Many people like to imagine how they would have reacted had they lived in cataclysmic times. They tell themselves that they would not have joined the Nazi party, they would not have owned slaves in the pre-Civil War South, they would have behaved like George Washington in the Revolutionary War, not like Benedict Arnold. Those things were evil and they would never partake in evil.
But evil does not suddenly leap from the shadows wearing a warning sign across its forehead. Evil generally arrives on a welcome mat, embraced as a popular choice, often venerated and lauded.
[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]The Republican Party has come face to face with evil and is joyfully licking its arse.[/pullquote]
Once again we have welcomed evil to our country, this time vested in Donald Trump, a pusillanimous oaf, easily the most ill informed, brutal, corrupt, thin-skinned and narcissistic individual ever elected to the US presidency. Make no mistake, he is evil, embodying the worst human impulses including racism, misogyny, cruelty and stupidity. History is going to judge us by what we do next.
First to be judged will be the people who support him. Evil, as usual, is popular. A large segment of the US population (though, notably NOT the majority) have embraced Trump as the solution to their problems in exactly the same way they embraced Hitler, slavery and racism as the solution to their problems. The media told us that Trump voters despise elitism and blame it for their declining fortunes. Duh, that’s standard operating procedure in justifying the embrace of evil. Moreover, Trump supporters eagerly support elitism in sports and entertainment. They just don’t support elitism in education and intelligence.
Religious fundamentalists will be judged especially harshly for an extraordinary display of hypocrisy unmatched in modern times. If Jesus has a grave, he’s spinning in it. Trump embodies everything that Jesus warned against. Trump personifies all that the religious right claims to deplore. He has five children by three different women. He’s a serial philanderer. He’s a bully and a bigot. He doesn’t even give lip service to Christianity. So why has he been embraced by people who claim to be “religious”? Because in their very un-Christian estimation, the ends justify the means. The religious right hasn’t got the courage of its own religious convictions. Sad, as Trump would say.
Our erstwhile political leaders also will come in for a hefty share of obloquy. Hitler and his cronies — Goebbels, Goring, Eichman, Mengele — are blamed for the spasm of violence known as WWII but the German people were equally culpable. Many eagerly embraced the destruction of civil rights, the pillage and murder of minorities, and a voracious appetite for the lands of other peoples. Trump and his toadies — Bannon, Conway, McConnell and Ryan — will shoulder the bulk of the blame for the developing American catastrophe. But Trump partisans are enthusiastic supporters of the destruction of civil rights, the racism and misogyny, and the bullying behavior that will inevitably lead us into war. They have welcomed evil into our country and they will ultimately bear the shame for it.
The Republican Party has come face to face with evil and is joyfully licking its arse. The Republican Party long ago abandoned patriotism for power. They may brandish the flag, but they don’t love America; they love themselves. It seems quaint that only 40 years ago principled Republicans opposed their own president, Nixon, over an attempt to subvert the Constitution. That could never happen now. They are cravens utterly lacking in honor.
The media will bear some responsibility for the arrival of evil on our doorstep. They didn’t recognize evil when Trump reared his ugly head; they thought it was entertaining. Indeed, they gifted Trump with billions of dollars in free publicity because they looked at evil and saw a ratings bonanza. Trump, like all authoritarians, despises a free press, but no one could blame him for his contempt of the press for how easily they were manipulated to fulfill his plans without recognizing what was going on until it was too late.
The media’s portion of the blame is mitigated by the fact that they have finally recognized Trump for the would-be dictator that he is and are fighting back vigorously. They may even reclaim real news from fake news as our appetite for facts ultimately outweighs our appetite for validation of our personal beliefs, at least for some of us.
The bottom line is this: Trump is evil and if you support him, you are evil, too. You’re like the Germans who lived near the concentration camps, breathing in the ash of millions of humans incinerated by government run by madmen and claiming that it isn’t your fault because you didn’t personally shove the bodies into the ovens. So far only civil rights are being incinerated, but you are nonetheless complicit.
Edmund Burke, a great conservative politician once said:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
How much worse is it when ostensibly good people vote for and support evil? It’s much worse and we will be judged accordingly.
There are many years of insidious lies from right wing media that are coming to fruition now. Insidious is a good word for them. They have turned anyone who disagrees with these lies into a boogeyman group they define as “The Left” (Or various other labels which still group all opposition together).
I agree it is evil. German nationalism in the early 20th century has many parallels to what is happening today. All those Germans weren’t born evil, they were manipulated into becoming it.
Something to pay attention to is the narrative to create a negative stigma around being a member of the Democratic party, which pushes people to be Independents or any other political group. It worked on me, and Al Franken of all people popped that BS bubble for me.
NDT Has a great quote about how to resist “Forces of Thought”, but thanks to Star Wars that is a hard quote to find!
Agree
Discus has its limitations but what does do well is record the time a comment was made so people can figure out quite easily in what order, ‘who’ commented.
Also useful to remember that there was no massacre, or even a single terror related killing in Bowling Green.
“Trump personifies all that the religious right claims to deplore. He has five children by three different women. He’s a serial philanderer. He’s a bully and a bigot. He doesn’t even give lip service to Christianity. So why has he been embraced by people who claim to be ‘religious’?”
Let’s be honest: They love him because he’s a white male & straight. #MAGA has always stood for Make America White (Male) Again. Hillary lost because of sexism and racism (whitelash against Obama).
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8f33e09d12e9d0f3400868e2254654f51f47d9e5301b7ec4008a69d6fe1080b8.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a3886d4698ac07ab85f7f604737efb81c30d155b11d4cbbbd078bc678c20f43f.jpg
My mom’s cousin just posted a meme that has Elizabeth Warren saying if women are raped by iraqi muslims to prove our welcoming-ness, so be it.
I’m sorry, but, yes, Trump is evil. So are the people who voted for him. They voted for him because they wanted to hurt others. They voted for him to build a wall to keep people who are poorer and more vulnerable than them out. They voted for him to stop refugees from fleeing a war zone. They voted for him because they couldn’t stand the thought of a woman being president. They voted for him because they thought he would hurt other people. Some of them now regret their votes because they have discovered that he will hurt them too. My sympathy is limited.
I thought the wall was to stop criminals and other threats to the country. What is wrong with having a border and expecting people to use passports.
Try and get into the UK, New Zealand or Australia without documentation. They have no qualms whatsoever about simply putting you on the next plane out.
The people being kept out in airports have passports, visas, and, in some cases, dual citizenship with allied countries plus the forbidden country. Trump simply ordered that these documents not be respected. As for the border with Mexico, it’s a long and complicated story that I’ll go into in detail another time.
Exactly. These are people who were under every impression that it was safe to travel because they DO have all the proper documents. Amazing how Trump supporters seem to be able to willfully ignore facts.
Including people who had schedule,d high risk, needed surgery, who had filled out all the proper paperwork, applied for the correct visas, borrowed or raised the money for the plane fare and the surgery. And then were told they would not be allowed to come to the US because of this poorly thought out, discriminatory ban.
http://www.kptv.com/story/34395627/family-of-4-month-old-set-to-have-surgery-at-ohsu-impacted-by-trumps-executive-order
http://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/01/31/17/ban-sparks-panic-among-refugees-awaiting-urgent-medical-care-in-us
Many of the people mentioned in the second article have already been waiting years while their requests are processed.
Facts have a liberal bias, don’t you know.
And like an Iraqi refugee who had been in Sweden while getting vetted to come to the US, those dual citizens or refugees don’t go back to where they had been sheltered necessarily. He was to be sent back to Iraq, where he would be killed immediately because of the work he did for the US. (From “This American Life”).
I’ve heard so many stories that will just gut you. It’s a cruel world.
And, oh yes, the border wall. The long and short of it is that in the 19th century, anglos begged for permission to settle in what is now the southwestern US. The Mexican government agreed, on the condition that the anglos recognize that they were living in Mexico and follow Mexican law. The anglos agreed. Then Mexico banned slavery. It was only at that point that the anglos decided that they needed FREEEEEEDOOOMMM!!!! and rebelled.
So basically, the fear that drives the desire for a border wall is an ugly combination of projection (“what is they want to steal it back”) and support for slavery. It’s not the people on the other side of the wall I fear.
And the drugs, criminals and terrorist back-door issues are of no concern to you at all?
Well, of course. I certainly hope that Mexico can manage to get its act together enough that the drug/gun runners from the US are stopped and, ideally, brought to justice. I’d like to see criminals like Driscoll made to pay decent wages to their employees too. And if we could somehow get white men with guns to stop shooting up random locations or non-random locations like that terrorist in Canada, that would be great too.
Oh, that’s not what you meant, is it?
No, I am keen for all illegal activities to be addressed so I am OK with that.
So you’re pro-gun control? Because limiting access to guns would reduce the crime rate in the US far more than the most wildly successful wall possibly could. The vast majority of criminals in the US are US-Americans.
Gun ownership should be regulated with careful screening as a requirement for holding a license.
Whereas Republicans have made it easier for mentally ill people to own guns.
Gun ownership is so carefully regulated and screened here in Maine that you can buy a gun from the Uncle Henry’s catalog, which also sells used furniture and firewood. SMH
Mentally ill? That’s nothing, check this out:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/08/iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind/2780303/
You asked for my opinion, that is my opinion.
So Republicans are wrong to have relaxed the rules regarding gun control, right?
It’s almost if you cannot bring yourself to say the words, ” Republicans were wrong. This policy has made us less safe.”
Do I need to draw you a picture, can you not read the words I wrote?
When I state my clear opposition to the white nationalist threat you go on and call me white supremacist, I state my views on gun control in clear English and you still don’t get it, I deny the pro life claims and you call me a misogynist, I deny accusations of violence and you call me stupid.
You’re interesting.
Your apologism for trump is inconsistent with your mealy mouthed “clear opposition” to white supremacy, gun control. I actually have no direct evidence that you are anti choice, so I’m happy to retract those. Though if you actually were pro choice, you’d probably not be defending trump.
So the point I’m trying to get you to is this: trump has done nothing to address the issues you say you care about, and has visibly made it worse. He’s targeted and harmed people who do not deserve it. His EO has caused 5year olds to be cuffed, grandmas to be stranded for hours without food, an 11 month old baby to be separated from its mother because one was a citizen and one was not. And it hasn’t made you safer.
If you are arguing in good faith, this is the point where you try to break through the cognitive dissonance and realise you’ve done the wrong thing voting for him.
Try getting into the UK, New Zealand, or Australia with a valid passport and visa… you’ll get in.
Try getting into any of those countries as a refugee after you’ve gone through a two-year approval process including one of the most thorough background checks known to man… you’ll get in.
Trump’s order wasn’t trying to keep unvetted people out. It was trying to exclude people who had already been thoroughly vetted and granted the right to enter the US.
Agree absolutely. If you have legal documents you should be free to travel.
Let the courts sort it out.
What’s to sort out? The people in question had legal documents. Trump decided to try to forbid them from entering the country that they had already been vetted and legally approved to enter simply because he wanted to throw his weight around a little and look tough. If you can’t figure out that he’s a fascist and a bully from that, what would it take to convince you?
You are making a lot of assumptions about his motives. The court will decide whether it was within his power to act that way or not. No emotion just facts.
We don’t have to make any assumptions about his motives. He put his wishes down on a piece of paper and signed his name under it. And his wishes were to not honour legal travel documents issued by his country.
You mean a temporary travel ban to allow a review of vetting procedures.
No, we mean a Muslim Ban:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.8f862f6328ae
What about the countries where the other 85% of Muslims are from? They aren’t banned- not a very ban is it?
What about the countries where the people who have committed major acts of terrorism against the US are from? They aren’t getting extra vetting, not a very extreme vetting is it?
Oh, and what about the non-Muslims from the banned countries who get a free pass?
You said it was a muslim ban yet it excludes the countries that 85% of Muslims live in. That is the point. It can’t be a Muslim ban.
Is that substantial enough? It even includes some maths.
It is a ban of Muslims and only Muslims from several countries. It is a Muslim ban. That it is a subset of Muslims is of no importance. The people banned are Muslims.
So it is a partial Muslim ban?
It is a Muslim ban. Muslims are not a unified block by any means, but this is meant to target and harass all of them.
1182 refers to ‘aliens or any class of aliens’
So you do realize that to be discriminatory, it doesn’t have to affect everyone of the class equally, it just has to be at least partially motivated towards animus towards that class. You know that, right? It’s extremely basic discrimination law jurisprudence.
So laws in North Carolina that never mentioned African Americans, but were “surgically designed” to suppress the black vote, didn’t affect all black people because they don’t all vote on Sundays or vote early or use the targeted forms of photo ID. They were still discriminatory because the statements politicians made about the issue made it clear they were targeting black voters as a block, even though not all of them would be affected. Trump’s Muslim ban is the exact same- he is targeting Muslims, he is animated by animus against them (see: his speeches and Twitter), and thus he is putting into place an illegal, unconstitutional ban based on both religion and nation of origin.
And if you think that people in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and other Arab or Muslim countries don’t know exactly what’s going on, you’re full of shite. If you think harassment of all Muslims in the US isn’t going to increase over this, if you think it hasn’t already increased because of this, you’re both ignorant and wrong. Real people are going to get hurt, real people have already gotten hurt, because of an ill-advised, racist, Islamophobic asshat who doesn’t understand geopolitics and doesn’t care about anyone but himself and doesn’t understand that his actions make America less safe, not more safe. Why are you defending him?
Go back and read the wording of 1182. The countries were identified as they are hotbeds of Islamic jihadism and inadequate immigration documentation systems.
Calling it a Muslim ban is an attempt to drive a narrative.
Call it whatever you like the wording of 1182 is quite clear.
I have read the wording. Considering that 1) there are nations that are far more “hotbeds of Islamic jihadism” that weren’t on the list and 2) there have been precisely 0 attacks by any citizens of those countries in the US in the last 40 years, I simply don’t buy it. Neither should you. Trump made very clear in videotaped interviews that he was looking for a legal way to do a Muslim ban. What he found is a way to make it look semi-legal, but it really isn’t legal at all.
Calling it a Muslim ban caused by animus/hatred towards Muslims isn’t attempting to drive a narrative, it’s looking at the facts and assembling them into the only picture that they form. Or are you so deliberately ignorant you haven’t actually looked at, watched, read, or listened to Trump talk about this?
How do you avoid mentioning ‘Muslim’ in any manner or form if your aim is reduce the risk of Islamic jihadists entering the country?
By banning only people from predominantly Muslim countries, then carving out an exception for religious minorities.
That’s not his aim. His aim is to ban Muslims from entering the country. He said so over and over again. If he was really concerned about terrorism, he’d target white nationalist groups in the US and possibly Saudi Arabia, neither of which he has done.
You are proposing that he isn’t really concerned about terrorism and that is obviously preposterous. The single biggest global terrorist threat is currently radical Islamic terrorism.
I happen to agree that the white nationalist threat is very real and I hope the intelligence agencies are giving it attention it deserves.
What planet are you living on? If he was concerned about terrorism, he would block people who come from the countries that terrorists have come from, not from the countries that haven’t sent any terrorists here. He’s concerned about promoting authoritarianism and enriching himself. How long is it going to take you to recognize the obvious?
Again, you suggesting that he is not concerned with terrorism which you know is ridiculous.
If you feel so strongly about the other dangerous countries being excluded then you should be arguing for a broadening of the ban.
Only if one thinks the ban is a useful way to address the issue.
If he had the slightest interest in protecting ordinary Americans from terror and violence, he’d be homing in on white supremacists.
He’s interested in making scared people more scared. And he seems to be doing a great job.
It will be very interesting to watch his next move on the travel bans.
I anticipate many more ALL CAPS tweets.
What a clown.
He should be impeached for abuse of adjectives and adverbs.
No, I’m saying that he’s only concerned about some types of terrorism- he’s overly concerned about it to the point of violating the Constitutional rights of some people. He’s completely unconcerned about other types of terrorism, to the point of directing the federal government to stop looking into white supremacist and militia groups. So no, our intelligence agencies aren’t giving white Christian terrorism the attention it deserves.
He’s concerned not by the terrorism itself, but by who does it. Crimes committed by “them” are awful- crimes committed by “us” are no big deal. That’s completely unacceptable in a person in general, let alone the president of the United States.
The family of a person killed in a terrorist attack doesn’t really care too much about the ‘type ‘ of terrorist, only that their family member is dead.
Actually, the families of those killed in the Charleston church massacre would probably care very much that White Nationalists of the murderer’s ilk are now no longer considered terrorists, and shall not be investigated as such.
I meant to type white supremacists, not white nationalists. Although white nationalists are increasingly sounding like apologists. Which is what you are, of course.
Wow. You are moving from the insulting to the offensive now.
I think you need to calm down. You know absolutely nothing about me.
I have previously stated here that the domestic white nationalist threat should be treated just as strictly as any external threat.
so trump is obviously wrong to take white supremacist groups out of the Countering Extremist Violence program, right?
No, equating me with a white supremacist is offensive.
Very poor dodge, clutch your delicate pearls later. Is trump wrong to take white supremacists out of the program for countering violent extremists, yes or no?
Yes.
Would it bother you if I called you a holocaust denier at all?
It would not bother me, because you’d be obviously wrong. And not many people call me a holocaust denier because I don’t deny the holocaust. A good method for not being called an apologist for racists is not to be an apologist for racists.
Speaking of holocaust denial, the whitehouse holocaust memorial day speech was straight out of the holocaust denialist playbook. Are you going to defend that one too?
I seriously doubt that is their primary concern.
Yeah, they obviously wouldn’t care if others suffered in the way they suffered. In the same way that parents who lost children to gun violence never ever advocate for gun control.
What you’re really saying is, “That’s not MY primary concern.”
No linden. You are saying what you are saying.
The type of terrorist is irrelevant- they need to sought out, found and terminated.
I wonder how many families of terror victims Pck knows? I’m guessing none.
Several from the Bowling Green Massacre?
Wow, the filters are set a little low today.
Wrong again I’m afraid.
I’ve read two articles in the past two days written by/about people who either lost a loved one or who were a vistim of an attack on that list of terror supplied by the White House in defence of the ban and they are really angry about being included:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/08/mia-ayliffe-chung-trump-terrorism-list
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/leytonstone-attack-tube-london-muhiddin-mire-lyle-zimmerman-white-house-terror-list-attempted-a7573161.html
They are not happy about having their personal tragedy exploited for political point scoring. Particularly when one considers that in both instances, these were not considered or believed to be terrorist attacks.
Right, which is why we should be focusing a lot more on white nationalist terrorism and a lot less on terrorism committed by refugees who happen to be Muslim, which, oh right, doesn’t happen in the US because we have a two-year vetting process already.
The biggest threat to America, however, are homegrown white nationalists:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-greatest-terrorist-threat-the-one-we-never-talk-about
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html
http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-biggest-terror-threat-in-america-isnt-islamic-extremists-2015-6
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-people-are-the-biggest-terror-threat-in-the-us-report-finds-10342987.html
It’s interesting isn’t it: almost like Pck thinks if you get killed by a homegrown white nationalist you aren’t as dead as if you get killed by a muslim.
Or is it that white nationalists tend to kill members of the American community that white nationalists find distasteful, so no biggie?
Either way, not a good look to try and defend.
Not to mention the inconvenient fact that worldwide, muslim terrorists kill way more muslims than anyone else. Not hearing a lot of outrage about that.
What’s interesting to me is there’s not a single reason for why it can’t be a Muslim ban that Pck has given that can’t be turned around to point out why it can’t be a terrorist fighting measure.
It has to be a Muslim ban to fit the left’s narrative. It doesn’t have to be a Muslim ban to stop potential threats.
I’m just saying, on your basis that it’s not a Muslim ban because it doesn’t ban most Muslims, it’s not a potential threat stopper because it doesn’t stop most threats.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/
So it should be broadened.
Yes, because the way to fix a pile of crap is to make it a bigger pile of crap.
So there is no threat all, Trump is just a bully and you are OK with inadequately screened individuals entering the country?
Considering that there have been zero terrorist attacks from people affected by this ban then I am curious as to how you can describe them as “inadequately screened” – clearly the individuals given dual citizenships/green cards and other kinds of visas from the 7 affected countries have been adequately screened if not a single successful jihadist has made it through the net to the US from these “hotbeds of islamic jihadism”. Given this inconvenient fact forgive me if I’m having a hard time believing either your or Trump’s pious declarations about this ban being driven by terrorism concerns when it is targetting a group of immigrants responsible for no terrorism at all.
They aren’t inadequately screened.
Yeah, what is the basis for the assertion they are inadequately screened? Have a bunch of terrorists come through from those places that we failed to catch?
We don’t know do we. Well have to wait and see.
They have interesting ways of making themselves known.
They’re boogiemen, got it.
You’ll be fine Nick, they won’t hurt you or your family because you were kind.
How many families have they hurt on American soil since 9/11, kind or unkind?
And you can say that about anyone. Canadians are a threat. On what basis? Wait and see….
That’s exactly why this ban is so stupid. The logic makes no sense. Anyone can be a threat on the basis of wait and see. Thus, there is no basis for this selective ban
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbfBzWJVbX4
I will freeze you with my Raynaud’s purple feet! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!
The UN does adequate screening? That’s reassuring.
In the years that the current vetting procedures have been in place, how many successful attacks on US soil have been carried out by foreign nationals who slipped through them?
My ex-stepfather was an American citizen and he was also a pedophile. Oddly, he was able to come and go across the Canadian border at will. I think the ban’s targets are quite misplaced.
Well it does help to provide some scale for the original pile.
I fear these early piles of crap will indeed end up looking small compared to what the orange one will end up doing. Not that I think he has anything planned-forward thinking doesn’t seem to be likely in someone who managed to send a casino broke-but he now has a very big playground and some pretty big toys and enablers.
I’m sure Pck has some devastating retort for this blinding piece of common sense.
Though since he seems to believe that ‘all’ or ‘nothing’ are the two options, maybe not….
I think you missed what said about the white nationalist threat.
It would be completely stupid to use this as a rationalisation to ignore the global threat of Islamic radicals however.
Kinda like it’s completely stupid to invoke 9/11 to harass people from countries that had nothing to do with 9/11?
So there is no threat to the US from radical Islamic jihadists at all.? We should all just chill and stop being mean
There’s no threat to the US from the nations banned, and no recent threat increase to justify a ban of anyone when we were doing fine without one.
Not according to the intelligence agencies you weren’t.
They clearly highlighted the risk of infiltration of refugees by radical Islamists.
Source, please.
They don’t exist. If they did the government would have put them up as evidence before the Court and it would have had the ban lifted.
The emergency needs to be happening somewhere other than the President’s pants.
You know what, on a given day, I’d say trump thinks more about his daughter’s clothing line, how to appear more manly to foreign heads of state, or the state of Sean Spicer’s suits than he ever does about protecting people from terrorism.
In fact, I’m pretty certain that what he wants to do is receive the adulation of scaredy cats who think he’s doing something useful about terrorism. He’s not done a single thing to make you safer, and lots to put you in more danger.
Admittedly Sean’s atrociously ill-fitting shoulder line on the first day was the stuff nightmares are made of.
That aside, though, you’re quite right.
If his real aim is to ban Muslims from entering the country surely he would ban all Muslims not only 15%.
If his real aim is to ban terrorists and prevent another 9/11, surely he’d include the countries the 9/11 terrorists were actually from.
Advocate to broaden the order if that is your concern.
Why would he? The ban is worse than ineffective, it is counterproductive. And the countries that might be on the list, that might make some* think the ban was declared in good faith but implemented in a really stupid and harmful way, those countries are not on the list. Nobody can give Trump and his Republican enablers the benefit of the doubt. You’re defending the indefensible. Poorly.
*By some, I mean the extremely naive and ignorant. Even they’d get a clue that is apparently beyond you.
What evidence do you have that the ban is ineffective?
Recent polling indicates majority support for the ban.
Ease up on the insults, they don’t strengthen your argument and they say more about you than me.
80% of Americans don’t do enough exercise, so doing exercise is useless. The majority have spoken! Who needs evidence?
What evidence do *you* have that it works? As to why it is counterproductive, don’t listen to me, listen to the experts trying to keep you safe:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-travel-ban-makes-america-less-safe-ex-top-security-n717206
Regarding what you call insults: what they say about me is that I’m done being polite to the malicious and the willfully ignorant. My arguments are plenty strong.
“Democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”
I realize that the recent election demonstrated that Americans, on the whole, lack any compassion or common decency toward others, but thankfully, that is why we have courts, to prevent the government from infringing on the rights of individuals.
Even if everyone in the US voted to strip you of all your possessions and make you live naked in the street, the government does not have the authority to do so.
The founding fathers KNEW that the majority of the population could be total assholes and unreasonable. That is why they created a system to protect everyone from it. There is even a name for it: “tyranny of the majority.”
We are seeing that more and more these days. “Millions of people will lose their health care.” So what, say 90%, I have mine, and it won’t affect me. Who cares about the 10% that will suffer?
Good points.
And at one time there was majority support for slavery, and sodomy laws, and denying the vote to women. An action being popular and being good are completely unconnected.
Not only was slavery very much a supported thing, but the Constitution manages to regulate the crap out of slavery without ever using the word. Since it doesn’t say “slave,” it must not be about slavery!! /s
Why? I think it’s a fantastically stupid idea even if you remove the religious animus.
YOU are the one claiming it is the concern. Why doesn’t he expand it to the countries responsible for 9/11?
Obviously because its not about preventing something like 9/11.
IOW, that is bullshit lie. Just like everything else he says.
You’re funny. He’s trying to ban Muslims in a legal way, which means he can’t simply do that. The animus and intent is still there, though.
‘Any class of alien…’
Muslim green card holders. Muslim refugees already granted sanctuary. Muslim H1-B visa holders. All kept out by racism. He banned all people by national origin from seven mostly Muslim countries and said that he would see about getting exceptions for Christians from those countries, and you still don’t think this is targeted by religion? What evidence would convince you, exactly? What do you want to see to make you think this is animated by religious animus? What would it take?
I believe that these issues (green card and visa holders) were clarified and corrected within 48 hours of EO coming into force.
That the EO needed to be clarified and corrected is not a credit to the administration that issued it.
Duly noted.
Only due to the massive outcry of protest. Changes made under duress don’t count as proof that it wasn’t a ban in the first place- it means it was walked back a little when the full scope was known. Also note that the courts have placed an injunction upon enforcement because the ban looks so very unconstitutional on its face.
It indicates either deliberate overreach, in the misguided hope that no one would notice or be able to do anything, or inexcusable sloppiness in preparation of the document.
I tend to subscribe to the cock-up theory of history, so I’ll take the latter, but given his history of comments the former is at least on the table as an option.
Hitler didn’t make all of the Jews wear yellow stars, only the ones in Germany, so it wasn’t discriminatory against Jews at all.
McKinney and Henderson didn’t kill all of the gays, or even just all of the ones in Wyoming, so it wasn’t an anti-gay act.
John Cloud didn’t beat all of the black people in his jurisdiction, just some of them, so it wasn’t a racist act at all.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Wait till he gets going!
A ban that does not include the countries of origin of any of the terrorists that did any of the major attack in the USA during at least the last 17 years.
Yea, sure, that will keep you safe.
I don’t really give a shit about his motives. His actions are those of a fascist.
Like a green card, say? Whoops.
I was pretty clear on that one- if you have the legal documents then free to travel.
Pity your leader wasn’t as clear as you. They banned green card holders too. Not vetted by the UN, not carrying dubious documentation. Your country refused to honour documents it itself had issued.
Say the words, PCK, “They were wrong to do so.” Stop being an apologist for racists.
I’ll say the words – they fixed that after 48 hours.
“They were wrong.”
Those are the words. They shouldn’t have never have done it. I’m not a lawyer, I’m not even American, but even I could tell that was wrong. What’s their excuse? And what else are they going to get wrong?
Are they reimbursing the people for their flights? Lawyers? Unexpected hotel stays after being forcibly ejected from the country? The desperate phone calls from their families? Days lost off work?
They fixed that doesn’t cut it. Because they are both malicious and incompetent, and nobody should be giving trump the benefit of the doubt anymore.
For every criminal you keep out, you’ll keep out thousands of people who do your country good. Doctors with green cards. Foreign students subsidising your native students. Engineers. Tourists. People with drive and determination to upend their lives and work elsewhere. Not people who stay put, believing every story about how jobs in dying industries are going to come back soon, any time now.
Of course, notice I said criminal and not terrorist, because terrorists are even rarer than criminals. You’re doing incalculable damage to your economy, your universities, your intelligence community and you country’s reputation, and you’ll have nothing to show for it.
How many terrorists did it take to kill the 80 plus people with a truck in France?
How many terrorists did it take to kill 168 people in the Oklahoma City Federal building bombing? Oh yeah, none, because he was white.
I think you missed the point.
You’ve missed about a hundred points about how ineffective and counterproductive for security this Muslim Ban is. Not to mention for your global standing, your economy and your universities.
This is temporary travel ban to allow a review of vetting procedures. Despite the very dangerous political games the left are playing in the courts I am very sure the review of vetting procedures continue behind the scenes.
Dangerous political games? It’s called Rule of Law!
Fucking hell…
Constitution = dangerous game?
Well yes if one is trying to recreate the Court of the Sun King. Pesky constitution.
Constitution abused= dangerous games.
You were the one bleating “let the courts sort it out.” Now that the court has smacked him down, you call it “abusing” the constitution?
Honesty is not your strong suit, is it? No wonder you are a Trumpette.
Now now Bofa, the legal process hasn’t run its course yet.
The 9th circuit court- that bastion of upheld Supreme Court decisions. Pure coincidence that the case ended up there of course- no politics involved at all.
I support the rule of law and the separation of Powers equally.
Do you?
Ah, so you don’t like that court “equally” with the others. Do you think those judges should all be impeached then? Seems like you think they’re illegitimate.
No I am sure a higher court will overturn their decision as happens 80% of time with this particular court.
The fact that the judiciary has seperate but equal powers does not mean that the judiciary can legislate – that is clearly the role of the legislature
http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/
Oh wow!!!! A court *passed a law*, going against their prescribed role? When did that happen???? Oh, you mean a court *struck down* a law or executive action as incompatible with a constitutional requirement for *what laws can do*? And that is literally what courts are supposed to do according to their role as “interpreters” in government? Well that’s not nearly as exciting. 😉
I am quite happy for the courts to do their job – it will all work out fine in the end.
The order may be reissued, a higher court may or may not be involved or the order may not be necessary any more.
Everyone has to play by the rules.
The safety of the people will be protected.
Since no immigrant is 100% certain to be a total choirboy innocent who wouldn’t dare kill a fly or run a red light, to “protect” people from those immigrants why don’t we just ban everyone? By your standards that is the only way to “protect the safety of the people” (you yourself said, it only takes one bad egg to get thru and somehow that is our major crime risk). While we’re at it, let’s also kick out all non-citizens, naturalized citizens or even everyone who can’t trace all their great-grandparents to birth in the US! Can’t be too safe!
Don’t ban everyone – screen everyone properly.
This was a temporary travel ban to allow a review of vetting procedures.
Vetting procedures that were working fine.
Oh my god. You’re like a broken record.
Wow. No. 80% of the time this court is overruled? The sc only hears a tiny fraction of the decisions of that court. What a stupid statistic to muddy the water and promote distrust of the judiciary.
Wow. No. 80% of the time this court is overruled? The sc only hears a tiny fraction of the decisions of that court.
Seriously. The federal courts of appeal (First Circuit, Second Circuit, etc.) together handle about 60,000 cases every year (and the Ninth Circuit hears more than average because it covers a larger portion of the population–CA alone is 1/9 of the US population, and the Ninth Circuit also covers several other states).
But the Supreme Court only hears about 64 cases every year. In other words barely 1 in 1000 federal appeals court cases even make it to the Supreme Court–and many of them are affirmed (which means the decision of the federal appeals court stands).
Do the math, man. The overwhelming majority of Ninth Circuit decisions are allowed to stand.
Also – I’m no lawyer, but don’t you only appeal those decisions you think are most likely to be overturned?
It’s more nuanced than that, but generally yeah.
The nuance: it’s a spectrum. Some cases, you have no grounds for appeal. Others, the judge clearly got something wrong as a matter of law and you need to get an appeals court to fix it. In between, there’s a wide range and you make your decision in concert with your client. I mean technically it’s the client’s decision but you advise them heavily. Sometimes an appeal is filed when the argument is pretty weak in order to get more leverage in settlement discussions (that wouldn’t apply to Trump’s orders, though, since a constitutional challenge isn’t like a normal civil case where the plaintiff agrees to go away in return for $X).
American Bar Association figures – they must be part of the conspiracy.
http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/
Nope, you’re misunderstanding/misrepresenting what the figures say. Se explanations below.
You clearly don’t, so stop lying.
Don’t make things up Nick. You’ve read my comments. I have consistently said Trump is not above the law and that the powers are separate and equal.
Except whenever that’s actually put to the test, it’s suddenly “judicial activism and “making us unsafe” or “a matter of interpretation”.
When judges don’t fit in with Trump, it is obviously the judges that are wrong.
One of the conceits of the ignorant is to assume they can predict how a judge will decide based on their understanding of the judge’s politics.
Trump is not above the law. The system is working exactly as it was designed. Judicial activism is a sad reality of the US system particularly. It can be frustrating and embarrassing to watch.
At the end of the day the executive and the judiciary have to obey the rules whether they like it or not.
Both parties push the envelope and that’s politics.
I happen to believe that when national security is involved there should e less political games.
Not above the law, except for the emoluments clause, the tax code, judicial review…
And if you’re against games be played with national security, Trump is the one playing them.
We went from, “let the courts sort it out” to, ” these courts are politically motivated!” ever so quickly.
You know what legally elected leader of the 20th century had no respect for the judiciary? Oh, yeah. And neither did his followers.
Sorry the 9 th circuit is responsible for its own record. I am simply referring to that reputation.
Pure coincidence that the case ended up there of course- no politics involved at all.
Honey… it was Trump who decided to bring this case before the Ninth Circuit. Trump’s order got blocked in several different circuits. Judges in Boston (1st Circuit), Detroit (6th Circuit), Los Angeles (9th Circuit), and several other cities ruled against him.
The case Trump chose to appeal was in California. If you appeal the order of a California federal court, it automatically goes to the Ninth Circuit court of appeals.
Here’s how it works: If you violate the U.S. Constitution in California–say, at the Los Angeles airport–the only place you can get sued is in a California federal court. Similarly, if it’s the Boston airport that’s allegedly violating the Constitution, the case goes to federal court in Massachusetts. Detroit airport? Michigan federal court. Philadelphia airport? Pennsylvania federal court. And so forth.
And if you appeal in Massachusetts (or Connecticut, or any other state in the First Circuit), the First Circuit Federal Court of Appeals hears it. Detroit (or Ohio, Kentucky, etc.)? Sixth Circuit. Philly (or NJ, Delaware, etc.)? Third Circuit. Los Angeles (or Oregon, Hawaii, etc.)? Ninth Circuit. All of this is automatic. It’s not politics.
Maybe The President had his two minutes of strategic thinking for the week and chose that forum so he could then bag it when the application was refused, as it was likely to be anywhere since the government had no evidence whatsoever to support it?
I’m not sure he’s capable of even two minutes of strategic thinking; you’re very generous.
Thanks Honey.
Always a winner that one. Respect.
Way to focus on the issues! Or not.
Cut him some slack. You just exposed his claims as nonsense, of course the response will be to complain about tone. What do you expect him to say, “Sorry, I was wrong.”?
You know, I wonder if that odd choice had something to do with his California vendetta. He lost the state badly, it has a metric fuckton of voters who can’t stand him, and Brown has taken a firm stand against him.
It would be a very Trumpian move. As in, petty and poorly-thought-out.
Repeat those talking points one more time, Pck. You’ll convince us eventually.
Are you, like…incapable of nuanced thought?
You mean like the concept of sovereignty?
And he was caught and dealt with by the courts.
Are you saying that because he is white we don’t need to screen for external threats?
Trump refers to foreign and domestic threats.
Are you unaware that Trump has removed White Supremacists from the program Countering Violent Extremism, oh, you Law and Order voter?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-extremists-program-exclusiv-idUSKBN15G5VO
That makes it harder to stop terrorists like Timothy McVeigh.
More facts ripe to be ignored by Pck….
It’s funny how the White Supremacist terrorist can be caught and dealt with, with good police work, investigative action and the courts, but muslim terrorists have superpowers that make them impossible to root out without trump’s Muslim ban. As if by magic.
What. A. Scaredy-Cat. Big Daddy will protect you, as if by magic! Without any intelligence agency support! Or sources in Muslim countries and communities!
Again, all of these threats need to be hunted down and eliminated.
Well of course. And when Big Daddy gets it wrong, it will be everyone else’s fault.
He’s pre-emptively blamed the judiciary for it.
I really don’t know how I can be any clearer, I have said it again and again that to me these threats are the same.
If you really care equally about loss of life from White Supremacist and Islamic Terrorism why are you here and not bugging the White House to reinstate the White Supremacists on to the watch list Linden refers to? It’s all very well posting piously here about how you care so much about the victims of white supremacist violence but I don’t see you advocating watch lists and screening programs for WASPs in response to it.
The man responsible for the Nice attack was a Tunisian (and incidentally a French resident). Tell me, are either Tunisia or France on Trump’s ban list?
The thread started with a reference how many baddies you keep out vs the harm you do to goodies.
It is irrelevant where this poor misunderstood killer came from.
Of course the order can be broadened to include these countries if that is your concern.
Tunisian Residents? French Residents? How About UK residents? Turks? Don’t forget Anders Breivik. Those Norwegians seem dodgy, don’t they? Better keep an eye on them. Scandinavians, man, who can tell them apart? Better empty out Minnesota, there could be sympathizers.
In fact, why not just leave the place back to the Native Americans?
A sovereign nation has the right and obligation to defend its borders against any threat to its people.
Recent polling indicates majority support for the travel ban.
Link to that poll, pck.
Probably a poll of Fox news viewers.
Politico or Chatham house
Except this provides no defense against any threat. You’re saying that if we don’t like the conclusion we should come to a better one, but we’re going trying to tell you the premises are faulty and no valid conclusion can be reached from them.
Scandinavians do have quite the history of enslaving and pillaging. Block those Viking Spawn!
Like the Minnesota Vikings. Evil, evil team.
Signed,
A Packer Fan
Tunisian Residents? French Residents? How About UK residents? Turks? Don’t forget Anders Breivik. Those Norwegians seem dodgy, don’t they?
And Scottish-Americans. Timothy McVeigh killed more Americans than any terrorist other than the 19 guys it took to perpetrate 9/11. And he killed far more little kids than they did.
Ah, that one could easily gain traction with the current administration as the Scottish pretty much hate trump. I suspect the feeling migh be mutual now. The insult of Scottish choice for trump seems to be “daft bawbag”
He lied his arse off about the amount of benefit his crappy golf courses would bring the Scottish economy (along with the number of jobs created). He then treated local people terribly and keeps trying to use English politicians to influence whether Scotland will build more wind turbines near his golf courses. And basically wants them to throw environmental legislation in the bin especially for him. I mean, the guy clearly has no grasp of British politics so I’m unsurprised at his chaotic approach to the Middle East which is infinitely more complex. He is well hated north of the border. If Scotland end up going Independant after the Brexit fiasco, we will be moving.
You’ll be more than welcome!
Reducing the current geopolitical situation down to ‘baddies’ and ‘goodies’ is part of why we are finding ourselves in this mess. It’s a ridiculously simplistic way of viewing an extremely complex reality.
The ban is a ridiculously blunt tool that will only do more harm than good. It is unlikely to actually prevent terrorism (particularly in the USA where terrorists are likely to be White Supremacists as much as anything else) and has the potential to push more individuals towards radicalisation as it plays directly into the rhetoric of terrorist groups such as ISIS (who also, incidentally, use this concept of ‘baddies’ and ‘goodies’ to recruit).
You were the one trying to use the Nice attack to support your argument. I was merely pointing out that it doesn’t.
The point of the Nice attack was to illustrate that it only takes one individual to get through.
I have commented on the domestic white nationalist risk ad nauseum
The prescence of this risk does not negate the need for screening to address the equally real external risk.
You *already* screen refugees. You have pretty much the most extensive screening program in the world. It involves taking and examining biometric data, multiple interviews, research on individuals. It can take anywhere between 18 months and 3 yrs for an individual to get through this vetting process. From the outside, what this looks like is a way for the USA to absolve itself from the responsibility of rehoming people who are fleeing savagery which is compounded by American intervention and drone strikes. You’re not alone, my own government is doing the same damn thing by preventing unaccompanied children coming here after fleeing British-made bombs too. Doesn’t make it any less disgusting though. Nor will these interventions make terror attacks any less likely.
Except when people arrive from countries where there are no reliable systems to access or cross check data (the 7 countries on the list) or refugees who have only been screened y the UN.
Terrorism is a fact of life, it doesn’t dissolve because you’re nice.
Nor does it dissolve when you’re mean.
Correct, it is not dependent on whether you are nice or mean.
My mother taught me that, with a few rare exceptions, you should do the kind thing.
Actually, it *is* kind of dependent on whether you’re mean.
You piss off the people who would give you information about terrorists, and suddenly, you have no intel, you have no allies. You are less safe now, with trump.
Exactly – like Maidmarian555 I grew up in 1980’s England and I seem to remember the UK doing no good to ourselves at all during the Northern Ireland struggles when we started to treat all NI catholics as potential terrorists rather than people – the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 fiascos certainly did not hurt the IRA’s recruitment and fundraising efforts.
Idk. Maybe I have a slightly different perspective because I grew up in England in the 1980s. We had a very real terror threat in the form of the IRA. There were a number of very high-profile blasts, which killed a lot of innocent people. And that really wasn’t the worst bit. There were regular hoaxes and threats, every one of which had to be taken seriously. They threatened large gatherings of people, public transport, public spaces. Pretty much anywhere people were there were threats. More or less everyone in this country at one time or another during those years will have experienced being evacuated from an area because of a bomb threat. We don’t have that any more, largely thanks to the Good Friday Agreement and because a number of people with very different political views were able to hold their noses and sit around the negotiating table. People have very short memories. Fighting terror with more terror (in this case by hyping up what is essentially a lesser threat to American life than the lack of gun control in your country) will not work. People like the idea of a ban because it sounds like a simple fix. The truth is that there is no simple fix.
I think you’ll find the Pcks of the world think no terror threat is or could ever have been as big as the current muslim terror threat to the US. Despite the fact (actual, not alternative) that most muslim terrorists kill other muslims in ‘muslim’ countries.
And despite the fact that more Americans have been killed by toddlers with guns over the last several years than by any ‘muslim’ terrorist.
And despite the fact that the white supremacist crowd proudly kill their fellow Americans all the time-but again, not the class of Americans Pck et al rate.
I agree that terror is a different kind of war but this is a temporary travel ban not a siege.
“Equally real”? When non-immigrants are considerably more likely to be criminals and terrorists? I’m way more scared of a white Trump supporter lunatic shooting up the pizza place I go to, or someone killing off the OB-GYNs who support my area, than I am of a refugee. Because the *statistics* show that these are NOT EQUAL RISKS.
OK then ignore the external threat. I am sure that will appease the jihadists and they will immediately down their weapons cancel their plans, profess love for America and send flowers.
The *protests against Trump* have already given rise to a “We love the American people” mentality in Muslim nations since they see how much we don’t want to vilify and stereotype them. There are literal marches where people are saying “We hate the US Govt but not its people.” Humanity matters and it DOES help.
We take into account the “threat” of foreigners by actual normal vetting procedures, not throwing the board off the table and banning whole nations without any procedures at all. Personally, seeing my classmates get trapped overseas rather than being allowed back at grad school doesn’t make me feel safer, somehow. Nor do the grandmas and 5-year-olds being detained. In fact, detaining people and ripping families apart is a GREAT way to inspire vitriolic hatred of the US. But that’s just me, I have… common sense?
Not only that, ISIS is using the ban as a recruitment call:
http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-reacts-blessed-trump-travel-ban-islamic-state-celebrates-immigration-restriction-2488788
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jihadist-groups-hail-trumps-travel-ban-as-a-victory/2017/01/29/50908986-e66d-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.de8161f56612
Yes they definitely would have cancelled any further recruitment if not for this heinous temporary travel ban.
Once again you display your astounding ability to not only swing and miss, but not even be in the same game.
You still believe that as long as we don’t piss them off they won’t hate/kill us.
That horse has bolted.
No, but I do believe in not handing a person who hates me an easy way to convince other people to hate me too.
It’s sweet how Pck thinks the only effects Trump has are the ones that suit him and are right in front of his nose.
Annoying people planning harm won’t make a difference. Annoying those in the same pool who plan no harm is just foolish.
What you have is a capacity for nuance. It’s a rare trait in the incumbent US government and its supporters.
It’s really hard to get nuance into a slogan.
I love how you conflate “this measure does nothing useful” with “we should do nothing”.
I think you want to do nothing because you are terrified you will offend someone.
Nope. I’m not afraid of offending people. I am afraid of treating people grossly unfairly, especially when it accomplishes nothing useful and makes us look like we might just be the cartoon villain “Great Satan” the extremist recruiters want to paint us as so people will be willing to die fighting us.
Pck is pretty ready to take offence, admittedly, but I don’t think you’ve shown any reticence in offending him. Curious he thinks you’d come over all mute where others are concerned.
Pck, let’s make it clear: do you agree with the majority of Trump supporters that the Bowling Green massacre justifies Trump’s immigration EO?
No, I don’t.
I don’t think tedious facts like the ones you offer are likely to affect Pck’s Trump=Good, lefties (ie anyone who disagrees with Trump)=Bad agenda.
..
Considering that less than 60% of eligible voters actually voted, and Trump lost the popular vote, I struggle to see how you arrive at ‘slightly less than half’ of the American population voting for him.
However.
Beating people up is bad, whoever is doing it. As a distant outsider I’m surprised by the violence on the streets. No doubt you were appalled by Trump’s suggestion that the ‘second amendment people’ might know how to deal with Clinton.
There is a lot of hyperbole around Trump, it’s true, and he seems to be living up to all of it. ‘So called judges’ should strike fear into the heart of every American.
Words never justify violence. Ever. Sometimes they incite it, though that’s not my impression of where Dr T is coming from. She is using a platform to make a point and raise discussion. This is a conversation. You may not care for its tone, and you might choose to start it a different way on a platform you own. Doesn’t make what is going on here an incitement to violence.
I just want to call out so it’s on it’s own and clear: the violence committed in the inauguration protests and at Berkeley was by anarchists. This is what they do, and blame it on protesters.
I didn’t know that, thanks.
What’s the trouble?
If you are running an Empire. Evil is baked into the Day to day function of government. If the US doesn’t like how another government is running that government can expect death via sanctions bombing or assassination. If another Government has oil but is willing to play ball with US policy. The United states will gladly look the other way while the Corrupt or Evil government slaughters its own citizens. Such is the way of all Empires.
I’m not sure I would classify him as evil. He’s incompetent and a bully, but evil? I don’t know….Hitler was evil. Serial killers/mass murderers are evil. Folks who purposely drive their trucks through crowds over people, killing and injuring many are evil. There are some…I don’t even want to call them people because they aren’t human to me…but these individuals have committed heinous crimes – torture, violent rape, murder, dismembering dead bodies, degrading dead bodies, cannibalism etc. They are evil. Trump hasn’t killed anybody (yet). So I’m not sure.
But I would not go as far as claiming all those who voted for him are evil. Some people are just clueless or they hold different world views. And believe it or not, many of them are scared too, but for different reasons. They think Trump is protecting them and their families with his extreme measures. Even if they’re wrong, and at the expense of others, who will be hurt in the process due to their ignorance, I still wouldn’t consider them evil. Evil is acting with full knowledge and intent of hurting others and taking pleasure in the process. Hurting other people, solely for the sake of hurting other people and enjoying it. Being misinformed doesn’t necessarily make you evil. When our military went to fight George Bush’s war in Iraq, they created mass devastation and there were mass casualties – many, many people were killed, including innocent people, on both sides. Then, as it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction. They left, ISIS was created, and so on. The whole thing was a disaster, we should’ve never invaded Iraq in the first place. But I don’t consider those who fought in that war evil. They genuinely believed they were protecting us and doing the right thing to do so. Evil wasn’t in their hearts. Evil is not in the hearts of all Trump voters. Some, but not all, probably not even most. If you talk to Trump voters in real life – as in actual American families who voted for Trump, not stereotypical internet trolls or people on Breitbart or the extremists that the media focuses on – and talk to them about their life situations, their fears, and their beliefs, you would see they are not all the awful people you believe they are.
No, most of the people who voted for him did not intend to harm anyone. They were seriously misinformed, that’s all.
I’ve talked to quite a few basically decent Trump voters, and every single one of them was operating on serious disinformation. Unfortunately, some of them basically chose to be that way, like they heard everything Trump said, and just decided that the only parts he really meant were the parts they agreed with.
Evil may not be in their hearts, but they are actively promoting evil, whether they know it or not.
You don’t have to -be- evil to -do- evil. You just have to convince yourself that it’s for the greater good.
Emma says: “many of them are scared … They think Trump is protecting them and their families with his extreme measures.”
—
Many a dictators’ power has been given to him by a fearful people.
Hannah Arendt coined the expression ‘the banality of evil’. Evil doesn’t have to be big and grand, it can be small, and apparently random, and its acts individually explicable.
And it is hard to imagine a more banal person than Trump.
I’m sure most of the people who supported Hitler were scared. They had just lost a World War, their economy was in shambles, they had shortages of everything, and it looked like Russia was going to take over the world and make it communist. Then someon came and told them it wasn’t their fault, that in the past they had been a great country and would be again, and that outsiders and elites, who weren’t true a Germans, were blocking them. And for awhile, at least until the bombing started, for them life was better. They did have a stronger economy, a strong sense of national pride, lots of miltary victories, and with all those Jews unable to work, had a lot better chance at employment. They did benefit from it, and chose to turn their heads away from what was happening to their Jewish neighbors, not out of pure hatred in most cases, but just indifference. It didn’t directly affect them, and life was better for them, so it was OK. If someone had directly asked them, do you support murdering all the Jews, they would have been shocked and said, no, of course not. Well, yes, Hitler said that, but he said a lot of things, they would argue, and really he was just expressing anger, and didn’t mean it literally. And when the Jews started disappearing, no one asked too many questions. It was easier to convince oneself that they had just been deported, even if you secretly thought maybe otherwise. After all, that is what the government told you had happened, and even though there were rumors…. they couldn’t really do that, it’s the 20th century, for crying out loud! Yes, just must be some foreign communist agitators trying to overthrow the government, that’s it! Plus, you already may have thought in the past that those Jews really weren’t “real Germans,” and might even be communist sympathizers. Many were Ok, you would reason, but some were violent. Better that they just not be around, to be safe for the rest of us.
The people who directly participated in the killings felt bad about it, too. Lots of stories of soldiers vomiting, becoming overwhelmed, etc. but most of them did it. See the Milgram experiments for why- they felt since there was an authority ordering it, or must be OK. Huge numbers of people of all types went all the way in those experiments. See the trial of the recent guard camp in Europe. Since he did not directly kill anyone, just catalogued their belongings as they died, that he wasn’t part of it, even though he kept the whole machinery running. Lots of people felt that way.
Evil doesn’t come around twirling a mustache and laying out its secret evil plan in a monologue. It lies and it hides and it offers you something good for yourself to not think too hard or ask too many questions. You find yourself saying, yeah, I guess that’s OK, or well, it doesn’t affect ME, so why should I care, or, well, yes, that causes severe problems for someone else but it makes ME feel safer so it’s OK. And you will probably get something out of it, whether it is increased wealth, or a feeling of security or pride. That’s how it works. If it just said, hey, off the bat let’s go murder some people for some jollies, no one short a few psychopaths would join in.
Have no doubt, Trump is evil. He may be doing what he is doing for popularity, or power, or ego, or whatever. I’m sure Hitler had many of the same motives. The outcome is still evil.
Upvote this.
One drop at at time is how the Grand Canyon formed.
I respect Dr. Amy’s right to use this site to air whatever she wishes to write about, but I personally would be happier if we stuck to issues relating to maternal and child health, pregnancy and childbirth. I air my views on Trump and Obama and the state of the world generally on another forum. Just my two cents.
There’s nothing stopping you from skipping the articles you’re not interested in.
There’s nothing stopping you from skipping the articles you’re not interested in.
Phil Plait, PZ, Jerry Coyne et al all cover a wide range of topics outside their primary interest and it makes for a more diverse readership.
Antigonos says: “I air my views on Trump and Obama … state of the world … on another forum.”
—
Which forum would that be? I wanted to read some of your other comments, but your Disqus comment history during the last six months lists only comments on OBS.
Thank you.
I use a different nom de net and it’s not a forum that uses disqus, so I’m not surprised you didn’t find me. It’s the compuserve religion forum, and while I’m flattered you’d like to read more comments by moi, I don’t know if you’d really find it your cup of tea.
I hadn’t heard of CompuServe in ages, and assumed it had ended its lifespan.
I understand the use of a “nom de net”. “Xscd,” in case it is not clear, is not my real name either. ☺
Regarding religion, my own comments tend to be from the perspective of an ex-Christian who dislikes “organized,” institutionalized, socialized religion, as contrasted with a private, personal spirituality.
But as you mentioned, not all comments or discussions are appropriate to this particular website, including probably this one.
I have always appreciated your perspective on the issues you mention. However, Dr. Amy has always been free to post on whatever topics she wants, and you are just as free to skip those posts.
Unless you’re suggesting that you’re unhappy that she’s not writing ENOUGH posts on maternal/child health, pregnancy, and childbirth. But given that this is not a paid job for her, I don’t think she has that obligation myself.
There is a fundamental difference between Trump and Hitler of course. Trump was democratically elected.
All you have to do is win the next election – that’s democracy, get over it.
Hitler was also elected. With less than a majority of the vote, actually. So, not that much of a difference, really.
Get real. Trump is nothing like Hitler all. Just stop it, you are being pathetic.
You are behaving like the toddlers Amy was discussing yesterday.
Don’t let us detain you.
Do you have a point?
An existential question!! Is philosophy your new speciality subject? You need to concentrate if you’re going to gain mastery in anything though…history half an hour ago, philosophy now…what will it be by breakfast time?
So, you have called me ignorant and and tried to shoo me away.
What’s other intellectually superior techniques do you have in your little bag of tricks?
Ask a question or make a point.
You’re boring.
I did make a couple of points, which you have grasped. I take it the reference to intellectual superiority is intended to be pejorative?
How will I go on knowing a random thin-skinned ignorant person on the internet thinks I’m boring?
Confirmed-boring.
Care factor – zero.
You’ll find that most denizens of this blog bring, as part of their intellectually superior techniques, such things as critical thinking, a desire to understand how things work, an interest in making consistent arguments, active effort in studying the real world effects of actions, in-depth knowledge about various specialist subjects. This is not an exhaustive list.
Pck will just punch us in the face, so much for intellectual superiority, right?
Stupidity and vacuousness are getting a good run at the moment, Pck should be making the most of it.
Nope, I wouldn’t punch you in the face at all.
I also don’t play the banjo, I have all my own teeth and hate moonshine.
Someone’s got a massive chip on their shoulder! Oh you delicate thing, are you feeling that we’re not not appreciative enough of you intellectual prowess? Your musical talents, your dental health or your preference of tipples would tell us nothing of your moral standing or mental acuity. Your comments, however, do.
He is very thin skinned. Needs a lot of validation. Has come to the wrong party.
I think you may be getting a bit off topic.
The banjo and moonshine comment was yours. Perhaps you have short term memory issues?
I get it now, you were trying to insult me. I see.
I can’t see where I insulted you. You can’t seem to be able to follow two messages, one *immediately* after another. Hence the comment about short term memory.
Nobody called you a “redneck” I think the term is? The teeth, banjo comment is all your own invention. That’s because you are thin-skinned and out of your league when it comes to constructing logical arguments. Those are not insults from me, those are the conclusions I’ve come to during our interactions.
Ps: living in Europe, my only interaction with Americans is through video conferencing at work or phone calls. You are literally the FIRST Trump supporter I’ve ever interacted with.
Holy moly! I just realized earlier commenters also described you as thin-skinned. I guess the phrase fits so well? I didn’t mean to plagiarize, folks. 🙂
No problem.
For the record, I LIKE the banjo, and wish I could play better (yes, I have a banjo).
And, to be fair, the only one who is using “play the banjo” as an insult is pck. You WISH you could play the banjo.
We also have a banjo, and at least one person in the house would like to learn to play it. MK used to play it from time to time, but he now lives with his father, so it’s collecting dust. MrC bought it years ago, intending to learn to play, but never did.
While MrC is technically southern, he’s not. He was born in a small town in Kentucky, where both of his parents were also born, but they moved to Los Angeles when he was a toddler. He is, for all intents and purposes, a SoCal native. I was born and lived most of my life in Miami, which is more Cuban than southern, so I have an interesting mix of cultural traditions that combine my father’s southern heritage, the mix of Northern and south Florida settler heritage in my mother’s mother’s family, and my mother’s father’s Irish traditions, along with the pervasive Cuban culture in the city.
Actually, thinking about it, I do wish I could play the banjo.
He’s funny. And oh so thinskinned.
Point?
My point is that you’re not really anwering any points made upstream. But do hang about. You could learn something.
Gee, thanks.
So far the best Pck has been able to say about Trump is that he was elected. That speaks volumes about Trump’s utter lack of merits.
He is doing exactly what he sought ,and won, a mandate for.
He has no mandate.
Come on now, that is just silly.
He lost the popular vote and has the lowest approval rating of any president in the second week, ever. I wouldn’t call that a mandate.
Do you support the constitution?
He stated openly and honestly what his election platform was.
The people have spoken. It really is as simple as that.
I am not the one in denial.
Pck would be better worrying about whether Trump supports the constitution than whether you do.
Trump’s election platform makes a mockery of the constitution.
i don’t think that word means what he thinks it means.
Explain
And yet it is.
Do…do you not know what ‘mandate’ means?
“Won on a technicality” doesn’t usually imply a mandate, no
It’s a mandate for ‘steady as she goes’, if your view is that he represents all electors.
His vote accounts for something south of 30% of all voters. If you think he only represents those who voted for him-which seems to be his view-then he has a 100% vote, which is a mandate to do what he likes. Which is what he’s doing.
He lost the popular vote and is only president because of an archaic system designed to limit the democracy of the election process. He may be in office, but is against the people’s will, and he has no mandate.
We’ve been over this Nick. You know that the state based system was introduced to avoid certain geographic domination.
Fight to change the constitution and fight at the ballot box, those are your options.
He is in office, having stood on certain ideals and was chosen by the people under the current rules.
Clearly he has a mandate.
“We’ve been over this?” The hell we have! Point out where we went over this in the past.
And what makes you think I don’t plan on doing both of those things?
Good to hear.
Less than 60% of eligible voters voted; Trump got less than half of those votes.
Perhaps by ‘mandate’ Pck means ‘fell over the line’.
Describe to us exactly how he is nothing like hitler.
Well he opposed to invading other countries for a start.
Hitler actually only became President by decree but why split hairs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Reichstag_fire_and_March_elections
But that it not how the ‘president’ was elected is it. You know it but you are being disingenuous aren’t you.
Hitler wasn’t democratically elected at all was he?
He was just as elected as say, Tony Blair or Theresa May. People know who the head of a party is when they vote for them in a parliamentary system.
They do-but the leader of the party commanding a majority in the lower house-and indeed, the party with a majority-can and does change during a parliamentary term. The former has in Australia and the UK in the last couple of years; the latter is always a chance, particularly after a close election.
A Prime Minister is head of government, not head of state.
Please, everyone who had a parliamentary system know that the leader of the party with most seat becomes the leader. Although we elect MP, we are actually mostly voting for the party leader. Most MPs are nothing but figurehead and the majority of people don’t even know the name of the MP they voted for.
They voted for Hitler and they knew it.
Read a little history and you won’t be so ignorant.
Thanks for your meaningful contribution.
Do tell us much much more about all that you know. Your knowledge is yuge, as you have demonstrated.
So, how is the reading going?
Trump WASN’T democratically elected. He was elected only by the electoral college, not the majority of the people.
I’ve been reading your anti-abortion tweets for years. I don’t agree with you, but you didn’t strike me as a moron who is easy manipulated by the cut-rate propaganda of a pusillanimous oaf, easily the most ill informed, brutal, corrupt, thin-skinned and narcissistic individual ever elected to the US presidency. My bad!
I won’t be getting over it: I will fight for American values and my country in every way I know how.
The man is evil. If you support him, you are evil, too, not to mention gullible and stupid.
Wow!
How did we get from electoral systems to abortion?
There must be another Pck out there because you have no idea what my views on abortion are.
Deflecting much?
This is a well worn strategy. If you want to shut down someone you disagree with then all you have to do is call them a racist or sexist or misogynist or any other ist of your choosing.
The electoral college is in the constitution- Trump is the legally elected president.
Challenge it in court or through the ballot box. This is civilised society governed by civilised rules.
Based on current evidence, with no knowledge of anyone’s previous convictions, I can state with 100% certainty that anyone defending the Trump administration’s recent acts is racist and has no respect for the rule of law. Or is incredibly ignorant of what is going on in their country.
Pointing out that someone is anti abortion is calling them a misogynist? Well, who am I to argue with that??
But you surprise me. Are you somehow not proud of your principled stand for the rights of fetuses to supercede that of women?
What I am saying is that Amy is mistaken. I have never sent a tweet in my life, ever, on any topic.
“pusillanimous oaf”
I’ve learned a wonderful new adjective! Thanks! I’ve run out of suitably scathing adjectives with which to describe Trump.
Seriously though, watching from the UK, I’m terrified for America. Hopefully the Queen and DoE will be able to stand up to Trump. They certainly will not tolerate him “erupting”, as one story put it.
Yeah, hitler was elected too. Nice try.
No, Hitler was not democratically elected at all. That is not how the German electoral system worked.
And neither was trump!! Thank you for playing.
Trump won the majority vote in the electoral college in accordance with the constitution of the USA.
Although the US is a federal republic it is regarded as the flagship of Western democracy
There we go.
Not anymore. It’s been downgraded to a “flawed democracy.”
Of course if Hillary had won it would be a perfect democracy?
The millions who disagreed with her would just have to suck it up for the next 4 years?
Isn’t that what you are suggesting the majority who voted against Trump do?
No, I am suggesting they respect ( as they insisted Trump do – remember the drama at the debate?) the result the election conducted in accordance with the constitution.
Not froth at the mouth from self pity and melodrama and dream up bizarre ‘coming of days’ apocalyptic comparisons with Hitler and the like.
And especially not start attacking people and burning down Universities.
How dare we draw entirely valid comparisons between to “leaders” ignoring their respective constitutions and whipping up hatred and resentment to increase their personal power? It must be totally self-pity and not learning from history.
As far as “burning down Universities”, that protest had nothing to do with Trump, and the actual destruction, as opposed to peaceful resistance, was done by a bunch of black bloc shitheads, not the assembled students.
Why do they all pick the “Oh wah, you’re just crybabies whining because you didn’t win!” gambit?
I’m not whining because my gal didn’t win, I’m RAGING because that asshole did “win”.
Sorest winners ever: Trumplethinskin supporters. They take after their Fuhrer temperamentally.
“I can’t defend Trump so I will continue attacking Hillary, even though the election is over”
Please do explain to this European about this democracy thing. If election results were the ultimate decider of everything, how come Republicans blocked Obama’s supreme court pick from getting a hearing?
In a democracy, the elected head of state doesn’t get to do anything he likes. That’s a different setup altogether… what was it called? Ah yes. Dictatorship.
In many democracies, the head of state is a different person from the head of government.
In Oz, the head of state is the Queen, deputised to the Governor General. The head of government is the Prime Minister, the leader of the party which controls the most numbers in the lower house of parliament. So we can have a change of head of government without an election.
Hitler controlled the most votes in the Reichstag, which was democratically elected. He got to that point and people thought, foolishly, that once he was in the big chair they would control him, despite being unable to do so when he was not in the big chair. Hubris, plain and simple.
Democracy doing its thing is no guarantee of good government, though it does give people the chance to express their opinion once in a while.
The constitution determines the rules. The people vote at regular intervals to decide who will govern. There is a guaranteed separation of powers. Everyone plays by the rules and live happily ever after. Amen
But the Republicans have not been following the rules for years. They just stole Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court seat by explicitly ignoring the rules.
And approved cabinet picks despite no Democrats being present, which was against committee rules.
It’s the no rules presidency. That’s really what makes it so damaging.
He’ll do what he likes, and it will take years to unravel, and people may be permanently damaged or even die as a result.
To the Pck’s of the world, those people are either ‘losers’ not worthy of sympathy, or just unlucky. And who cares about unlucky people, right? Pck etc know it could never be them or anyone they care about, therefore no problems.
So far he hasn’t done anything that hasn’t been done before by all sides of political persuasion.
Save the lying for someone who is stupid enough to believe you.
If you back Trump, you are abetting evil and debasing Christianity.
Like you lied about me being a pro-life tweeter when I have never tweeted anything ever?
That’s the best you could do. I just said you are abetting evil and debasing Christianity and the best you could come back with is that I accused you of tweeting (if I even did), when I meant that you have been on this site for years sanctimoniously posting anti-abortion comments.
You don’t like Trump and by association you don’t like me.
That’s OK.
gee whiz, thanks for telling us that it’s ok if we don’t like you.
No problem, my pleasure.
As long as we stick to the topic and deal in facts and accept that we are all entitled to our opinion, we are all good.
It has nothing to do with liking either of you. Trump is an evil fascist. The fact that you favor him despite his racism, misogyny, bullying and narcissism makes you a religious hypocrite.
And the fact he was voted in-which he was-neatly overlooks the fact that less than 60%of eligible voters took the opportunity to do so, and he got comfortably less than half of those votes. It’s a win, not a barnstorming victory.
You can’t whine if you don’t vote.
In your opinion.
Reading from yesterday (copied from Catholic online):
Isaiah 58:7-10
7 Is it not sharing your food with the hungry, and sheltering the homeless poor; if you see someone lacking clothes, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own kin?
8 Then your light will blaze out like the dawn and your wound be quickly healed over. Saving justice will go ahead of you and Yahweh’s glory come behind you.
9 Then you will cry for help and Yahweh will answer; you will call and he will say, ‘I am here.’ If you do away with the yoke, the clenched fist and malicious words,
10 if you deprive yourself for the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, your light will rise in the darkness, and your darkest hour will be like noon.
You’ve been conned:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4a68611d3cd26d04e739946447164d476dbf3c12ebc142e5a6f9f0c66569c325.jpg
I disagree with the conclusion of that piece, Amy.
They didn’t vote for Trump because they got “conned.” They didn’t vote for Trump for the reasons listed. They voted for Trump because they are racist and sexist assholes. All this other stuff was just excuses to cover their bigotry.
For pete’s sake, Trump supporters actually think that EO immigration ban last week was a GOOD THING! Despite the fact that the courts hammered it, and how clearly indiscriminately bad it was, these morons LIKED IT!!!! That’s what they wanted from Trump, and that’s what they got.
A recent bit in the local newspaper interviewed a Trump supporter this week. He said he is encouraged by what Trump has done so far!!!!
It wasn’t about emails. It wasn’t about any of that crap. They weren’t conned at all. This is exactly what they voted for.
I’m not sure I’d say that necessarily. Slavery and then continued oppression was always about social control. Have one group feeling better than another so you can continue control of the ruling class. That doesn’t mean the ordinary voter has thought through the details. The wall is based on “availability of appropriations” and I assume there will be some amont of facesaving appropriations. But not enough to build much.
Defunding of public education in action.
I would. I’m tired of dancing around the issue.
Right. They don’t get any farther than “Fucking ragheads.”
Since when is bigotry contingent on thinking through the details? It’s explicitly NOT thinking through any details.
Yup.
This exactly. There’s no nuance in bigotry.
My greatest irritation after this election is those who say “well I don’t support Trump” with the implied “but I voted for him”. Those who used to say him “give him a chance” but who have now gone silent. Or congressional leaders with mealy-mouthed platitudes but who are happy to cut cut cut.
I work with folks in technical trades. Jobs requiring intelligence but not a college degree. (Although an associates degree is a big plus.) “I’m scared for my daughter the cop” is a real fear. Just as a black teenager’s fear of that cop is real. You can’t argue against fight or flight. It’s not right but it’s real that financial security for more people overall will reduce racial tensions, and less security will make tensions worse.
Yes, I think that a lot of that “give him a chance” bullshit is really just “while in the name of fixing the economy, give him a chance to trample on the constitution, get rid of any progress on civil rights, and beat the press up and you’ll see you never really needed any of those things in the first place.”
Did you want to clarify what I lied about in my post?
Bullshit.
Democrats are without fault?
Never said that. They have never done some of the shit Trump is doing, however.
Example?
Appointing a security council member without a congressional vote; removing the joint chief of staff from said council; firing an attorney general for not defending an indefensible order; refusal to comply with the emoluments clause; attempting to place a religion based ban on travel; making cabinet choices that near universally want to dismantle the department(s) they would be put in charge of; mocking the courts, the press, and the public at large; wasting taxpayer money insisting on living in a hotel instead of the White House, then charging the Secret Service rent…
Apart from mocking the courts the others are a little tenuous open to interpretation and probably happened some form under the democrats too.
Hmmmmm yeah. I think we can stop listening to you. Denial ain’t just a river.
Let’s see if Pck can come up with examples of what he suggests ‘…probably happened some form under the democrats too.’
I’m not holding my breath.
All I’ve heard so far is “blah blah blah Democrats did it too!! Wah wah wah Hillary”
Not impressed.
‘He was elected’ ‘He has a mandate’ ‘Why?’ ‘That’s silly’ ‘Boring’
He’s a font of petulance.
Any wonder he worships the Orange One.
Thin skin?
As opposed to wah wah wah he didn’t really win, he’s hitler. he’s mean wah wah wah?
So far all they’ve got is an alleged example of the media being bad that I haven’t even heard about except from them. And of course, every other point was completely ignored.
‘Placing a religious Ban’ on travel simply is not true.
Lets see, the press deserve all the mocking they get, Hiilary mocked the public at large (deplorables), religious travel ban (not), wasting taxpayers money(no explanation required), the AG was grandstanding…….
Do you see what I mean? I don’t think you have been listening anyway so no loss.
No, the press don’t deserve to be called liars for telling the truth, that’s a common tactic of authoritarian regimes, however.
Let’s compare quotes shall we?
As for the muslim ban:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.9138550cf572
I have no idea what you mean by “no explanation required”.
And no, refusing to defend an unconstitutional order is not grandstanding.
As I said, open to interpretation.
And as I said, you are bullshitting
Of course and the MLK statue was definitely removed from the oval office. Probably by Trump himself.
If I gave a damn about that, it would have been in my list of complaints. Stop trying to pretend problems aren’t real by putting words in my mouth.
It is an example of why the media deserve contempt.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! You wanna talk about wasting taxpayer dollars? Where’s the outrage over a million dollars PER DAY it is costing to keep Melania in NYC? That is an extraordinary amount of money being used for NOTHING that benefits the country. THAT is absolutely wasteful. For someone who claims to want to “fix things”, Trump sure seems adept at wasting money. He could practically GIVE a million dollars to every American, which would do FAR more for the country (because suddenly we’d all have money to spend!) than wasting it on Melania hanging out in NYC.
Melania didn’t ask for that and would probably prefer to be left alone. She should be free to live wherever she wants.
She is not responsible for the rules governing the costs.
Cut the bull. They aren’t tenuous or open to interpretation at all, they’re clear as day. And unless you can provide some evidence, there’e no “probably happened” either.
Even freaking FOX News knows the Yates thing was rank hypocrisy:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/31/sessions-once-asked-yates-about-ags-responsibility-to-say-no-to-president.html
Do you know, Nick, what the very funnest thing about this is for me?
Pck thinks I’m boring. But, poor him, he needs to at least scan, if not read, everything I’m posting in case I mention him, so he can respond.
It’s a little thing, I know, but it entertains me.
Perfection isn’t the bar set for trump to clear. The bar he has yet to manage is basic competency, minimal decency, and the empathy most two-year-olds could muster.
Well said.
Setting aside the obvious things that shouldn’t have been done, but were done due to the obliviousness of dolts and the cheering of racists (japanese internment, trail of tears etc.), has there been anyone else with as many conflicts of interest, setting up to profit so obscenely from his office.
Melania Trump just filed a lawsuit against the uk paper Daily Mail, because they implied that she was an escort. I applaud that because the DM is shite. What she’s suing for is extraordinary though. She wants $150million in damages because she says that the article reduced her ability to profit off the position of Flotus. She describes it as a “once in a lifetime opportunity”, now ruined.
Who do you think controls the lawsuits and branding opportunities in that family?
I suspect DT is the genius behind this act but I can make no assumptions. Her name is on the filing, my starting point is that she is an active participant in this. Either way, she’s not supposed to profit from her position, just like he’s not supposed to profit from his. Was there ever a family so unfit for this office?
What evidence do you have that she is an active participant? Her signature on a document?
The claims in the legal filing are highly specious. There is no evidence that MT was planning anything that is claimed in the lawsuit.
I have no evidence that she is an active participant. I have no evidence to the contrary. I’m not particularly invested either way. Whoever instigated it, it is a grubby and revolting act that besmirches the office. It really doesn’t matter at this juncture who is to blame (except, perhaps, to MT). Either there is one mastermind lump of incoherent nastiness in the White House, or there is more than one.
I will defend (and have defended) Melania Trump against the misogynist Daily Mail for their initial article. It will not be the last, as they really like to sling their mud at women. I’m not going to defend her for this filing until I know it was out of her control. I’m expecting the tell-all book after the divorce.
I will defend MT against sexist attacks, likewise HRC, Sarah Palin and any woman in the public sphere.
or given the would-be robber baron’s age, death.
I’m shocked that any Trump would actually ADMIT to wanting to profit off the FLOTUS/POTUS position at all. I mean, we know they want to profit, but to admit it? Insanity. No first lady has ever tried to sell things by using her FLOTUS position. This is craziness…
Except for putting a political advisor on top of EVERYONE on the security council. That’s never been done before, ever. No political advisor has ever held a permanent spot like he’s trying to give Bannon.
I don’t think he will stay there.
So tell me again, if Republicans played by the rules, why the voter’s choice, president Obama, didn’t get his SC pick through the process? Republicans were free to explain why they might want to reject Garland, but the refused even to convene for this purpose.
Explain why Trump deserves more respect than the Republicans showed Obama. Explain how their behaviours counts as plauing by the rules.
Hmm, I don’t think you’ve figured out what I’m talking about.
Have you?
Is that supposed to distract me from the fact that you haven’t answered my question?
I think it’s to distract you from the fact that there is no answer to your very reasonable question that involves the Orange One being anything other than a vicious sore winner with an attitude problem who has surrounded himself with nobodies and yes-men.
Gen Mattis is the one I don’t get. By all accounts he is a more than reasonable person. Why on earth at this stage in his career would he hitch his star to this walking disaster. Is the General hubristic enough to think he can control him?
Maybe he hopes to mitigate the disaster a little bit.
He’s a fool in that case.
He serves at the man’s pleasure. And the man can’t be reasoned with. Only a fool would be arrogant enough to assume he will succeed where everyone else-with the possible exception of the son-in-law, has failed.
Pck seems to have only two notes they can sing regarding any criticism of Trump:
1. “He was elected”
2. “No U!”
Therefore, I wouldn’t hold my breath for an on topic response, let alone one of substance.
I think I’m pretty straight forward and consistent. Trump isn’t Hitler. We live in a civilised society with checks and balances. The system is working as designed.
Checks and balances he is ignoring.
But he has been pulled up by the court on the travel ban. That’s exactly what the system is designed to do.
But why do it in the first place? The result is to push others around for no actual benefit, and doing it just because he can, until forced to stop.
Just because a bully gets stopped by a higher authority doesn’t mean it was OK to bully in the first place.
“Hey, he got detention and it won’t appendix anymore. The system is working as it should.”
No, he shouldn’t have been doing it in the first place.
Except for the part where Border Patrol went on doing it despite the court order.
Take the border patrol to court if they act illegally. What does that have to do with Trump?
Hitler wasn’t “Hitler” until he BECAME “Hitler”.
What? You mean Hitler didn’t get elected by saying he was going to take all the Jews, the disabled etc etc into concentration camp and kill them and then start a world war?
Being straightforward and consistent is only a defense against accusations of duplicity and hypocrisy, not of your utter lack of substance or empathy.
I disagree with you.
Of course you do, that’s all you do. Sadly, that’s also all you have to back your disagreement with, the disagreement itself. And therein lies the problem.
So, Trump is not the legitimate leader and the world is coming to an end. Got it.
See, this is exactly what I’m talking about, total lack of substance.
Have you ever considered that your arguments just aren’t as convincing as you think they are?
Whether or not you are convinced by my arguments has no bearing on the total shallowness of your own, which was the matter at hand, so please stop trying to change the topic.
You made a mistake by voting for an ignorant clown. Accept it and see what you can do to fix your mistake.
He said what he stood for and the people voted. Now he doing what he said he would.
This is not business as usual and it is making some people very uncomfortable.
At the end of his term the people can again decide who they want to take things forward from there.
“The people” voted for Clinton. And we got Trump. Do you not see how flawed an argument this is? It’s like you think the people who voted for Clinton don’t matter.
Of course the people who voted for Clinton matter but the constitution matters more.
Let’s be completely honest, if it was shown that Trump won the popular vote as well it would not change your opinion at all.
And he’s super relaxed about inconvenience or outright suffering caused by all this.
So what if a few brown folk get turned around at immigration? So what if a few green card holders have to wait around and be patted down for no reason anyone can properly identify, let alone lucidly explain.
I agree with you, Garland was harsh politics.
Garland was the SC pick being stolen by Republicans.
I know. I agree that it was harsh politics.
That’s not harsh politics pck. That’s a stolen SC seat.
You keep spinning. Trump and Republicans spit on your constitution. You just keep spinning.
I thought you knew, black presidents only get 3/5 of a term.
And women presidents get 0/5 of a term! Oh America.
It was unprecedented bullshit.
Pck “There is a guaranteed separation of powers.”
Not according to your guy, who tweeted:
“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes
law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be
overturned!”
This is what you voted for, Pck. And now we’re all stuck with this nonsense that the folks like you were sold.
The constitution and the courts will sort it out.
The president has demonstrated with his own words that he does not respect them.
I wonder what that will look like? If he just completely intransigent, and refuses to acknowledge anyone else’s authority, as opposed to just talking about refusing, which is what he’s done up to now? Whose advice will he take? Vladmirs?
Pity help the US and whoever he weaves into this ridiculous mess he is creating.
That is the beauty of a civilised society. The rules apply to him whether he respects them or not.
Just like it did for Andrew Jackson.
Hey! He may have committed genocide on an unfathomable scale, and totaled the economy by destroying the national bank, but he was the only president to balance the budget! Isn’t that what really matters?
(/s just in case someone thinks I’m actually supporting that turd)
Last week, when the courts first ruled against the ban, border patrol refused to comply with the court orders.
if that is the approach, it will take more than courts to sort it out.
Oh wow…is that why trumpy is having a twitter tantrum right now? LOL. You are backing the wrong horse, my friend.
He can tantrum all he likes, he is not above the law.
Separation of power works both ways. Executive should keep out of the judiary and judiciary should keep out of politics.
It’s the judiciary’s JOB to interpret the law, i.e. “politics.” It’s their job to uphold the constitution.
I thought the legislature was supposed to make the law not judicial activists. Judicial activism is just politics by another name.The judiciary should stay out of politics.
Um…literally what I wrote was “it’s the judiciary’s job to interpret the law.” Do…do you not know what ‘interpret’ means?
Statutory interpretation has clearly defined rules. While judicial activism is barely tolerable is case law it should have no role in statutory law at all.
The fact that you define the JOB of the judiciary as ‘politics’ is just scary.
Come off it. Without an equally powerful judiciary, there would be no checks on the president’s ability to just do whatever he wanted. No one wants that.
Yep, this is middle school knowledge. Three branches of government and a system of checks and balances.
And those rules apply both ways ie the judiciary is not the legislature.
Interpretation does not mean re-writing the law. Legislators make law.
The wording of 1182 is quite clear about what the law allows the president to do.
Trump just had a hissy fit at the judge “sorting it out.” Blamed him preemptively for any terrorist attack trump’s misbegotten policies are likely to cause. Because he, like you, thinks the country elects a dictator with a fixed term, can’t understand the checks on his power. Doesn’t know how government works.
Except that Trump doesn’t WANT the courts to “sort it out.” If he has his way, the courts won’t have any power at all. And it’s easy to say “that won’t happen” except that… a lot of things that “won’t happen” have already happened. So we have a very good reason for being terrified.
So how do you reconcile your reportedly “pro life” views with Trump’s treatment of people fleeing war and persecution? I kind of thought Christians made a big deal about one Middle Eastern family’s desperate flight from home. Like, I seem to recall you get together once a year to celebrate the birth of this refugee kid.
Pro-lifers are also often pro-death penalty and pro-cutting welfare. And don’t adopt or foster kids themselves.
Yes, forced birthers (a far more appropriate designation) are very selective about whose life they want to protect.
They are obsessed with innocence, which is grotesque as a ticket to anything in a Judeo-Christian environment, since in that space one does nothing to earn it and it can be snatched away in a moment by someone who has no interest in a person’s health or life.
It’s like deciding that people who have certain physical characteristics over which they have no control should have more or less rights than others.
Oh, wait…
Say what? Are you replying to someone else?
I’m sorry, am I going too fast for you? Dr Amy mentioned that you are “pro-life” as you guys like to call it. Is this true? If so, I’m assuming you believe it is an important tenet of your (most likely Christian) faith. So how do you reconcile that faith with your superawesome president turning away refugees from war zones? Jesus has a lot to say about helping those in desperate need, and how you treat people who aren’t necessarily of your tribe. A lot more than he ever said about abortion.
Sorry, I don’t know what you are talking about.
Here, something to laugh a bit: Not sure but I think the Netherlands had the first movie.
Switzerland has one too.
http://www.everysecondcounts.eu
When I was a child, I always thought that if such times came, I would be in the front of the lines, facing down pepper spray and prison if need be. Somehow it never occurred to me that I might be pregnant with a toddler at home when that day came. My son and my unborn daughter drive me, every day, to fight for a country they can be proud of, but they also forbid me to take risks.
Still, I can refuse to do evil. I can make phone calls. I can, write, I can speak out. I can help my students to feel safe.
I was just thinking kind of the same thing today. I have little kids, they need a parent. I read a historical novel where one of the main characters was killed by the Nazis for his role in exposing a euthanasia scheme, but at least his kids were teenagers by then and one of them had helped uncover the scheme.
But yeah, we can do what we can. And I do have a friend who’s going to protests with a tiny baby and a 2 yo, but he’s being really careful to avoid anything that seems like it might turn violent.
I didn’t imagine myself on the frontlines so much as I imagined I would not have to fight, but as a single parent to young children I feel ashamed that I cannot even risk arrest (I’m a member of an organization that did some peaceful protests that involved planned arrests). But…I just can’t. You *might* be released and home in time for dinner. But then again, you might not.
Campus has become super activist, though, and I’m involved with what I can be.
Do what you can and what you have the spoons for. Given the way the world is, middle aged white people can contribute by being visibly at tamer marches, by commenting to elected officials politely (tone policing ain’t gonna go away) and by standing in support if they see verbal abuse of anyone. SPLC has a good video about that last one. To the extent that you can donate time or money to supportive groups do that. There is an organization in my area that supports poor kids with music lessons, etc.
Just keep putting one foot in front of the other.
Just adding my voice to J.B.’s. Do what you can. There are all ages and groups involved, lend your moral support if that is what you have. My child is much older and I am done having them, and don’t yet have grandchildren – people like me can do some of the heavy lifting.
Same. My kids spur me to be more active. It is so important to me that in years to come, they will remember that during this awful period in our history, their mom fought as hard as she could against what was happening.
OT but Utah midwife Vickie Sorensen has been found guilty of felony manslaughter for the death of premature twins at her birth center and sentenced to jail:
https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/utah-midwife-sentenced-jail-premature-222013999.html
I have a Facebook that’s about a quarter friends from college, a quarter friends from various fannish pursuits, and about half friends from motorcycles. Of the last category, a disgusting amount have come out of the woodwork – not just as Trump supporters, but with all of these nasty little attitudes towards poor people, black people, The Mooslims, and liberals that they had apparently never had the courage to air before Trump gave them a ‘mandate.’ It’s been a really eye-opening experience. I see them as the folk who were all, “Oh, those Jews, they’re just like rats,” folk in our classic comparison. One of them even shared a little meme today about how the same government who gives out food stamps also puts signs up at the zoo telling you not to feed the animals. Because poor people are just like animals, it’s so amusing and ironic and clever!
The other half of the motorcycling community friends – mostly gay and trans folk, but a few nice surprises of straight cis white males – are sane and awake and make me feel a little better, but it’s still a punch in the face every day.
You know what hurts the most? That these attitudes didn’t start yesterday. These people *always* felt this way. They were always bigots. The only reason I didn’t see it before was that *I* am not a member of a minority community.
They’ve always been this way, they just feel comfortable saying it out loud now.
Yep. This is what this election showed more than anything – that there is still a lot of bigotry residing in the US.
People ask why Trump won and Clinton lost. Yes, it was because she completely failed to appreciate what was going on in the electorate. She campaigned by appealing to the compassion and common decency of Americans. See her commercials like the “Our children are watching” one, and her focus on his temperament to be President.
What we learned, and the reason this approach failed, is because that “common decency” is, in fact, not all that common. She learned, and we all learned, that the US still has a very large component of real assholes. Yes, the deplorables, who don’t care about racism or assaulting women. They are out there, and, as you note, Trump makes them feel empowered.
i think we are to find, fortunately, that Trump is going to royally muck it up along the way, and by bringing it out in the open, it is going to be more apparent of how ugly that shit really is. Already happened with the anti-muslim acts, and it’s not going to end there. The optimist in me says that he is going to try to do a lot more stupid things, and is going to continue to fail. However, we are going to have to suffer through it. I would prefer to not have to go through it in the first place.
but don’t call them deplorable, it’s not nice. Political correctness only exists when people are being nice to people you dislike. *eyeroll*
I know right. Have you ever met anyone more thinskinned than a white bloke being disagreed with by someone he considers an inferior?
That’s exactly it. I have had to cull my social media contacts pretty severely. My “blocked users” list on Facebook has over 200 names on it– all people I know from one context or another but want nothing to do with anymore.
http://www.zeit.de/wissen/geschichte/2017-02/adolf-hitler-chancellor-appointment-anniversary
“Wait calmly” -> They argued he would grow more reasonable once in office and that his cabinet would tame him. A dictatorship? Out of the question! How journalists, politicians, writers and diplomats weighed in on Hitler’s appointment as chancellor.
Wow!
Thanks for sharing that. Evil people are blind to the analogy (“wah, wah, ‘everybody I don’t like is Hitler,’ cry more, libtards”), but it certainly puts the reality in stark relief.
I’ve read that too and it is just scary.
If voters were not dissuaded by Trump’s rhetoric during the campaign then they are not going to be suddenly outraged now that he is implementing all those promises. Until his base sees their own interests being harmed there will be no push back.
I do think, however, that Trump is in a tight spot to deliver economically. He was elected by populists but congress is controlled by fiscally conservative Republicans. I don’t know how much he can do much for his middle America, manufacturing supporters without increasing the deficit. He can pander for a while by doing symbolic things like the wall, but none of that will actually create growth. For example, if he kills NAFTA then some manufacturing may return but the price of consumer goods will rise. And more likely manufacturing will just hop to the next cheapest country like Vietnam or China. How long will his base stay fervently loyal if they don’t see jobs? Or see a “terrific” health care replacement?
In my opinion the main economic issue in this country is income inequality. The US saw tremendous growth over the past decades but our policies did nothing to redistribute the profits to mainstream America. Nothing Trump or Republicans are proposing will change that dynamic and their policies in fact favor billionaires even more.
Perhaps we need a smear campaign against Trump’s billionaire cabinet and highlight all the rich man policies being implemented on his watch. For now, Republicans feel secure on Trumps coattails but if they get nervous leading up to 2018 they may not stay so quiet.
His base doesn’t care if they get screwed over, as long as the blacks and mooslims and ‘libtards’ get screwed over more. We’ve seen this before. He’ll bloviate about refugees and The Wall, and they won’t care if he repeals laws made in the wake of the 2008 crash because his rich friends can’t get their hands on enough money. Oh, wait, he just did, and they didn’t care.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d72a94dd48af306854f772025ddcfc167fadf127fa443953e235416c41c24701.jpg
Never forget Bowling Green!
This confused me until I learned about Kellyanne Conway’s silly altfact.
I don’t know that he ever had any intention of delivering economically. Five minutes with the back of an envelope should make it clear to him that there is no longer enough work to go around, and that Homer Simpson, who did really well from the fifites through to the mid-nineties, is now as dead as the dodo.
People habituated to $2 tshirts aren’t going to want to work for the pay that makes them possible, and won’t be able to afford to buy the more expensive ones they are paid to make.
I think some people aspire to be those b/millionaires-the more interesting approach might be to show how the cabinet will make money out of Trump’s policies, but no one else will, certainly not many of the people who voted for him.
Look out for the conspicuous acts of charity.
A factory is re-opening, isn’t President Trump wonderful? Never mind the fact that he just cut reams of worker protections, and now those lucky factory workers can get maimed and be denied worker’s comp. Never mind what’s happening with employment statistics and median wage.
This is how he will convince his base that he’s still on their side, that and his Minister of Disinformation on the nightly news. In fact, it’s already happening. At almost the same time, he promised to cut funds for community policing initiatives and “send in the Feds” to deal with Chicago’s uptick in murder. Yes, his Chicago comments are playing to the racist vote, but they’re also a conspicuous act of charity, taking dramatic action to address a single visible problem.
I hate that you guys are all probably right. He has and will continue to go a long way on hateful propaganda and showmanship alone.
I am wracking my brain how we can erode his support though. He won on emotional appeal and I wonder if we can harness that. Maybe a “betrayed by Trump” series or “Trump sold us out” campaign. Because he has. After all I remember not so long ago a lot of love for W. Bush but during the 2016 campaign no one would touch him with a ten foot pole.
I was thinking about this very thing this week.
I did not want to live in such time. I wanted to live a peaceful life with comfort and love and peace and wellbeing.
But living in such times is where I am, no matter what I wanted, and I have to do the right thing.
And the reality is, life has only seemed peaceful until now if you have privilege. And I mean that in a broad sense – economic or racial. There was absolutely too much police force used on black men before black lives matter. Not publicized in the same way though.
Amy I have always loved your posts about homebirth, breastfeeding and vaccination but your Trump posts make me feel more patriotic than I’ve felt since September 11–thank you for bringing your intelligence and wit to the subject. In my adult life I’ve seen Republican presidents come and go and none of them ever scared me the way POTUS 45 does. Please keep posting about this … America needs as many strong, rational voices as it can get.
Thanks!!
Co-signed.
And I think I’ve mentioned this before, but Dr. Amy’s very first political posts made me FAR more open to her parenting arguments and forced me to confront the reactionary values embodied in much of the back-to-nature parenting movement, disguised as so much of it is in earthy-crunchy-hippie veneer.
Also beware of being the frog who is boiled slowly. Awfulness, not so awful, awfulness – doesn’t mean the bad will stop. It may be that saner voices prevailed this time. But it could also be strategic.
Also, read Letters from the Birmingham Jail.
Love this. There are still news outlets that are backing him and all that he stands for. I find that to be disgusting.
I’m not sure that I’d lump Benedict Arnold in with the rest though. He was an opportunist. Most people chose sides during the American Revolutionary War based on their own estimation of which side would come out on top, and not on any sort of deep rooted conviction.
I have nothing to add but have to comment because I want to stand up and cheer for this post. I found this blog by way of either homebirth or baby friendly hospital topics but love the recent uncensored Trump opinions.
Don’t do nothing! Do something! Do what you can! Stand up for the rights of the oppressed, protest, like on the airports or the womens march. Fight where you can. Don’t stay still. Write if you can. What else can be done? Lets brainstorm.
call Senators and Congresspeople and thank them when they do something good(Like Nancy Pelosi this week called Steven Bannon , had just been appointed to the National Security Council, a white supremacist)
Call them or write them postcards when they vote to approve or have a vote coming up to approve one of the unqualified people Trump has picked for heads of government departments.
99waystofighttrump.com
http://www.wall-of-us.org
Join a like-minded group in real life, or at least on social media. I’ve found they are great at getting the word out on who to contact and where to meet in your area/state.
Call, call, call, if you can. Or go to your representatives’ offices if they are close enough. E-mailing doesn’t do a lot of good other than to show numbers. Talk to staffers, leave messages.
Talk if you’re comfortable with it, one of the main things we want to do now is not so much to sway Trump supporters as to GET OUT THE VOTE – 60% of our eligible voters didn’t bother to go to the polls nor to submit an absentee ballot. These are the people that can still be reached.
Don’t underestimate the value of encouraging others, even if it is to just take a breath or some down time. Marathon, not a sprint. Join with the things you CAN do and don’t beat yourself up for the things you CAN’T do. I know a lot of people who comment here have young children – just do what you can. Even simply supporting and adding your voice and empathy in online venues, encouraging younger voters and protesters, etc.
Many people who live in remotely flippable red districts have teamed to try to get some accountability from their current congressmen and eventually flip the district.
So far, Republican Representatives are doing a great groundhog imitation when faced with anti-Trump constituents.
I just read an article in a local rag talking about the YUGE increase in phone calls to senate and house offices. 1.5 million a day. I wish they had given the prior numbers on total calls a day, although one senators office said it had been normally around 10 calls. So multiply that by 600 as a low estimate, and now we’re talking about an order of magnitude higher call volumes. And don’t stop calling!
I also send emails to my senators with more complex issues. I thanked one senator who I don’t generally agree with but who is actually working on some legislation across the aisle. I said I’d no doubt be back in touch about the details – but really, if we were down to details on which reasonable people could disagree, we could talk like adults! Imagine!
I think it would be interesting to see a constantly updated tally of phone calls, marking the number for which position. In theory then people could see if their reps are truly representing their district/state/whatever. There are holes in this idea, of course, but wouldn’t it be an interesting tool?
I like to remind my representatives that they represent ALL of their constituents, not just their party interests.
You mean we’re not their enemies if we didn’t vote for them? 😉
I lost it on my mom this morning. I told her I was afraid we were starting WWIII. She said, “yea, starting at home with all the riots.” I snapped and told her that protests weren’t riots. She voted Trump. My dad voted Trump. Something something Hillary’s a criminal. They both profess to be “good Catholics.” I don’t know how I’m going to be able to keep talking to them.
My Mum voted for Brexit because for some really weird reason (which she has been completely unable to coherently explain to me) she thought it would mean that there would be fewer Muslims coming to the UK (she’s also a member of a far-right Christian cult and as she get older is becoming increasingly right-wing). To say our relationship has become almost impossibly strained would be understatement of the year (keeping in mind my previous job involved working directly with EU funds, so she *knew* voting the way she did would totally destroy my career- she just hates Muslims more than she loves me apparently). I try and avoid talking any politics with her now. I don’t think I could maintain a relationship with her otherwise.
I have the same problem with my father. He claimed all democrats are becoming anarchists because the anarchists were rioting. When asked to explain how the actions of a few hundred people were more indicative of action/intent than multiple millions of people, he just ignored the question. I feel like I should preserve our relationship by making a rule against talking about politics, but then I know nobody in his life is questioning his opinions or values and that seems wrong for the greater good. IDK what to do either.
One of the 10 commandments says “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.” However, any restrictions on abortion have to be interpreted from the text. It’s certainly not explicitly stated.
Yet, the Catholic Church puts all its eggs in the anti-abortion movement, but does not push for anti-adultery laws. They are also opposed to divorce, but don’t feel a need to impose anti-divorce laws on everyone.
In fact, they are so not interested in anti-adultery laws that they voted for a known adulterer with multiple divorces. What’s the excuse?****
One might start to wonder if it is the fact that men commit adultery and get divorced, but it is only women who have abortions….
Why is adultery acceptable because “it’s their business, not mine” but that doesn’t apply to abortion?
***It’s not “abortion affects innocent victims” because adultery also has innocent victims
They just cherry-pick the bits they want to pick out. The Bible says that women should cover their hair before God, says that you shouldn’t eat pork or shellfish and also says that if you plant two different crops in the same field that you should be put to death (amongst many other delightful things I have never ever heard of any self-identifying Christian actually either believing in or practising). When they start campaigning for abolishment of the pork industry, I may be inclined to believe that they actually believe in this book they’re so fond of beating other people over the head with. Until then I will continue with my current belief that most churches are full of raging, intolerant hypocrites.
Ah yes, my favorite is Newt Gingrich, who divorced his second wife and then got the church to give him an annulment because his girlfriend, now wife, wanted to be married in the church. Callista’s a devout Catholic don’t ya know!! And now Newty’s a devout member of the Church too! Who care’s about those darn Commandments, they’ re more like suggestions, right? One of the many, many reasons I am no longer a Catholic.
And according to his second wife, SHE was having an affair with Newt when he asked his First wife for a divorce.
Actually, he left his first wife for his mistress while the first was still recovering from cancer. He asked his mistress to marry him before he even asked the first for a divorce.
He asked his 2nd wife to “share” him with his soon-to-be third wife, the “devout Catholic” Calista, who apparently had no problems committing adultery.
Bunch of hypocrites.
What a delight he is.
When it comes to family, you have to make the very personal decision. Not talk at all about politics. Or talk calmly and walk away when needed. Of separate from your family. It depends on the relationships and closeness.
My grandmother was a very individually kind person who supported policies – that were very inconsistent with how she treated people day to day. There was a no politics at the table rule. I will push back at my mother in law on some things (she’s not awful, but definitely misinformed), and end the conversation before I say something regretful.
My parents are the same way. It’s really quite depressing as I am realizing at 40 years old that my parents are at heart pretty selfish people. There have been signs my whole life that I have been ignoring but this has really brought it to a head.
I asked my dad point blank last night if he had supported the civil rights movement in the 60s. He went on about how it “wasn’t that big a deal” and how it didn’t affect him directly, so he never thought about it.
If something doesn’t affect them directly they don’t care. If someone is in any way different, unless they actually know someone like them, they are scared of them. My whole childhood they hated gays, until a few years back when they met some socially, now are friends, and now they’re all rah rah gay marriage is OK now. Don’t even get me started about African Americans and my mother. She apparently had one bad experience in Dorchester as a visiting nurse in the 60s and now she locks the car doors when she sees any black person, including old ladies and little kids. She also somehow thinks everyone who is slightly brown is exactly the same, and trying to explain the differences between Indians and Arabs, never mind things like Sikhs and Muslims, just doesn’t register because she doesn’t care.
I have some sympathy for people who have never had a lot of exposure to anyone who is different from them, and particularly when their adult life was all lived in the shadow of the cold war.
Lots of those people too look to authority, and back in the day authority was (or at least appeared to be) a bit less blindly self-interested than it is now.
Trump has made it okay to say and do things that have for years been off limits. Those opinions used to be mainstream-at least in the stream they were swimming in.
When someone tells me they don’t like Muslims, black people or whoever, I ask them two questions-one, who has most recently let you down or hurt you, and who let you down or hurt you the time before that? The usual answer is someone who looks and sounds just like them. Then I ask if they’ve ever met one of those people they think they don’t like, and the usual answer is no.
Sometimes they get cranky then, and sometimes they start thinking.
My parents lived in a relatively cosmopolitan suburban area of a very liberal state. They always have. They could meet people who aren’t just like themselves without too much effort, which they don’t.
Agreed. I live in a very red state, with an overwhelmingly white population (Scandinavian-American, at that) and I have never found in all my travels so many people so terrified of so little. Almost nothing happens here – we really don’t have any crime to speak of. Yet just yesterday people were howling that police didn’t gun down a Native American boy who fired off a shot.
It’s amazing. We’ve actually never lived in LESS violent times – despite how the media reports things, violent crime has dropped steadily over the last 40 years.
People here in the lily-white rural Midwest are probably living in the safest place at the safest time ever in history (up until the recent presidential election) yet they are terrified of anyone non-white and non-Christian. It’s incredibly bizarre to someone that has traveled and actually met people from other places and cultures.
Sounds very much like the world I grew up in. Their world is very small, and tv and the internet bring all this different stuff into it, and it’s different, and noisy.
My parents are somewhat like that, but they have travelled and are also wary of anyone telling them they need looking after. So while they might like the idea of making everyone safer, they see that it’s actually not a new idea or a new goal, and that a government is a big ship to turn around.
Here in Oz our system is so different from the US, our alt right crowd are so transparently loony that they tend to crash and burn pretty fast. Our local Trump did so spectacularly in about 18 months.
Your parents sound a lot like my parents…sadly….
I knew my parents were racist when I was in high school 30 years ago. My Mom is also exceedingly anti-semitic. My whole family is racist. My one brother thinks it is funny how racist he is.
I have less and less patience with it these days. I don’t all that much care to be around them, but not just for this (we are the only ones in the family who live more than 15 miles from our parents (try 400), and they never seem to care to have us visit; we were planning to be there on Christmas eve this last year, and my mom’s plan was to leave us home alone on Christmas eve while they went to dinner at my brother’s house; we changed our plan and went to my wife’s folks first)
I guess when I was young I used to compare them to my grandparents, who used to throw around the n word on public. In comparison, it’s true, they aren’t THAT bad. My grandparents though at least had the excuse of being very very poorly educated and having little to no experience with anyone different. My grandfather in particular grew up in a time right after the turn of the century where being recognizably Italian meant be subject to a lot of racism, and I am sure as the slurs flew he took solace that at least he wasn’t at the very bottom of the pecking order. I don’t condone their behavior, but I at least can see where it might come from. My parents are well educated, world travelled, and have had lots of experience with others outside their little circle, and have always been considered “white.” They don’t have an excuse.
Interestingly, if there is an opposite of anti-Semite, those see my parents. We’re Catholic, but they were pretty disappointed when they found out my now husband wasn’t Jewish. They had been all excited thinking he was. Of course, they know many many Jewish people so that is probably why.
It is hard when it seems like people are in a position to be different, and just choose to not be. My dad was always really against gay marriage. We’ve talked abou it a lot, and he’s moved to ‘don’t care’ which has been a big change for him.
It’s challenging because he is ordinarily such a kind, walk on by kind of person-to see him so virulent about something is most unusual.
Yes.