This is a question Trump supporter and Senator from SC Lindsey Graham sought to address in his defense of Trump today. Here is a series of tweets from Frank Thorp, NBC news reporter with Graham’s thoughts.
GRAHAM: “I really do believe that if you’re a Somali refugee who likes Trump, he’s not going to say ‘go back to Somalia.’ A racist says go back to Somalia because you’re a Somalian or you’re a Muslim or whatever, that’s just the way he is. More narcissism than anything else.”
— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) July 17, 2019
I really do believe that if you’re a Somali refugee who likes Trump, he’s not going to say ‘go back to Somalia.’ A racist says go back to Somalia because you’re a Somalian or you’re a Muslim or whatever, that’s just the way he is. More narcissism than anything else.
The main line of defense is that Trump likes who likes him even if that person is a person of color. According to Graham, race alone does not determine the disliking. Trump says nasty things about people who insult him even if they are white. Witness his treatment of Paul Ryan. It is true that he cuts down anybody who points out the president’s flaws. Furthermore, he has surrounded himself with minorities who gush his praise. It is less than clear what he says about them behind closed doors but he has not avoided his minority supporters.
As I thought about this, it occurred to me that a check on this would be to assess the types of insults he makes against various disliked people. I haven’t checked this, but I don’t think he has ever told Bernie Sanders or Nancy Pelosi to go back to their countries of origin.
The Nature of Prejudice
The work of Gordon Allport on prejudice seems relevant. Allport wrote in 1954 that humans find it very easy to fall into prejudices but very difficult to abandon them. A foundation for prejudice according to Allport is personal values. For Trump there appears to be no higher value than loyalty to himself. Allport wrote:
…negative prejudice is a reflex of one’s own system of values. We prize our own mode of existence and correspondingly underprize (or actively attack) what seems to us to
threaten it The thought has been expressed by Sigmund Freud, “In the undisguised antipathies and aversion which people feel towards strangers with whom they have to do, we recognize the expression of self-love, of narcissism.”The process is especially clear in time of war. When an enemy threatens all or nearly all of our positive values we stiffen our resistance and exaggerate the merits of our cause. We feel — and this is an instance of overgeneralization — that we are wholly right. (If we did not believe this we could not marshall all our energies for our defense.) And if we are wholly right then the enemy must be wholly wrong. Since he is wholly wrong, we should not hesitate to exterminate him. (p. 26)
Allport also argued prejudices are maintained by placing exceptions to the negative prejudgment into subcategories. Allport described the process this way:
There is a common mental device that permits people to hold to prejudgments even in the face of much contradictory evidence. It is the device of admitting exceptions. “There are nice Negroes but . . ” or “Some of my best friends are Jews but. . . .” This is a disarming device. By excluding a few favored cases, the negative rubric is kept intact for all other cases. In short, contrary evidence is not admitted and allowed to modify the generalization; rather it is perfunctorily acknowledged but excluded. (p. 23)
So in response to Lindsey Graham, it certainly is possible that President Trump is motivated by both negative racial stereotypes and narcissism. I am not making a diagnosis but I am saying that the work of Allport demonstrates that one may maintain negative prejudice while claiming one does not have negative judgments by using an exception as proof — as Graham did for Trump. What may move minorities (or a member of any other group Mr. Trump doesn’t like) into the good or — more cynically — useful category is that they praise him. He appears to dislike many whites but doesn’t appear to have a group prejudice toward them. What is at issue is the evidence that keeps coming up that he may have prejudices toward certain minorities as a group which can be overcome principally by obsequious praise for him.
I think you have got it right, Warren.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/935b0513ee5acb7b6b903810e904b4c1da756b438b1e4478d9f7686137a402fa.jpg
Is this a trick question? The only reasonable answer is “Yes.” He is as clearly as it is possible to be without a definitive diagnosis–which he will never get close enough to a psychiatrist to get—a malignant narcissist, and equally clear, based on his behavior since he was old enough to participate in his father’s businesses, that he is a racist. As a narcissist, he uses people. If he finds them useful, he can suppress his racism until they cease to benefit him–but only until then. To Donald Trump, the most–maybe the only–important person in the world is Donald Trump.
Lindsey Graham is a close as Trump will ever be to having a lap dog. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/22ec431aa958117c987752e6e833d4851ca1bc6ddc7beb9b91240694032a1877.jpg
Anytime anyone says that “there’s not a racist bone in my body” – you are listening to a racist . Trump has always held racist views- inculcated in him by his father. Fred Trump Sr., arrested at a KKK rally in NYC in 1928- found guilty of “redlining” (to keep from renting to people of color) in the seventies. And Donald- buying a full-page ad in the NYT demanding execution for the Central Park 5- who were later found innocent. Donald has never stopped claiming he is right and reality is wrong about his- and still demands the executions. And on through the scurrilous campaign against immigrants – the fake invasion- the lies about disease, and the criminal nature and danger from immigrants.
On and on to this present day. Trump a racist? Follow the facts- the facts say yes.
The smarmy little git from SC is no less a racist than is the current president, who has been a public racist since the 1970s when his employees were directed to put a (c) next to the names of rental applicants who weren’t bright white.
I think Allport was wrong. The “personal values” he was referring to come from the tribe. Meaning, they are tribal values, not personal ones.
I understand Allport was a lot smarter than I’ll ever be, but that doesn’t mean he’s right about this. In fact, I think he was gravely mistaken. People are taught by their families and their tribes, and they learn their hatreds from them as well.
Trump shares the values of his class and white New York. He tolerates Jews because they make good lawyers and accountants (“I want short guys in yarmulkes counting my money”). He loves what he perceives was the Italian mob. Blacks are great in sports, but never leave them around anything valuable. The Irish are drunks. This is the way whites in New York, Chicago, and, hell, most of the rest of white America thinks, and it isn’t because these are “personal values”: These are the values they learned at home and from their tribes.
He learned most of this from his Ku Klux Klan-curious father, who was a major bigot.
I can see I was too vague. I think Trump could have all of those stereotypes based on learning and upbringing but the reason he has some minorities in his orbit as “good” or “useful” is that they praise him (which is what he values). That moves blacks, Jews, Irish, etc from the stereotype to an okay exception is they express Trump’s greatness. Those members of those outgroups are the good ones. All others are just as Trump assumes they are.
Trump’s an inarticulate, lazy, ill prepared narcissist, who has accomplished a load, usually in spite of his own stupid tweets. But, he comes as a package, as most of us do. I could live with everything else, if he would just stop the tweets…
What has he accomplished? Serious question.
The word “accomplished” tends to connote something positive or good having been done. There is no doubt Trump’s administration has done a lot of things, but I would argue that they are overwhelmingly not positive or good.
You forgot mendacious, cruel, lacking in empathy, sexual predator (including minors), miserly, serial adulterer, and bigot, to name but a few. If you’re going to call it a package, you need to include all of it, and not cherry pick.
You seem to think the benefits of the package are worth having. Try as I can, I cannot see that at all. If the cost of his ‘accomplishments’ are worth the continual repudiation of America’s highest ideals and our most Christian aspirations of human dignity, self control, genuine brotherly love, generous mercy, and heartfelt compassion – then those ‘accomplishments’ must have the same or greater moral gravity – and they’re not even close. Most of his ‘accomplishments’ revolve around financial greed, racial pandering, political power mongering, and continual lie after lie after lie at every turn. He knows no shame and has no repentance. A more morally foul leader we’ve never had.
If you can live the ‘benefits’ without recognition of the costs … good luck with that.
Further, Digger is making the incorrect assumption that only Trump could have accomplished what he did. That isn’t true.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me on these “accomplishments”, especially the ones that promoted the general welfare.
If we’re talking about the Supreme Court, the “triumph”, if the 2 judges appointed can be called that, belongs solely with McConnell, not Trump.
Tax cuts
strong economy (granted his tariffs may tank that, but it hasn’t yet)
Supreme court appointments.
roll back of many federal regulations on businesses
obtaining the release of US citizens held in foreign countries.
Regardless of who else may have been involved in these things (or whether you like/dislike them) the admin generally gets the credit (blame) for them.
I understand. However, the tax cuts benefited the 1% only. Large corporations benefited from the rollbacks and the climate lost 100%. Neither of these promoted the general welfare.
The tariffs have benefited 0% and everyone lost out when taxpayers had to bail out farmers.
The rule of law is becoming a joke from all the hits it has taken.
The preamble doesn’t state we should promote the welfare of the 1%.
The idea of Supply Side economics (trickle down) has been so thoroughly disproved that it is amazing anyone still gets away with selling it. Each of the major GOP led tax cuts in the past few decades has done the same thing. There is a brief bump, then a worsening dip, sometimes into recession, and massive increases in the deficit.
Reagan’s initial tax cut made somewhat more sense because it eliminated so many business deductions, simplifying the code. However, he made the cuts too deep, and raised them again shortly thereafter. His administration began the huge deficit trend of today. We are definitely crafting our tax code for the benefit of the wealthy at this point. There is no way to continue running the country at this level, no matter what cuts we make.
I think you are confusing 2 things here. “Supply Side Economics” and “trickle down” economics (Reagonomics) aren’t the same thing. (although “trickle down” is based on supply side theory). Supply-side economics is just focusing on moving the supply curve (rather than the demand curve).
“Reagonomics” is the notion that you can get a desirable shift in the supply curve by cutting taxes on business.
I don’t know what it is you are talking about. You’ll have to give a bit more details if you are actually interested in discussing it.
I believe James is referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment
It has been my understanding that Reaganomics was more than just tax cuts. It was so heavily taken from Supply Side and influenced by its supporters that they are essentially one and the same. Reaganomics in the 80s was considered the big Supply Side experiment. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/05/011805.asp
Been a while since my econ classes, but Supply Side economics basically focuses on the shifting of the supply curve rather than the demand curve. The supply curve shifting to the left is bad because it causes both higher prices (inflation) AND reduced production (lower GDP, lower employment), which is called “stagflation” and actually occurred in the 1970s. While the supply curve shifting to the right gives stable or lower prices AND increased production.
Reaganomics was the notion if you cut taxes on businesses they will invest more in R&D and more efficient production processes, which would shift the supply curve to the right.
The problem is that while businesses may use SOME of those tax cuts to invest, they may also use them to increase profits (and share holder income). By increasing share-holder income, you can increase discretionary spending which can shift the demand curve to the right as well (mitigating the effects of the supply curve shift). coupled with the fact that Reagan also cut individual taxes as well (which also contributes to shifting the demand curve), it isn’t hard to see why Reaganomics was a failed attempt at supply-side economics.
I certainly make no claim to being an economics expert, only someone who lived through that period and became acquainted via informal study of what the terms refereed to. My only addition would be that I think Reaganomics was more than just tax cuts:
(1) reduce the growth of government spending
(2) reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital
(3) reduce regulation
(4) reduce inflation by controlling the growth of the money supply
I do know that Reaganomics, trickle-down and supply side were used interchangeably in the reports I have read over the past few decades. Unfortunately, economic theory is a pretty complex, and often cryptic subject. I think one of Reagan’s faults was that he tried to make it appear to be dead simple. That appealed to many listening, but I don’t think it can adequately convey the information.
Obviously Supply Side came first, and Reaganomics drew heavily on it. As I said, the two tend to be used rather synonymously today. If they are not essentially the same, then I stand corrected.
I certainly make no claim to being an economics expert, only someone who lived through that period and became acquainted via informal study of what the terms refereed to. My only addition would be that I think Reaganomics was more than just tax cuts:
(1) reduce the growth of government spending
(2) reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital
(3) reduce regulation
(4) reduce inflation by controlling the growth of the money supply
I do know that Reaganomics, trickle-down and supply side were used interchangeably in the reports I have read over the past few decades. Unfortunately, economic theory is a pretty complex, and often cryptic subject. I think one of Reagan’s faults was that he tried to make it appear to be dead simple. That appealed to many listening, but I don’t think it can adequately convey the information.
Obviously Supply Side came first, and Reaganomics drew heavily on it. As I said, the two tend to be used rather synonymously today. If they are not essentially the same, then I stand corrected.
Trump’s tax cuts didn’t “only” benefit the 1%, it simply benefited them the most.
Further, it has never been a requirement that the president’s (any presidents’) accomplishments must “promote the general welfare.” This clause is part of the preamble and not under Article II.
There is a lot to dislike about the Trump admin, so there is no need to manufacture anything. Refusing to acknowledge Trump has done some things right, is just as bad as refusing to acknowledge Trump has done some things wrong.
Your answer is a good one, so I ‘liked’ it because you are technically correct in that the Tax Act benefitted some more than others, and although I pretty much disagree with it. However, taken as as a whole it will screw growth for future generations in proportions not worth what most received today, especially those with larger families or taking care of their elders, who are actually losing out. We’ll keep health care out of the equation for now.
Trump inherited the strong economy and so far has managed not to screw it up completely. I’ll give it 1/2 of an accomplishment.
The confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to SCOTUS has put the judiciary under a cloud, a problem that John Roberts recognizes. So I don’t see how anyone can call that a good accomplishment.
I take the preamble as applying to all of government, not just the executive branch.
Maybe not a requirement, but I suspect it is a persistent expectation 😉
“Not sure which citizens he got released, Leangelo Ball?”
Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak Song and Tony Kim were detained by North Korea. Otto Warmbier as well, unfortunately it was too late for him.
LiAngelo Ball, Cody Riley and Jalen Hill. Basketball players detained in china for shoplifting.
Probably more that haven’t made major news stories.
As I said, refusing to see any positives about Trump is just as bad as refusing to see any negatives about him.
To be clear, I’m not claiming Trump has done more good than bad, only that he has done some good.
I have no problem recognizing that, in a few cases, Trump found that the right thing also coincided with his own bizarre needs. However, the bad he has caused so overwhelms the good that the latter is insignificant in the mix. Trump is a different animal entirely in the discussions of presidents.
Before this, he was just an amoral con man and somewhat of a media spectacle. Now he is in a position to cause major damage to the world. It requires intense concentration to remain objective about him. This is understandable, though, if only considering the incredible pain and anguish he and his cohorts have caused and will soon cause for so many millions of people (ACA).
That said, I understand your point and generally agree with it. I’m just inclined to forgive the oversights in this situation which is so bizarre. Also, for instance, you listed the tax cuts as a positive accomplishment. I see it as something we can ill-afford as a country and not a positive at all. I suspect the ones who will eventually suffer the most from it will be the least of us. These are half-hazard hits in an overall negative and chaotic administration.
I listed the tax cuts which many people see as a positive that has spurred economic growth. Further that list wasn’t my opinion, but the valid opinion of those who do support Trump (on some policies at least).
Right, but as I said, valid entries to that list would also be the destruction of the ACA and harsh treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers. A large part of his base consider these positive as well.
Except he hasn’t destroyed the ACA. He has tried and failed. So that isn’t an “accomplishment.”
As for the harsh treatment of immigrants, that is not something his supporters agree with. You can see this by the way they always try to deflect to the obama admin whenever the topic comes up, or try to claim it is because the Dems in congress wouldn’t give Trump the money. Because they know it makes Trump look bad.
However, they will proudly Trumpet the tax cuts, the economy and other things on that list.
I would disagree on both counts. Trump eliminated the mandate, which has not only caused serious damage but set the stage for the ultimate destruction of the entire thing in the courts. Without Trump, it would be on much stronger footing and much more affordable. As it is, we will probably lose it later this year. His base hates the ACA.
As for the harsh treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers, his supporters, at least a number of them, may disagree with the worst of it, but they applaud the harsh policies and his standard rhetoric (which is used to justify his actions). They believe it has been too long in coming.
These are both definite accomplishments in the eyes of his base, and positive ones at that.
The only thing on your list that I can see as an indisputable positive is the release of US citizens. You might as well list the destruction of the ACA or the horrible treatment of immigrants as well. Some consider those very positive and he and his administration are definitely to be given credit for these things.
It wasn’t about support for him but support for our country.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6dbfd29802c6f6431fb4823ff305e1e728641889ba14c596dfdd54813083ad0.jpg
Yep, and it’s telling that Trump’s racism gets press but the anti-Semitism of his detractees merits not a peep.
Criticism of Israel is not “anti-semitism”.
It usually turns out that way. I struggle otherwise to explain why a territory smaller than several US counties garners so much attention from people who have no connection to its land or people whatsoever.
I find the sneer quotes you placed around the word “[sic] anti-semitism” telling.
No, it’s a fact. You really can criticize Israel without being anti-semitic. It’s a fact.
You can go to Mars, too, but nobody ever has.
You must live in a bubble if you think criticism of Israel is “anti-semitic”. Many, maybe most, American Jews are critical of Israel.
And do not presume to know my beliefs and feelings about anything. You don’t know me. If you did, you’d realize just how laughable and offensive your veiled accusation is.
You’ve revealed enough, whether you realize it or not.
I’m not going to get into a scrimmage with you over whatever conclusions you’ve made. But you can cut the film noir dialog. You don’t know me. Don’t presume that you do.
But they’re not “real Jews”. Right-wing hack Ben Shapiro (an Orthodox Jew) has made it clear that secular Jews don’t count anymore.
Lots of Christians don’t consider Christian Atheists to be Christians either. I hope you’re not holding Jews to a different standard.
This is apples and oranges, is it not? Jewishness is both an ethnicity and a religious belief system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_secularism
Just curious – can you tell me what a Christian Atheist is? My brain won’t wrap around the phrase and Tsc has stopped responding.
I believe what he was getting at was his belief that a secular Jew is not a Jew, as a Christian atheist is not a Christian. This might hold some water if Jewishness weren’t also an ethnicity, hence the term “secular Jew” for someone who is Jewish but non-religious. This is actually a legitimate category, while Christian atheist is not.
I can’t explain why he seems to have gone to pieces over what would appear to be an objective truth, that one can criticize a nation’s policies or actions without being anti-semetic.
Edit: It appears that Christian atheist is actually a thing (who knew?), though I don’t know if Tsc realized it. Either way, I don’t think it substantially changes the reasons for his statement. Unless he wants to comment, that’s the best I can do.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Christian_atheism
Thank you! Interesting about the Christian atheists, although not as convincing as a secular Jew.
Yeah, I don’t get the whole can’t criticize Israel thing, either. Most of the Jewish people I know (including Israeli born) are the first to criticize Israel’s policies and actions, especially when referring to the Palestinian issue. When I criticize American policies I don’t think it makes me un-American, although that may be changing?
Oh, well, if Shapiro said that, it must be gospel!
/s
Seriously, you can criticize the country of Israel without being antisemitic. It would be pretty difficult to carry out effective foreign policy otherwise, don’t you think?
“It would be pretty difficult to carry out effective foreign policy otherwise, don’t you think?”
No, I don’t think so. Lots of countries have effective, anti-Semitic foreign policies. Jews in the US make up 1% of the population but are victims of 58% of the hate crimes. The problem we’re having here isn’t too little criticism of Israel.
“It would be pretty difficult to carry out effective foreign policy otherwise, don’t you think?”
No, I don’t think so. Lots of countries have effective, anti-Semitic foreign policies. Jews in the US make up 1% of the population but are victims of 58% of the hate crimes. The problem we’re having here isn’t too little criticism of Israel.
You are talking about two separate issues – domestic bias crimes and legitimate criticism of a country’s actions or policies. Is it your contention that Israel, among all the nations, is above reproach in all matters? If so, that’s a pretty arrogant position, and one which I have only ever heard expressed in some form by a sect of fundamentalist Christians in apocalyptic imaginings.
If any criticism of Israel (or any country) is automatically classified as antisemitic, then true antisemitism loses much of it’s meaning.
I’m afraid I lack the credulity to believe the issues are truly separate. I’ll ignore the rest of your meanderings about fundamentalist apocalypticism and arrogance though as they are beneath you.
Dr. Martin Luther King saw the link between the two:
The article continues:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism_and_antisemitism
The article also cites studies that have correlated the geographical location of anti-Zionist movements and anti-Semitic attacks.
Not at all. Aside from the aforementioned fundamentalists, I’ve never heard of this idea that Israel is to be immune from anything but positive commentary, lest one be tagged as an antisemitic (or in their case, smitten). I find it extreme, and absurd, and beneath you.
Israel is a nation like any other, subject to existing in a finite world with others. That role includes being subject to both positive and negative evaluation, just as any nation. It baffles me that you would automatically brand any of this, no matter how legitimate or well intentioned, as antisemitic.
When true antisemitism is expressed, call it out. But to label everything antisemitism renders this a useless exercise.
Edit: This comment was in response to the original version of the previous comment, which included only the first paragraph. The Wikipedia info was added after.
I have not “automatically branded” anything, nor have I labeled “everything antisemitism”. You are refusing to see the nuance of your opponents’ viewpoint on its own terms which makes you a poor conversational partner. Your comment was utterly non-responsive to mine, you simply repeated yourself more forcefully which means you’ve stopped engaging intellectually and are digging in to an emotional position, hence the enhancement of your rhetoric.
You’re right, this conversation is useless, and I won’t make the mistake of attempting another one with you in the future.
You claimed the hard and fast stance that any criticism of Israel, foreign policy or otherwise, was anti-semitic – you allowed no exception. That sounds automatic to me, since there is no qualification, and certainly no nuance.
I responded to the original version, but it seems you added a lot material to it after I had. To address that, I hardly see legitimate criticism of certain actions or policies of Israel as a nation as comparable to questioning their right to be a nation. I’m talking about treating them like every other nation, like a member of the national community (which they are).
I think I have been rather dispassionate and clear in my comments, only to have them dismissed as rhetoric. I honestly don’t see the emotional entrenchment coming from my end of the discussion. My main reason for continuing to engage on it was my dismay at the rather extreme position you have taken.
But if you wish to take your bat and ball and go home, never to play again, that is your decision.
TSC – you’re probably a nice guy and this isn’t meant to be mean, but I’m not sure you have a very good understanding of US politics or political history, among other things in the political world.
“I’m afraid I lack the credulity to believe the issues are truly separate.” Isn’t it true that there are many Jews around the world and in Israel that are decidedly NOT Zionists? Are these Jews ‘anti-Semitic? Technically Arabs and Palestinians are Semites, too. So I think there are 2 holes in your ‘Criticise Israel = Hate Jews’ bucket.
Seriously, you can criticize the country of Israel without being antisemitic. It would be pretty difficult to carry out effective foreign policy otherwise, don’t you think?
But the Antisemitism of saying Tiki torch wielders chanting “Jews will not replace us,” are “fine people, is just peachy dory.
That’s an awful thing to say.
Which? The statement of the Tiki torch wielders or the statement of the current president?
This is pathetic.
And yes, the U.S. does have concentration camps. We had them in World War II, and we have them now.
Only if you stretch the definition to the breaking point. Reminds me of alt-righters calling immigration “white genocide”. Those guys are anti-Semites too btw.
Really? So this is wrong, huh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manzanar
The Japanese internment I’d say qualifies. But, back to current events, I find it highly specious that these same immigration facilities were not “concentration camps” when Obama was in power…
Who says they weren’t?
It’s more an issue of who didn’t say that they were. People who believe that immigration facilities are concentration camps, but had no desire to say such when they were in power, are about the most frighteningly immoral and dangerous people I can imagine.
The people I saw most disturbed were Democrats. Never heard a Republican or conservative raise a discouraging word. There were plenty of Democrats who were upset.
If I still had Lexis Nexus I would be able to tell exactly how many times they were referred to as “concentration camps” by English speakers in the media before Trump was elected, but google is coming up empty.
Doesn’t change the current facts on the ground. But there was a lot of criticism of Obama over deportations.
Children weren’t dying in them, though, not like now. And irrespective of “whataboutism”, they are definitely concentration camps by any definition. And he doesn’t seem to care. Which is hardly news.
Obama definitely got heat over deportations – a lot of it. I believe the issue with the camps became critical after the intense overcrowding and all that comes with that as a result of Trump’s zero tolerance policies. They existed during Obama’s administration, but there were not nearly so many, and not nearly so many people in them.
I’ve resisted the “concentration camp” description. It is technically correct by definition, however since WWII, it is almost impossible to separate that term from the extermination camps of the Third Reich. As bad as these detention centers are (and they seem to be simply inhumane), they are not that. I think “internment camps” might be a better description, but that is my own opinion.
All that said, Obama still maintained a far more humane system that the current one, even allowing the “Dreamers” to avoid threat of deportation. It was acknowledged during that time that our immigration policies were thoroughly screwed up, but it would be hard for a serious observer to claim it is not far, far worse now.
“Concentration camp” may be a loaded term, and even chosen for its shock value, but it’s nonetheless accurate.
I think it’s funny Trump doesn’t use the term, because a lot of his base would think it’s great. After all, they discarded any humanity long ago and revel in cruelty.
This is how we lose our democracy, and our country. Not the camps themselves, though they contribute. But how we lose is if we step away from the Constitution. And we have made that step.
I think Madison would be screaming “Get me rewrite!” if he were alive today.
You actually, literally dehumanized half the country. Nice. This is why I think both parties are basically Nazis. Factionalism is inherently evil because it leads to this.
It’s not half, but it’s more than it should be.
And no, factionalism doesn’t lead to this. Ignoring history and the Constitution does. And spare me the “both sides do it”. Try defending Trump’s words and policies without engaging this intellectually bankrupt tu quoque argument. You sound like the New York Times.
You can’t imagine who you sound like.
Why not tell me?
A reasonable person.
Half the country dehumanized themselves.
You actually, literally dehumanized half the country. Nice. This is why I think both parties are basically Nazis. Factionalism is inherently evil because it leads to this.
The problem I see with ignoring the historical connotation is that we end up with semantics taking the spotlight off the real issue. If you say concentration camp, most people have visions of those army films from the extermination camps in Germany. There is just no way that these camps equate to those, except in the dictionary.
We shouldn’t indulge the historically ignorant. It was the British who popularized the term in the Second Boer War.
Ignoring what’s going on by policing language is dangerous and intellectually dishonest. The fact you discount the dictionary definition proves my point. I grew up using the dictionary to learn what words mean. God forbid we have to dispense with that now.
Words are not sterile. This is why the connotation of a word is not necessarily the same as the denotation. Like it or not, concentration camp is a loaded term, and is tied forever to Nazi atrocities. Since those are one of the yardsticks by which we tend to measure all other atrocities in the modern age, it is dangerous to use the term for anything less than places where human beings are gassed and cremated.
Uh-huh. Because we ran the good concentration camps, not like those icky Nazis.
I prefer to call things what they are. I find it cleanses the palate and focuses one on the truth.
Oh good grief, you missed the point entirely. I’ll leave it there.
The problem I see with ignoring the historical connotation is that we end up with semantics taking the spotlight off the real issue. If you say concentration camp, most people have visions of those army films from the extermination camps in Germany. There is just no way that these camps equate to those, except in the dictionary.
Illegals were mostly leaving under Obama because of our economy was crushed, yes they were still coming because of the problems south of the border but illegal immigration was down. Under Trumps presidency and the economy he has to deal with numbers of people wanting to come here Obama never had to deal with and it is more than we can handle with what we have in place hence the emergency bill.
BTW Trump offered the Democrats a path for the Dreamers but they didn’t want to give him a win. And Obama built a lot of the ‘wall’ also.
The economy was quite healthy for Obama’s second term and has continued in spite of the nonsense the current administration calls economic policy – particularly the trade wars. Regardless, deportations were actions taken by us not “self-deportations” Mitt Romney style. Even during the Great Recession the conditions here were far better than where most of the undocumented immigrants were from.
The mess with Trump and Dreamers – in fact all aspects of immigration reform – is laughable. It doesn’t take a partisan to recognize that no serious policy reforms will be supported by this administration. It is a chaotic disaster to be endured, and hopefully survived. Trump has a knack for turning problematic situations in to disasters.
Edited to add recent NYT story: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/magazine/immigration-department-of-homeland-security.html
BTW Trump offered the Democrats a path for the Dreamers but they didn’t want to give him a win.
Now you’re just making things up. In Feb 2018, a group of bipartisan senators told Trump the good news that a deal had been reached. 25 billion for the wall, limits on the ability of legal U.S. residents to sponsor their adult children for immigration, and a reduction in diversity visas in exchange for protection of deportation for the Dreamers.
Trump turned it down for even more hard lines against immigrants and it was the Republicans who wouldn’t go for it.
This isn’t whataboutism. It’s people who actually believe they were running actual concentration camps when they were in power and didn’t care to say a word about them being concentration camps. That’s Nazi-level evil, assuming the characterization of them is being made in good faith in the first place, which I absolutely do not grant.
If you’re right about them being concentration camps then you are siding with Nazis. If you’re wrong about that characterization, then we can talk about whataboutism AKA deflectively calling out hypocrisy. I’m much more threatened by the possibility that a political party thinks it can get away with running what it, in good faith, believes are concentration camps, as long as it doesn’t call them that. That’s a recipe for mass oppression if they ever get power again.
They’re in power now. Open your eyes.
And never think for one second that they care what you think or what you need. Especially Trump. To him, everyone has always been a mark. He does not care about anyone else, and never has. He’d throw Don, Jr. or Melania under a bus in a heartbeat if it would save his skin.
But the Republican party started down this road under New Gingrich, and hit the gas with the Tea Party. Trump was inevitable. And he knows the lessons of Goebbels well, even if it’s only instinctual, as he doesn’t read anything.
It didn’t start with Gingrich. Governor Clinton didn’t want Cuban refugees in his state of Arkansas, so he threatened the feds with cutting off their access to the state road leading to the fort they were housing them in. That was in the 70’s I think.
Both parties suck. Neither one has a halo and they all have blood on their hands.
I don’t believe immigration centers can be rightly called “concentration camps” because that connotes something far worse than what is intended here. On the other hand, I believe borders are ultimately morally wrong along with every other thing that divides people, but unfortunately, they are also necessary due to the way the current age works, with competing nation states. The armies of the world have to be disbanded before the borders can be, and that’s the sad reality. Until then it’s great state competition and the stakes could not be higher.
It’s pick your poison with butchers until kingdom come. The least we can do is be honest and civil about it and stop with the self-righteousness and severely overwrought rhetoric. “Concentration camps” wtf.
What a cop-out. “It’s always been that way”. Please.
They are concentration camps. Full stop. Deal with it. And then ask yourself if you’re going to do anything about it.
Doubling down on the self-righteousness and overwrought rhetoric I see. I think we’re done here.
So,…using word according to their dictionary definition is “overwrought rhetoric”?
And they call liberals “snowflakes”.
If we’re spending orders of magnitude more time arguing over a semantic difference than actually doing something about the horror, I’d offer it’s a sign we’re already screwed.
I think that is a lazy position to take, and such a view is probably how we ended up with Trump. I can’t imagine a productive outcome from “a pox on both your houses.”
I can.
It didn’t start with Gingrich. Governor Clinton didn’t want Cuban refugees in his state of Arkansas, so he threatened the feds with cutting off their access to the state road leading to the fort they were housing them in. That was in the 70’s I think.
Both parties suck. Neither one has a halo and they all have blood on their hands.
I don’t believe immigration centers can be rightly called “concentration camps” because that connotes something far worse than what is intended here. On the other hand, I believe borders are ultimately morally wrong along with every other thing that divides people, but unfortunately, they are also necessary due to the way the current age works, with competing nation states. The armies of the world have to be disbanded before the borders can be, and that’s the sad reality. Until then it’s great state competition and the stakes could not be higher.
It’s pick your poison with butchers until kingdom come. The least we can do is be honest and civil about it and stop with the self-righteousness and severely overwrought rhetoric. “Concentration camps” wtf.
…are about the most frighteningly immoral and dangerous people I can imagine.
If that’s the case, you neither understand or are ready for politics and need to cultivate a different interest or hobby.
…are about the most frighteningly immoral and dangerous people I can imagine.
If that’s the case, you neither understand or are ready for politics and need to cultivate a different interest or hobby.
“If you don’t want to fight for our country, you can (leave it),” unless you are a Fortunate Son of a rich daddy who will buy you some bone spurs so you can be a warmongering chicken hawk from a safe distance; then, you can stay here.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/50e99e9db9a45ffa576ffd18c0143fac9595867873753de14d90e84cb594779f.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bbfdf296471eded1fedfcbe3910d2662073ea96e6457d58be257f44c638ef268.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/50e99e9db9a45ffa576ffd18c0143fac9595867873753de14d90e84cb594779f.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bbfdf296471eded1fedfcbe3910d2662073ea96e6457d58be257f44c638ef268.jpg
Out of deference to our host Warren, I will not post all the spot-on, biting, incisive political cartoons I easily found on-line calling out Trump’s racism.
And, Little K, your cartoon is despicable. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9a82f6cbb931dceb1b5f7da4ada17781c465510ed5b49e8a93faa9af5c112285.gif
The Koch-founded and supported “American’s for Limited Government?” This isn’t a political cartoon, it is propaganda to further the aims of the org, which in turn is to further the aims of the Koch Brothers. What else would one expect?
I don’t think supporting one’s country when it is doing bad things is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Last I checked, the Kochs pretty explicitly rejected Trump. CATO has become a target for MAGA because of its pro-immigration stance. Reason magazine has spilled no small amount of ink criticizing Trump.
That may be, but I believe they are pro GOP when it comes to the next election, even if it is Trump. If that cartoon does represent their views, then shame on them regardless of their position on Trump.
That may be, but I believe they are pro GOP when it comes to the next election, even if it is Trump. If that cartoon does represent their views, then shame on them regardless of their position on Trump.
Except Trump didn’t simply say “If you hate amercia leave.” What was racist about Trump’s comment is the fact that he assumed that because these people weren’t white, that means they came from some other country.