I resonated with this author. We are essentially political conservatives but can clearly see that Trump values nothing of true conservatism. He is an ideological extremist.
We can and should debate proper levels of immigration, including debating more immigration restrictions, without using the exact language and exact claims that energize and inspire an actual racist terrorist movement. But somehow all too many Americans have convinced themselves that the only way to “fight” is to use language that is deliberately designed to stoke fear and rage — that pushes the envelope with the express purpose of enraging our opposition.
Tell people we face an invasion often enough, and some people will act according to the ordinary meaning of that term. The El Paso shooter called immigration an invasion, and he responded in the way that people historically respond to “invasions” — with armed force.
And if you think the obligation of decency runs only one way, think again. While we don’t yet know the Dayton shooter’s motives, early reportingindicates that the Dayton shooter described himself as a leftist, hated Donald Trump, supported Elizabeth Warren, and once wrote “kill every fascist.” He condemned “concentration camps” at the border. Angry political hyperbole that invokes the language of death or the Holocaust is toxic. Period.
There is no longer a defining line between conservatives and progressives. Like Putin, who has embraced the extremes of both ideologies in the interests of personal power and wealth theory, Trump has hoards of people who in the past were committed conservatives, now endorsing hate speech, vile chanting and the rejection of the wonderful bi partisan realm that facilitated the constitution in the first place.
What is the hate speech and vile chanting that conservatives endorse?
What is the wonderful bipartisan realm that facilitated the constitution that conservatives reject?
“Lock her up”
“Send her back”
The founding fathers counted every American as equally worthy of civil rights. They rose above the divisions of race and skin colour to establish that. When you hear someone today say of hispanics “they are taking out jobs”, there is no longer consideration of status as an American. The accusation is made regardless of American citizenship and the ‘they’ is based on ethnicity.
There is nothing vile about ‘lock her up’. Hillary looks very much like an elitist crook that used the position of elected office for her own personal gain. Now the people chanting this could be wrong, but the chant is not vile. Also we have to distinguish between the chant and the action of locking her up. It is the chant we are discussing, nobody is actually locking her up and no one is advocating she should be locked up without due process.
Likewise I do not consider the chant ‘send her back’ to be vile and I would again distinguish between the chant and the action. It is the chant we are discussing. The chant is stupid, it’s silly and it is removed from the reality of actually sending her ‘back’. Trump was right to criticize it and not join in but the chant is not vile, especially considering the person to which it was directed. I don’t know of Republicans who endorse the chant. I can understand why people would chant such a thing and I think on an emotional level it has some validity, but it is childish and not something that in the real world can be supported or endorsed.
I don’t know what ‘shoot them’ refers to.
Neither of the first two are to do with hate and while people can have different opinions on that, what is worrying is that the label ‘hate speech’ is part of a religion that is trying to be implemented in society that forces people to act in certain ways in accordance with that religion.
It is that religion that is divisive that needs to see hate in order to control society.
As an Australian, I can only cite our different cultural values. Trumpism is a deviation from western conservatist values.
Look I don’t think that makes sense. During the writing of the constitution there was slavery and problems with different immigrants living side by side. I don’t think there was such a wonderful realm that facilitated the constitution.
Certainly if we just consider the writers then yes they saw a world where every citizen was protected by the law and worthy of respect. Republicans extended this to the slaves by fighting the Democrats. That is something the Republican party should be eternally praised for. There is no move by the Republicans to mass strip people of their citizenship based on ethnicity or to make one group of citizens inferior to another based on ethnicity. There is a long history of Republicans doing the opposite of that.
There is a very valid concern about the level of illegal immigration by non citizens. That is completely acceptable and valid. It is the Democrats who are back to their race mongering in trying to make that acceptable position all about race so as to castigate their political opponents. Now that truly is vile.
As another Australian I’d say Trump is the sharp end of the spear defending against the very unwestern and dangerously horrific value of political correctness.
Right now he is the defender of western values.
I don’t know what ‘shoot them’ refers to.
Guy at a Trump rally shouted “shoot them” in reference to what Trump should do with immigrants, and Trump laughed.
Thanks for the information.
I think we both can agree that Republicans, especially including immigrants like the first lady do not endorse the shooting of immigrants.
I have very rarely flagged posts and only done so when there has been a concerted effort to silence my posts and get me banned. I apologise if 7 or 8 years ago you were undeservedly caught in the crossfire.
What would a “war” on “White Nationalist Terrorism” look like? I ask because in “war” people die and I’m wondering who specifically you think needs to be targeted.
People are already dying.
Which “white nationalists” do we need to kill to stop people from dying?
This reminds me of when Janet Napolitano included prolife Catholics on the “potential terrorist list”. Give totalitarian-minded the power to relegate people to condemned status, and they’ll include some very surprising people. The way leftists are now defining “white supremacists”, nobody from Mike Pence to Barack Obama can be entirely certain he’ll never be defined as a “white nationalist”.
Really??? The old CAF didn’t have a flagging system. If you were banned, it was the mods who were responsible since they policed the forum vigorously.
It was a ‘reporting’ system.
At the very least censoring white nationalist hate speech without the irrational fear of loosing the right to free speech. Take for example other countries laws regarding hate speech. I’ve been reading the documents of the founding fathers recently and marvelling at how wise and statesmanlike these men were in comparison to Trump. James Madison in quoting Plato said:
“the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction,” such that the “excess of liberty, whether in states or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.”
When you have people literally equating Trump’s Twitter feed to “white nationalist hate speech”, I don’t think fears of losing the right to free speech are at all irrational. Trump is a mainstream American politician with support from roughly 50% of the country, not some fringe character operating from Montana via shortwave radio. Even so, that doesn’t seem much like a war unless your planning on censoring them with drone strikes.
Perhaps your memory needs refreshing.
I just re-read the 2009 report that prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, coordinated with the FBI, and released under Napolitano.
It does not contain the word Catholic, pro-life, or prolife.