8 ms·

>There is no policy proposal that could even theoretically offset the damage he is doing. Among those he has actually proposed, I'm having trouble of finding a

>There is no policy proposal that could even theoretically offset the damage he is doing. Among those he has actually proposed, I'm having trouble of finding a single issue that could reasonably be considered "not evil" Everything Trumps's doing is so evil that the damage, after one week, is already insurmountable? This is quite the exaggeration, and it's precisely why the left isn't going to be able to move the needle with Trump voters: the left assumes everyone on the "other side" is a racist, sexist, ignoramus.

simonh 10y ago
I could give Trump supporters some slack before. He'd said some racist and sexist things, but it could arguably be written off as bluster. But now he's put his bluster into action. This ban clearly has nothing to do with terrorism, if it did the Muslim country that produces the most terrorists and from which the most terrorist funding comes from - Saudi Arabia - would be on the list. I'm not saying they should be on the list, I think there should be no list, but by not having SA on it the argument for the list existing at all is clearly null and void. It's just for show. This order is pure racism and religious discrimination. It comes on the aniversary of a ship full of German Jews being turned back from the US. Hundreds of people on that boat went to the gas chambers. This order is tearing apart families. Husbands and Wives with partners and children in the US, who's partners and children are US citizens, with homes in the US, jobs in the US and fully valid visas and green cards are being prevented from joining their families. All they did was take a short trip abroad and now they are barred from entering the country where they and their family live. What are these people supposed to do? This attitude that it's ok to do this to these people just because of their religion or country of origin, that the damage to them doesn't matter and doesn't count. This is pure evil. Knowingly doing harm to people just for show. Trying to drive them out of the country to suit a racist and discriminatory agenda. It's done very cleverly to avoid targeting Muslim US citizens directly, but get them through collateral damage to their families and communities. But it's clear what he's trying to do. I thought Hillary's comments about Trump supporters were excessive and counterproductive during the campaign. Not anymore. I'm done with Trump supporters. Supporting this man is supporting racism. It's supporting religious discrimination. I should thank him in a way, he's made this very simple.
- mythrwy 10y ago
  "Supporting this man is supporting racism" No it isn't. That's hyperbole and this isn't "racism".
  - euyyn 10y ago
    How is this ban not racist?
    - grzm 10y ago
      Arguably it's a matter of terminology, as I understand it. If the ban is targeting Muslims, it's a matter of religion, not race. If it's based on country, while it may be some form of prejudice, it's similarly not racism. That's my understanding of the argument, anyway. How would you describe it as being accurately described as "racism"? Please note I'm not taking a position on the ban here. I'm just trying to understand why people are using the language they are.
      - simonh 10y ago
        It's perfectly clear he's doing this for the purpose of religious discrimination. How do we know? Because he told us so clearly and directly during the primaries. His current VP described that as illegal and unconstitutional at the time. Arguably the specific legality of this precise formulation of the order avoids racism or religious discrimination. He's technically not targeting muslims. He's targeting people from Muslim majority countries and excepting christians. Whatever. Anyone arguing that is an apologist for racism and religious discrimination. Technicalities be damned.
        grzm 10y ago
        Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understand a lot of the politics regarding the issue, and am specifically trying to avoid bringing that into this particular slice. I'm not arguing whether or not the ban is targeting Muslims. The recent Fox News interview leaves little room for doubt. The question 'euyyn had was "How is this ban not racist?" You bring up racism and religious discrimination. Do you draw a distinction between the two? I've started to suspect that the definition of racism is currently widening to encapsulate more than strictly racial prejudice. Your comment "Technicalities be damned." leads me to believe that your understanding of the term racism is this wider one. Personally I think racism is the wrong term; religious discrimination seems more apt. But I also understand language changes. I sincerely am not in any way trying to parse a way out of what the Executive Order represents or its intent. I just want to understand what people mean when they call it "racist".

simonh 10y ago

I could give Trump supporters some slack before. He'd said some racist and sexist things, but it could arguably be written off as bluster. But now he's put his bluster into action. This ban clearly has nothing to do with terrorism, if it did the Muslim country that produces the most terrorists and from which the most terrorist funding comes from - Saudi Arabia - would be on the list. I'm not saying they should be on the list, I think there should be no list, but by not having SA on it the argument for the list existing at all is clearly null and void. It's just for show. This order is pure racism and religious discrimination. It comes on the aniversary of a ship full of German Jews being turned back from the US. Hundreds of people on that boat went to the gas chambers. This order is tearing apart families. Husbands and Wives with partners and children in the US, who's partners and children are US citizens, with homes in the US, jobs in the US and fully valid visas and green cards are being prevented from joining their families. All they did was take a short trip abroad and now they are barred from entering the country where they and their family live. What are these people supposed to do? This attitude that it's ok to do this to these people just because of their religion or country of origin, that the damage to them doesn't matter and doesn't count. This is pure evil. Knowingly doing harm to people just for show. Trying to drive them out of the country to suit a racist and discriminatory agenda. It's done very cleverly to avoid targeting Muslim US citizens directly, but get them through collateral damage to their families and communities. But it's clear what he's trying to do. I thought Hillary's comments about Trump supporters were excessive and counterproductive during the campaign. Not anymore. I'm done with Trump supporters. Supporting this man is supporting racism. It's supporting religious discrimination. I should thank him in a way, he's made this very simple.

mythrwy 10y ago
"Supporting this man is supporting racism" No it isn't. That's hyperbole and this isn't "racism".
- euyyn 10y ago
  How is this ban not racist?
  - grzm 10y ago
    Arguably it's a matter of terminology, as I understand it. If the ban is targeting Muslims, it's a matter of religion, not race. If it's based on country, while it may be some form of prejudice, it's similarly not racism. That's my understanding of the argument, anyway. How would you describe it as being accurately described as "racism"? Please note I'm not taking a position on the ban here. I'm just trying to understand why people are using the language they are.
    - simonh 10y ago
      It's perfectly clear he's doing this for the purpose of religious discrimination. How do we know? Because he told us so clearly and directly during the primaries. His current VP described that as illegal and unconstitutional at the time. Arguably the specific legality of this precise formulation of the order avoids racism or religious discrimination. He's technically not targeting muslims. He's targeting people from Muslim majority countries and excepting christians. Whatever. Anyone arguing that is an apologist for racism and religious discrimination. Technicalities be damned.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understand a lot of the politics regarding the issue, and am specifically trying to avoid bringing that into this particular slice. I'm not arguing whether or not the ban is targeting Muslims. The recent Fox News interview leaves little room for doubt. The question 'euyyn had was "How is this ban not racist?" You bring up racism and religious discrimination. Do you draw a distinction between the two? I've started to suspect that the definition of racism is currently widening to encapsulate more than strictly racial prejudice. Your comment "Technicalities be damned." leads me to believe that your understanding of the term racism is this wider one. Personally I think racism is the wrong term; religious discrimination seems more apt. But I also understand language changes. I sincerely am not in any way trying to parse a way out of what the Executive Order represents or its intent. I just want to understand what people mean when they call it "racist".