Not really, and I’m not referring to 1960s Democrats, but modern Democrats. Modern Democrats are not above birtherism(See: Ted Cruz), shattering Mexican families(deportation was particularly high in Obama’s first term), and banning Muslims(there have been numerous immigration and visitation bans against various countries over the decades).
It does baffle me that with so many accurate criticisms of Trump to level, some commentators reach into the arsenal and select as a weapon an inaccurate or indefensible critique.
For example, denying Muslims the right to immigrate is heartless, bigoted, and if nothing else unwise from a purely practical standpoint.
It’s not unconstitutional.
So Trump isn’t actually asking us all to hate Mexicans and Muslims, but we are supposed to be scared shitless of them.
But fear leads to hate. Everyone knows that.
If all you can do is find small instances (in the case of Ted Cruz birtherism, which is overwhelmingly rejected by most Democrats), unrelated things (sanctions and similar against individual countries are quite different than a blanket ban on all members of a religion from entering), and significantly lesser versions (in the case of deportations) of really bad things, then that’s pretty weak. In terms of rhetoric and proposals, Trump is way, way worse.
I agree with OP to some extent. If Sanders said “first he tells us to hate Mexicans, now he’s telling us to hate Muslims …” then Sanders was exaggerating. At some point it’s fair to call an exaggeration a lie. If Sanders had said “Trump is encouraging us to hate …” I’d call that a plausible conclusion, rather than a lie. But that’s not what Sanders said (assuming OP has a cite).
But of course this effect is not limited to Trump. In the SRIOTD thread I often see SRIs that are exaggerated or misquoted. Often the same exaggeration is made in the headline of the left-wing site being quoted. The misquotes may seem like reasonable extrapolations, but it’s still fair to call them lies. Let’s condemn stupid politicians for what they actually say, not for an extrapolation or exaggeration of their words.
And obviously, the Democrats are as misquoted as anyone. When Hillary explained to Congress for the umpteenth time that a priority was to find out why Benghazi occurred, they snipped a clause out of context to make it sound like she didn’t care.
I might agree with this. Sanders’ exaggeration about Trump’s comments is far less egregious than most of the political exaggerations we see these days. (And I do find Sanders’ plain speech, even with exaggeration, to be admirable.)
Nothing they say misunderstands nor misrepresents that subtext.
“Tell you one damn thing for sure, all those rich folks who don’t help out poor folks goin’ straight to Hell!”
“Go homes, Jesus, you’re drunk.”
Trumps lies are a fountain of darkness, blotting out the sun, withering the crops and causing weeping sores to appear on the honey-pots of virgins. Sanders exaggerates.
Yep, totally equivalent. Really, exactly the same thing. Oh, and liberal hypocrisy.
I haven’t heard a lot of argument that it’s unconstitutional, just that’s it’s morally shitty and un-American.
Also, Trump wasn’t talking just immigration, he was saying that Muslims couldn’t come here on business trips and vacations.
Utter fucking nonsense.
How much traction has Cruz birtherism gotten? How many books? Websites? How many shirts and poorly written signs?
Comparing the two is stupid and insulting. The GOP base are racist assholes, and the rest of the GOP tip-toe around it so they can keep their votes.
Deporting 12 million people and shattering their families is hardly the same thing as deporting criminals better than Bush the Incompetent did.
Is Muslim a country? You certainly can see the difference, can’t you? You have failed to make your case. Embarrassingly.
In the parlance of our times, they’re trying to stump the Trump. They’re frustrated that they can’t. I’m not sure why they’d want to, though. Even if you’re another ambitious Republican candidate, don’t you want to see a Trump/Hillary debate? It’d be comedy platinum.
I am relatively certain that preventing Muslim citizens of the USA from entering the country, as Trump additionally proposed, would be unconstitutional.
Noted. But even so, such a restriction is not unconstitutional. Whether for immigration or visitation, the United States has broad plenary power to apply restrictions that would, in almost any other context, violate the Constitution.
I recall several posts on this very board suggesting that Trump’s immigration plans were unconstitutional, although I can’t say they’ve dominated the conversation, because, as you correctly observe, the main focus has been their undeniable shittiness.
As I saw how even MSNBC dismissed the few reporters that did not kowtow to Trump, it is clear to me that the media does want to see that too, the gravy train for the old and corporate media will continue.
Indeed. Of course, as the apologists say, “It’s just temporary”. Right.
Only in place for an undefined time, until the undefined “people” figure out an undefined “solution” to an undefined “problem”.
That’s gonna happen. Ha ha ha ha ha!
Calling Trump a “piece of shit” is not a lie, even though everybody knows that he, in fact, is not an ambulatory nugget of actual fecal matter.
Calling Trump (or any other politician “a piece of shit” is mere invective, not expected to be taken literally.
Language is so hard!
That’s actually interesting to know, thanks.
The eventual Republican nominee, will not be one of the candidates that throws Trump under the bus. Many Americans worry about immigration and terrorism. The things that the Donald, not so eloquently, says are what many Americans think, which is why he is so appealing to them. But Donald doesn’t really know how to address these issues within a framework established in the form of our government. So the to be named nominee will be one that empathizes with Donald’s point of view but with a bit more tact and diplomacy. If I were a betting man, I’d say Rubio or (Lord help us) Cruz will end up with the nomination. Mark it down…take it the UK betting houses and put a few quid on it.
Out of curiosity do you have an actual moral compass of your own or are you pretty much a “just be a little less vile than the next guy so we’re good” morality? I’m tired of people spouting the most vile stuff and others say, this is perfectly acceptable because some other guy did it
Ok, I’m calling you on that. Any actions that the unnamed Democrats did was absolutely vile, not to be defended in any way and if they were still alive they should be roundly criticized for their actions as they were unacceptible and we damned sure shouldn’t elect someone like that to office in 2016.
Now, given that, what is adaher’s moral position on the issue? Is what hatred Trump is selling toxic and immoral or not? If not, why on earth try to defend it as if it were and if it is, why drag in others doing it to try and prove that he isn’t so bad. I don’t get people who argue like you did. It’s not about being right, it’s about scoring political points and “winning.” Do you like being like that?
To clarify:
If Trump is right, say that, not the other guy said it too. If he’s right, who cares what someone else said or did.
If he’s wrong, why try to justify his wrongness by comparing it to what someone currently not running for office think? That shouldn’t matter if you are true to your beliefs and if your beliefs are right.