Still, Trump has a habit of glaringly blaming problems on minority groups. Mexicans are rapists; keep 'em out. Muslims are banned because they bring terrorism. C’mon, man. Am I really exaggerating? The things that are truly pissing off the far-right base and unfortunate Americans in general are hard to define. It might be politicians. It might be banks. It might be China, or currency valuations, or international labor value discrepancies, or side effects of global over-population, or a host of other things, in an unknown combination. Pointing at, for example, Mexican immigrants and implying, “there is the source of your problems!” is blatantly, overly simplistic, is arguably fascistic, and is arguably hateful. Clears things up for the simpletons though, I’ll give it that…
Actually, he referred to illegal immigrants from Mexico as rapist. Since obviously a criminal record will tend to keep you from being allowed to come here legally, it would make sense that criminals are overrepresented among illegals. And if that’s false, then it would be good to know that. Instead, the intellectual sites like Vox debunked it by answering a question not asked: Are immigrants in general more likely to be criminal? Well, no, because a) legal immigrants are drawn from a pool of people with clean records, and b) they have an extra incentive to keep their record spotless.
I think the actual problem is that we have two very real problems that our leaders aren’t serious about: immigration and terrorism, and to the extent that they do want to do something, it’s not what the general populace wants done.
The issue here isn’t racial, it’s legal. When our leaders stop trying to bait and switch us on these issues then there won’t be a market for guys like Trump.
So what is what Arpaio did? And why is Trump travelling with him?
Acting like if you can ignore what Trump did enables ideas like this to pop up. This is one big reason why many Hispanics do think that many Republicans are enablers of racism.
You wanted me to explain what I meant when I said liberals and Democrats have been using hate to divide the country for decades. I explained how they do so and gave you descriptions of some of it. The examples I posted are exactly what I had in mind when I said what I did. Your and others’ attempts to narrow it down to specific examples asks for a different answer than the one I had in mind. You wanted to know what I meant and to see examples of it, and that’s what I gave you. I’m not going to waste my time and my phone’s battery power posting specific examples of tactics I described because they’re all over the news and entertainment media, this board itself, and the internet wherever liberals have a voice. What you’re doing is trying to rebut my mention of a forest by asking for cites of trees. I can’t begin to understand what you hope to gain through such a nonsensical tactic.
And there would be no market for Arpaio either if we enforced our laws. I’m not denying there are racist people riled up by this stuff, but the reason the country as a whole is riled up is because our leaders would prefer to have the laws and not enforce them well. They like the cheap labor and it makes them feel good to be “inclusive”, just so long as the immigrants don’t live in their own neighborhoods.
Keep digging into the hole, you are only showing here huge tone deafness, Arpaio is in trouble for not following the law.
Whistling pass the graveyard. Trump did not find any problem with Arpaio and decided to join him to the hip, never mind that he was already in contempt of court for racial profiling. The point stands, you decided to ignore that to make your very silly platitude.
What this showed to me and many Hispanics was the kind of people Trump will appoint to his cabinet or even to be judges, either by incompetence or because he is in reality a racist.
I am a hypothetical racist. I hate blacks, immigrants and Muslims, and I think things were a lot better when men were allowed to do what was necessary to handle their wives when they got out of line. I can’t say these things openly, because of the goddamned “politically correct” media brainwashing.
What party line should I vote? Am I more comfortable around Democrats, or Republicans? If someone happens to find out what I think, and gives me a nod and says “soon enough we won’t be afraid to say it like it really is,” what party line do you suppose that person votes?
Sorry, but “they hate too!” just isn’t a remotely defensible position. You can’t even come up with an actual example of hate. You mentioned the birth control issue, and claimed people opposed to restricting access to it are the real hateful ones. I think you’re self aware enough to realize how absurd that is, and it seems like you may be thiiiiis close to an actual epiphany on the matter.
And if you hate white people, Jews or Asians, who best to vote for?
Mosier, you posted sentiments that qualify as hate. Show me examples of Trump or anyone else saying such things and I’ll agree they’re haters. People tend to associate with people who share their views. I know plenty of conservatives and Republicans who’d find such opinions despicable.
The problem with liberals is that they assume the way to support an agrieved group is to accept and defend anything and everything they do. They interpret any opposition no matter how legitimate as hatred in disguise.
They are wrong. But they do it because it demonizes the accused, attempts to shut down discussion, encourages and promotes the wrongful activity, and divides the populace.
Trump will have none of it, and his supporters, unafflicted as they are by leftist politics, hear what he says and they interpret it for what it is: objection to wrongful or dangerous ideas, not hate.
This of course causes the country’s liberals and Democrats to go ballistic and wrongfully accuse Trump’s supporters of harboring all sorts of evil, hate-filled attitudes and beliefs.
It’s a dishonest and divisive strategy, and like I said liberals have been using it for decades.
It is really funny to claim that liberals are the dishonest ones, when I only see conservatives that claim that this did not happen:
More than pants on fire, what one should wonder really is why is it that he was going to Neo-Nazi sites to get that image for his racist tweet.
We already know Trump is a poor fact checker but in order to call him a racist he would have to know where the cite originally came from. An experienced blogger had to research that, which implies that Trump didn’t know.