I think you are missing quite a bit. They aren't criticizing anything. They're attacking conservatives entirely by claiming they're all racist, ignorant, inbred xenophobic sexist lizard people from a hell they largely don't believe in. If they were more like "Trump's border plans is so and so" or whatnot that would be different, but take a step back and look at the responses of so many Democratic voters on Twitter, tumblr, facebook and the outrage on the streets. They aren't discussing his politics with any form of intelligence and means of proper criticisms, they are out on the streets spreading bigotry and hatred against millions of peoples based on what they think and fear. Forgetting sadly that a huge portion of Obama's votes came from conservatives, white even.
Well, look at the things that seemingly gave trump the spotlight over the election:
- Claiming most mexicans are rapist and criminals
- Building the wall
- Banning muslims from entering the country
How are those things not overtly racist? Is it wrong to call those racist/xenophobic? And there are a number of other issues as well... What am I missing here?
That is a fair point and i dont say democrats are not partially guilty in this.
But if half of your voters elect a man like trump, there is more to it than just mistakes democrats did.
Then there is something wrong with the whole system and society.
I agree. I think the main problem with US society right now is rising racial tensions, which have always been present in US society. What hasn't helped is how social media has escalated this problem (e.g. Fox News, Twitter). I think the bigger problem though is our system of government. Presidential systems and parliamentary style governing don't mesh well. Either way, I think the US is slowly heading toward a right-wing coup. My one hope is that we scrap the Constitution and adopt a system of government that actually reflects how people vote nationally nowadays, but alas, I don't think it'll happen. Republicans will double-down in their attempts to keep Democratic voters away from the polls and may even change our winner-all-system to one based on congressional districts. This will virtually guarantee another Democratic never occupying the Oval Office for at least another generation, no matter how badly the Republicans fuck things up like they did during George W. Bush's term.
Well it is absurd when you complain about European racism, yet you have no issues being racist towards Africans coming to your country (this is something I've seen many times in Morocco, like they complain about french people being racist yet have no problems being racist towards african immigrants here and I am talking about legal ones, don't lemme start about the illegal ones)
Many people also complain about not being able to build mosques and what not, and yet they would definitely complain about churches being built (not like there's many christians anyway)
Don't lemme start about poor Syrian refuges being discriminated by Moroccans in some cases even though we share same religion/culture/language to some extent
I phrased it wrong - I mean, it's still absurd, but unsurprising. It's pretty much happens EVERYWHERE, even in my country. Unless the case was like what I'd written in my previous post.
That was a mistake in itself, do not give them weapons and training
Obviously the ideology was there not denying that, there's a lot of work that Muslim scholars need to do and there's no sign that it will happen anytime soon unfortunately
US are not the biggest friends of Sissi himself, but they're the biggest friends of Egyptian Military. Make no mistake, Egypt since the coup d'etat against King Farouq has been ruled by military, the US were not friendly with Gamal Abdel Nasser, but starting with Sadat they had good relationship, and with Mubarak it was even better
I am not saying the US should completely leave the Middle East, that's impossible... But fucking up Iraq/Afghanistan was a huge mistake, backing up dictators and despotic regimes is a big one as well, they need to be more careful about their involvement. Anyway, the situation in Syria is that it can no longer be called a revolution, it's not even a civil war but more of a proxy war where multiple countries are doing their things, the keys are with Russia/Iran/US
Turkey is not going full dictatorship, that would be calling turkish people as being idiots, not the biggest fan of Erdogan and the trajectory he's taking especially recently, but he's hardly a dictator
Back then, it made lots of sense. In any case, what happened back then in afghanistan has not much to do with isis today.
When Morsi took power, the US had normal relations with him, or at least tried to. They had no problem with letting the military step back from power and letting an islamist (and i count the muslim brothers as islamists) control egypt.
I do agree that the US was probably happy when morsi got canned, but i still would not see the US as a big supporter of the egyptian military.
Afghanistan 2001 was not a big mistake. That could have worked, in my opinion. They shoulda done it sooner when there was still other significant opposition to the taliban left. Sadly they didnt.
Iraq was a huge mistake and made the rise of ISIS quicker, but i think it woulda happened anyway.
The US is not partaking in the proxy war in Syria. They don't meddle in the Iran vs Saudi fight happening there, they actually bombed Isis and helped the kurdish. If anything, with that, they meddle in the kurdish turkish war (and i am going to call it a war by now, looking at erdogan's latest actions).
Russia also is not partaking in a proxy war, they are just keeping their stuff safe. They wouldnt care a lot about Assad, but they keep him arround in order to not lose influence.
But they also dont meddle with isis and dont meddle with saudi vs iran.
Erdogan is a full on dictator by now. Honest to god here.
He wants to reinstall death penalty and takes serious steps towards it, he brings any critical journalist into jail by now and he just put the heads of one important political opposition to him into jail.
Well, look at the things that seemingly gave trump the spotlight over the election:
- Claiming most mexicans are rapist and criminals
- Building the wall
- Banning muslims from entering the country
How are those things not overtly racist? Is it wrong to call those racist/xenophobic? And there are a number of other issues as well... What am I missing here?
I agree. I think the main problem with US society right now is rising racial tensions, which have always been present in US society. What hasn't helped is how social media has escalated this problem (e.g. Fox News, Twitter). I think the bigger problem though is our system of government. Presidential systems and parliamentary style governing don't mesh well. Either way, I think the US is slowly heading toward a right-wing coup. My one hope is that we scrap the Constitution and adopt a system of government that actually reflects how people vote nationally nowadays, but alas, I don't think it'll happen. Republicans will double-down in their attempts to keep Democratic voters away from the polls and may even change our winner-all-system to one based on congressional districts. This will virtually guarantee another Democratic never occupying the Oval Office for at least another generation, no matter how badly the Republicans fuck things up like they did during George W. Bush's term.
I am not even blaming fox anymore.
It's far more vile media who are responsible here. Infowars and such. Everywhere on the world, and that is fucking scary.
It's not only the US who is on the verge of falling.
Reps got the full power now, they control everything. And they are spineless, they won't even oppose the more outlandish things trump might do.
They control the presidency, the house/senta and soon the surpreme court.
It's gonna be a fucking bad time over there for at least 4 years (i do think that dem's have a shot of winning midterms and presidency).
Uhm, I'm pretty sure I have read some horrible shit back then from some Republicans or Republican voters when Obama was elected in 2008 and again in 2012, was practically the same all doom and gloom and tomorrow America's days are counted and the devil won and fucking minorities ruining the country, etc and etc. I mean, there is a reason why Obama got the most death threats any American president ever had.
It remains to be seen how much of these voters stayed home and which ones switched parties, but for previous Obama voters (at least the ones I talked to in 2012 and 2016), the #1 reason is resentment. Resentment toward Democrats and Obama in particular for "doing nothing" to improve their lives. An example is Obamacare. I remember a conversation I had with a voter back in 2012 who had originally voted for Obama in 2008 but opted for Romney in 2012. For her, the main reason was perceptions over race relations, which is typical of US society. Whites tend to think government does too much, especially on matters of redistribution, and that Obama has made racial relations worse. What was annoying about the whole episode was that she agreed Republicans were cockblocking anything Obama wanted to do, but felt having a Republican president would get things done and quit spending taxpayer money on lazy blacks, white trash, and wetbacks (her words, not mine). Other reasons exist (lol @ people who think Obama is a socialist), but racial animosity is the most common trait I've observed over the years in people who ceased supporting Obama.
Clinton's main problem, besides being a woman, is that (1) she's a Democrat, meaning she likes nonwhites, (2) she's been in public for 20+ years (old news), (3) she's a Clinton (Jeb Bush got sunk partly because of Bush fatigue), and (4) she's a continuation of Obama's policies (to paraphrase one voter, "OBUMMER!").
How did she know the Republicans would do exactly as she'd hoped, though? like.. I don't know about you, but for me that's a rather poor reasoning to choose someone though not utterly unreasonable.
Well the thing is if we're judging the growth by capital-F Facts then Obama did pretty well, at least in terms of economic development. He commits some HR issues that I can hardly agree with, but saying that he's a 'bad' president is an overraction maybe. Oh well, thanks for the insight. Tbh I think if they say they hate Clintons for cahooting with the vultures of Wall St. or something like that, that sounds more reasonable.
Well, look at the things that seemingly gave trump the spotlight over the election:
- Claiming most mexicans are rapist and criminals
- Building the wall
- Banning muslims from entering the country
How are those things not overtly racist? Is it wrong to call those racist/xenophobic? And there are a number of other issues as well... What am I missing here?
You think that gave him the spotlight? Watch some videos on Trump voters. Those aren't even the top 10 reasons they voted for him.
And he did not say "most Mexicans" are rapists and criminals. He said the illegal immigrants coming into our country from the border are not usually the best. Still a harsh statement but he never once said "All Mexicans are rapists and criminals" and saying that is absolutely false.
What does building a wall have to do with anything? It isn't racist at all, so how does that justify calling millions of people all of those names and calling for their mass suicide or deportation? Hypocritical much, isn't it?
To be fair, no one considered the context of the discussion that remark originated from. Regardless though he came out fairly quick to explain his suggestions and then rollback on the harshness of it (admitting he was wrong). He was talking about the Syrian Crisis refugees being allowed into the country after the damage the unvetted process did to European countries. He wanted to temporarily ban refugees from Syria (and other high risk countries) as a security risk because of the San Bernardino attacks etc. So specifically he was referring to unvettable refugees from Islamic states with high risks of terrorism, and he made sure to clear his message up twice after saying it when confronted by several reporters.
It wasn't racist or anything like that. If Hillary Clinton is allowed dual views on everything and a horribly racist remark to be forgiven, forgotten and accepted as a mistake, why can't Trump? Either way it is incredibly ignorant to even claim that his voters are all racist whites when a large portion of his votes had to have come from previous Obama voters and Hillary leaners. Absolutely ignorant.
(I gotta crash soon so if I don't get back I want to say that I'm not ignoring you/trying to disrespect you, just tired and sick.)
That is a fair point and i dont say democrats are not partially guilty in this.
But if half of your voters elect a man like trump, there is more to it than just mistakes democrats did.
Then there is something wrong with the whole system and society.
Well, we do know that there are a number of people who voted trump specifically to give the establishment the middle finger. Hillary was completely correct when she said half of trump supporters were deplorable and the other half were people disillusioned with how things were. With that in mind, I wonder if we can make the case that now that the middle finger has been given, trump will start loosing support. For a number of people trump has already served his purpose and he is not even president. But he is going to be president, without even having a plan, and the people who voted for him are going to demand results. I guess trump will have some stuff come quickly (say, I am willing to bet obamacare will be gone within the first 100 days) but after that things will get increasingly complicated for her. Alternatively, something else is likely to happen. Trump will simply delegate "domestic and foreign policy" to pence and he will simply take credit for everything. Which is arguably worse because pence is a nutjob but he could actually get shit done (more than trump at least).
Well, we do know that there are a number of people who voted trump specifically to give the establishment the middle finger. Hillary was completely correct when she said half of trump supporters were deplorable and the other half were people disillusioned with how things were. With that in mind, I wonder if we can make the case that now that the middle finger has been given, trump will start loosing support. For a number of people trump has already served his purpose and he is not even president. But he is going to be president, without even having a plan, and the people who voted for him are going to demand results. I guess trump will have some stuff come quickly (say, I am willing to bet obamacare will be gone within the first 100 days) but after that things will get increasingly complicated for her. Alternatively, something else is likely to happen. Trump will simply delegate "domestic and foreign policy" to pence and he will simply take credit for everything. Which is arguably worse because pence is a nutjob but he could actually get shit done (more than trump at least).
That is the dangerous part. When people demand results from populists, populists tend to just find another scapegoat.
Let's see who it will be in trump's case.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
@Moragella If you cannot see that it is racist to claim that evil rapist mexicans are coming en masse into the US even if it is completely untrue, i don't think any explanation can help you.
You think that gave him the spotlight? Watch some videos on Trump voters. Those aren't even the top 10 reasons they voted for him.
And he did not say "most Mexicans" are rapists and criminals. He said the illegal immigrants coming into our country from the border are not usually the best. Still a harsh statement but he never once said "All Mexicans are rapists and criminals" and saying that is absolutely false.
What does building a wall have to do with anything? It isn't racist at all, so how does that justify calling millions of people all of those names and calling for their mass suicide or deportation? Hypocritical much, isn't it?
To be fair, no one considered the context of the discussion that remark originated from. Regardless though he came out fairly quick to explain his suggestions and then rollback on the harshness of it (admitting he was wrong). He was talking about the Syrian Crisis refugees being allowed into the country after the damage the unvetted process did to European countries. He wanted to temporarily ban refugees from Syria (and other high risk countries) as a security risk because of the San Bernardino attacks etc. So specifically he was referring to unvettable refugees from Islamic states with high risks of terrorism, and he made sure to clear his message up twice after saying it when confronted by several reporters.
It wasn't racist or anything like that. If Hillary Clinton is allowed dual views on everything and a horribly racist remark to be forgiven, forgotten and accepted as a mistake, why can't Trump? Either way it is incredibly ignorant to even claim that his voters are all racist whites when a large portion of his votes had to have come from previous Obama voters and Hillary leaners. Absolutely ignorant.
True, that wasn't his literal quote, I was paraphrasing. But I would argue he absolutely meant most people that come through the border are criminals and rapist and drug dealers. Otherwise his statement makes absolutely no sense. Even now there are actual statistics which show illegal immigrants as less prone to crime than the general population at the US... Certainly the people coming through the wall are not rocket scientists but what he said is factually incorrect.
The wall has to do with everything in regards to the xenophobia.... The whole thing is based on the idea that immigrants come in and ruin the economy and bring crime. It's that specific group which does that.... So.... how isn't any of this overtly racist/xenophobic?
the unvettable refugees are not a thing. The US vetting process takes months.... So the vetting claims are false and data does not actually support what trump is saying but there is still support for the measures. How is this not overtly xenophobic?
True, that wasn't his literal quote, I was paraphrasing. But I would argue he absolutely meant most people that come through the border are criminals and rapist and drug dealers. Otherwise his statement makes absolutely no sense. Even now there are actual statistics which show illegal immigrants as less prone to crime than the general population at the US... Certainly the people coming through the wall are not rocket scientists but what he said is factually incorrect.
The wall has to do with everything in regards to the xenophobia.... The whole thing is based on the idea that immigrants come in and ruin the economy and bring crime. It's that specific group which does that.... So.... how isn't any of this overtly racist/xenophobic?
the unvettable refugees are not a thing. The US vetting process takes months.... So the vetting claims are false and data does not actually support what trump is saying but there is still support for the measures. How is this not overtly xenophobic?
Even when his wording and context disagrees heavily with your assumption/preferred meaning? This is one of the least untrue claims against Trump. I can understand the ban on Muslims thing and I want that to be discussed properly. He screwed up and even he knows it and regrets it (I really hope at least), but claiming he's against immigrants and thinks Mexicans are all racists? It's unspeakable false and baseless.
And oh, I think he's wrong about a majority of the illegals being rapists/criminals too. He's seen too much news on the actions of illegal immigrant criminals and I think that messed with his ability to see beyond it for the facts, but it doesn't mean he said most or all Mexican or Mexican immigrants are "rapists and criminals". He was quite obviously speaking about the people crossing the border illegally, unvetted and committing crimes that they aren't and can't be charged for.
No, the wall is about stopping illegal immigrants. It isn't about fearing "immigrants" from ruining the country and if it was, I would agree with you, but it isn't. The wall plan is to stop the flow of illegals from entering the country, which should be stopped. I encourage you to go out and speak with Trump supporters about the wall and why they support it. I think you will be surprised by the answers (when you dig through some of the uneducated voters that unfortunately plague all parties).
Yea, I think I discussed the vetting process of the U.S here in this thread a while back. I had no idea how complicated it is and I don't think many people know it either, not even governmental officials (which, imo, needs to change asap!). Anyways, to the point. lol
I think he realized it too when he changed his opinion on it and wished to just make it even more challenging for terrorists to squeeze into the country instead of banning Muslim entry from said countries. Lastly, the vetting claims stemmed largely from European countries' issues, in which it was kind of true with what he was meaning. Just look at the massive amount of crime, terroristic or not, that came with letting thousands of refugees into countries with little to no vetting or those that entered even "illegally". I believe that's what Trump was referring to since it goes with the context of his previous discussions on the matter and with his clarifications/changes later talked about.
This ban on Muslims is the only thing the left has to hold against Trump negatively and is the only thing worth considering since its the only thing with any ground to it. *I hope Trump can convince people he realized his fault with it and has changed and most of all, I hope he's honest about it.
@Moragella If you cannot see that it is racist to claim that evil rapist mexicans are coming en masse into the US even if it is completely untrue, i don't think any explanation can help you.
I'm surprised you didn't bring out the "all caps" thing again. How much of my posts did you actually even read? Did you skip that content too?
You won't call Hillary racist for the "super predators" comment she made because it happens years ago (ha), had other black support (as if she couldn't possibly be racist if she's got black support) or because it was just, and I quote, "racist wording" and yet call Trump a racist on baseless accusations? At least Trump did not call the entirety of Mexican population, youth or soft criminals "super predators he needed to bring to heel", but keep your incredible bias and conservative hate flowing. It's part of the reason why so many people got sick of Democrats and voted Republican/Trump.
Come back when you have grown up some please, you aren't worth my time.
Trump won't concentrate on anything. Pence will, or another advisor.
America will not be of much use in foreign politics for at least 4 years, and that is a disaster.
They will focus on america, for example by making abortion harder or impossible or overthrowing roe wade.
Great times.
Welp, Marco "Sellout" Rubio won the State Senator (Patrick Murphey lost, sadly). I'm surprised that Trump won Pinellas County, especially when it has been voting for Democrats for ages.
My only concern about Trump's policies are his economic ones. He's definitely going to lead to a nation of ruins if he supports Tax Breaks.
Now noone will intervene when terrorists, dictators and other forces grab chunks of the world. Great.
We have a docile pet as american president, basically an US Jelzin now.
I'm surprised you didn't bring out the "all caps" thing again. How much of my posts did you actually even read? Did you skip that content too?
You won't call Hillary racist for the "super predators" comment she made because it happens years ago (ha), had other black support (as if she couldn't possibly be racist if she's got black support) or because it was just, and I quote, "racist wording" and yet call Trump a racist on baseless accusations? At least Trump did not call the entirety of Mexican population, youth or soft criminals "super predators he needed to bring to heel", but keep your incredible bias and conservative hate flowing. It's part of the reason why so many people got sick of Democrats and voted Republican/Trump.
Come back when you have grown up some please, you aren't worth my time.
Sometimes, i tend to skip things which i know are complete nonsense. I wanted to let u have the last word because it seemed to get out of hand with the long posts, but sure, here we go:
Hillary made that comment a thousand years ago and was, in action, always a supporter of black people and minorities.
She always got the black vote and she always tried for more progressive policies regarding minorities.
A comment which she got rightfully critisized for does not change that.
Trump wants to ban muslims from entering the US, his supporters rounded up people in front of mosques, he calls mexican immigrants rapists (and if you say 'there are rapists coming from mexico' you are doing that, even if you dont say ALL in that sentence).
He perpretuates some conspiracy theory about muslims dancing in the street after 9/11, too.
Clinton btw never called the whole population of anything super predators. Please get your facts right before you go all 'double standards' when there are in fact no double standards to be found.
if trump had made some stupid comment ten years ago, i would not be bothered by it.
But he stands for racists politics RIGHT NOW and wants to build a wall in front of mexico.
So you are okay with someone who says whatever they have to get in office getting into office? Okay then...thankfully the majority of Americans apparently disagrees with that.
My question here would be, why would you think trump is better? So far when trump speaks of peace and whatnot he means something like friendly relations with russia. Which so far only seems to be enabling them to do whatever they want. More so, what he has said about nukes, his comments on torture, his comments on what he plans on doing with ISIS.... No matter how you look at it, trump has done nothing but promise an exceptionally aggressive foreign policy which involves enabling russia, stop supporting US allies and actual cruelty towards US enemies.
So you are okay with someone who says whatever they have to get in office getting into office? Okay then...thankfully the majority of Americans apparently disagrees with that.
You honestly think Trump winning is going to be the practical genocide of blacks, gays and muslims? Jesus Christ that's dramatic and baseless.
No, I'm okay with someone who goes against their beliefs because it's right. There's a difference.
You're the dramatic and baseless one here. Where did I ever talk about genocide? But according to few stories, there are violence happening against homosexuals and people chanting and saying hateful stuff.
Says who? Trump supporters whining about how "liberals" are reacting are the same ones who said they'd riot and commit acts of violence if Hillary won. And they have the nerve to talk about respecting the president when they disrespected Obama and came up with all sorts of bullshit about him.
Hillary was the wrong candidate from the beginning. With all the scandals already on her name. And before any primaries she had like 500 delegates on her name. Never giving anyone else a chance to get the democratic nomination. GOP played it fair. They could've stopped Trump from getting nominated same way. But chose not to.
No, they never played it fair. They tried to stop Trump but he was too popular to be affected by rigged primaries. Media gave him attention in ways Bernie never got.
