I’d say the often hysterical reaction to the election of Trump and his executive orders is baffling to me, but based on my view of politics, it isn’t baffling at all – it’s something I expected. However, I don’t see much in the way of rational, principled justification for the kind of over-the-top anti-Trump behavior we find not only at the street level, but also in the implied (if not outright) consent and support such intimidating and violent tactics are often provided in public forums by many politicians and media figures. We’ve had people call for the removal of Trump by “any means necessary” and calling for impeachment, military coups and even assassination.
From my perspective, the hysteria is fueled by two things; an identity-politics, virtue-signalling culture that is largely bereft of critical thinking skills and any foundation of reasoned, civil discourse; and an information/media complex that signals, via various figures of authority or popularity, preferred behaviors. (I’ll leave out my third view: that third-party manipulators are paying for agitation towards political and financial ends).
I voted for Trump purely because I agreed with virtually all of his platform. Usually when I encounter someone who didn’t vote for Trump, I immediately notice an obvious emotional quality to their perspective – they hate or are disgusted by the guy personally, but can’t even tell me what his policy positions are. They immediately assume I am racist, misogynistic, islamophobic, etc.
I wonder if it’s possible to have a rational discussion about Trump and his policies and actions since being elected with anyone who voted against him? Do any of you think the way he is being characterized by the mainstream media is unfair? Do any of you think that there has been a double-standard from the way people and the press reacted to Obama’s actions, and the way they are reacting to Trump’s? Do any of you think the election was “illegitimate”?
colewd,
You don’t need to apologize, but the gesture is appreciated.How are we to find common facts on which we agree?
Richardthughes,
You bet 🙂
All you have to do is agree on the alternate facts.
Where do you get your information?
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/natural-gas
Look under the historical tabs, 10 years. natural gas prices have been pretty flat, while coal prices dropped significantly until the new regulations and moratorium hit, which caused the recent spike in 2016. They couldn’t get new permits, prices shot up due to lack of supply and based on futures expectations of dwindling supply due to regulations and a de facto ban on new leases and permits.
The reduction in coal-fired generator plants is because of the fact that due to regulations and the administration’s policies, virtually no new coal-fired electric plants could be built (the regulations are all but impossible to meet), so of course all they have been building are renewable and natural gas electric plants. Do you not remember last year when Obama ordered a moratorium on all federal coal leases?
Obama said in 2008 that his policies would bankrupt anyone trying to build a coal power plant. The price of producing coal energy has been deliberately raised, via regulations and a virtual ban on new mining, to be so prohibitive that almost no one builds coal plants anymore and old ones are shut down because it is too cost prohibitive, because of regulations, to meet Obama’s EPA standards.
No, those aren’t the regulations I’m talking about. We needed the regulations that were put in place decades ago that cleaned up the air pollution; Obama’s regulations go way beyond that. I’m not against all regulation, just over-regulation.
Says the guy that called me a fascist.
Well, when that is the narrative you have constructed, how do you expect it to look and feel?
There has been no action taken by Trump against “Mexicans”, per se, only against illegal aliens and any and all people coming from certain countries, whether they are muslim or not. It is only IF you construct a narrative in defiance of these facts that you can substitute “Mexican” for “illegal immigrant” and “Muslim” for “anyone coming from these 7 countries.”
That’s the difference between a view based on looking at actual facts and reading actual E.O.s and policy statements, and constructing a narrative that agrees with your social justice warrior political agenda.
The actual fact is that Trump has taken NO executive action against Mexicans or against Muslims, period. Even building the wall is not an action against Mexicans; it’s an action against illegal immigration, gang infiltration and drug trafficking on our southern border.
Also, off-topic, perhaps someone could tell me, why do atheistic liberal pro-LGBTQ feminists want to bring MORE highly religious, anti-liberal, anti-LGBTQ anti-feminists into America? That makes no sense. Why wouldn’t you be the first to cheer a supposed ban on Muslims entering the USA?
It’s bizarre to me that the women’s march was headed by pro-sharia organizers and that they adopted the burqa – surely a symbol of female oppression – for an iconic symbol? I mean, they allowed pro-sharia sponsors and disallowed pro-life and pro-trump sponsors? Can someone explain this madness to me?
If you’re not a fascist, defenders of Trump have put themselves in the position of being apologists for fascism. I say that based on Robert Paxton’s characterization of fascism, in his The Anatomy of Fascism:
To which Paxton adds what he calls the “mobilizing passions” of fascism:
— A sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions.
— The primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it.
— The belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external.
— Dread of the group’s decline under the effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences.
— The need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or be exclusionary violence if necessary.
— The need for natural chiefs (always male), culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s historical destiny.
— The superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason.
— The beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success.
— The right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group’s prowess within a Darwinian struggle.
If you don’t see how this is objectively true of Trump’s most hard-core and loyal supporters, then consider getting your news from somewhere other than Breitbart, which is pretty much the Der Stürmer of our time.
Great thread WJM. Really in the spirit of this site. We can see where our real differences lie and who is right is obvious to all. Elizabeth would be proud.
🙂
You mean this executive order didn’t happen?
The last paragraph calls for setting up concentration camps, does it not? So much for small government and all that.
And I quoted less than a third of the whole text. Read the rest on your spare time.
You know I like you walto. It hurts me when you make shit up about me. I never said anything about wall street.
Here’s what I actually wrote:
But since you brought it up.
Bought and Paid For: The Hidden Relationship Between Wall Street and Washington
There’s this group of backwards people from a hell hole of their own making, who are now here espousing the same gibberish, trying to take us backwards. But yet, I welcome them.
Perhaps their empathy allows them to see past xenophobic tribalism?
Not sure what you mean by “pro-sharia”; was the march really headed by organizers who believe in the imposition of sharia law on all Americans? You’ll need to provide some evidence to back up that claim. But given that you cannot tell the difference between a burqa and a hijab, I’m betting that this is just your xenophobic tribalism showing…
Responding to KN:
The problem here, KN, is that you pick your particular authors and your particular definitions (like redefining “objective” to mean “trans-subjective”) to reinforce your narrative. I could as easily redefine fascim according to Jonah Goldberg so that it suits an anti-Liberal/Progressive narrative. It’s sort of like you thinking that the idea of “white male privilege” isn’t inherently racist and sexist. Well, I guess when you can redefine what the term “objective” means, up can mean down.
Let’s just look at the Merriam-Webster definition of fascism:
Hmmm ….. if we switch “nationalist” with “globalist”, liberals/progressives pretty much pretty much check every box. Trump supporters are against forcible suppression of opposition; they are against centralized government; they are against reassigning power to the executive branch; they are not concerned with race, and are against economic and social “regimentation” (extreme control over people and the economy).
By this definition,it sounds to me that SJWs and Progressives, who want more centralized government control over every aspect of our lives and a regulations about virtually everything, and who appear to be attempting to forcibly suppress opposition via violence and threat and intimidation are more fascistic by this definition. Also, it’s not Trump supporters who consider the state more important than the individual; that’s the other side.
However, lets go into your expanded item checklist:
That’s the SJWs and Democrats calling for violence, assassination, trying to sway electors and trying to de-legitimize Trump’s election.
Sounds like SJWs, the PC police and radical environmentalists to me.
I can’t believe you don’t see the irony here. This is the SJW anti-Trumpers and ANTIFAs rioting to keep Milo from speaking at Berkeley, or forming human walls to prevent people from attending the Trump inauguration, or keeping Trump from attending rallies during the campaign.
Pure SJW here – purer, meaning demonization as racists, homophobes, fascists, misogynists, and xenphobes anyone that doesn’t agree with your political views;
I think we know which side believes in Divine law based on natural and universal rights and which side eschews Darwinian justifications.
But, I’m sure your narrative sees all that differently. And I’m not calling you or SJW’s fascists, even though you meet the very criteria you’ve spelled out here and the definition of the term by MW. You just have different views and wish to accomplish different goals according to your particular mental makeup. You don’t seem to be able to handle the fact that other people disagree with you and thus you feel it necessary for some reason to demonize them via your SJW and political narratives.
Do you mean their empathy blinds them to the fact that they are actively trying to get more people that are intolerant to their way of life and views into the country?
Oh, you’re right, my bad, a hijab. It’s not sometthing I commonly refer to, so my mistake.
Have you ever been to New Delhi? Or Beijing? Where coal fire generation is prevalent. And routine power outages are the norm. And hazardous air quality indices are also the norm. Give me Obama regulations over that any day.
It’s not like you’re trying to force women to wear a hijab, or a burqa. Either way it’s not a symbol of subjugation. Even though it is.
That is just bullshit. When you take action against seven predominantly Muslim countries but make exceptions for persecuted Christians, you are acting against Muslims. Or are you suggesting that there are no persecuted Muslims from these countries?
When you take action against people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from which there is not a single example of violence in North America from immigrants or refugees from these countries, your judgement is suspect. When you also ignore predominantly Muslim countries that have a long history of breeding terrorists, your judgement is beyond suspect. When these actions foment anger and violence against peaceful Muslims in North America then your judgement borders on criminal. But what should we expect from someone who thinks that torture is acceptable?
What is really sad is that my subjective morality puts your objective morality to shame.
I agree. Why do we allow women dressed like this into the USA. We should ban all of them, and force those already here out of the country.
Ho boy, that’s quite the assumption you’re rocking there. In my experience, albeit somewhat limited, people fleeing sectarian violence tend to be more tolerant of others than most. According to your ‘logic’, the liberal LBGTQ left should be eagerly supporting the ban, while the religious right should be welcoming these highly religious people with open arms.
Perhaps there is something wrong with your premise. I think my ‘xenophobic tribalism’ premise is more in line with the facts. But I know that correspondence with reality has never been something you care about, William “The Paris attacks would not have occurred, if only the French police were armed” Murray.
So I’ll be more tolerant if I flee TSZ?
There are always exceptions to every rule.
Fortunately those two are not our only options.
No, it’s just the facts of the E.O.s without any political narrative attached.
Assumption? Do you know the state of gay and women’s rights in those countries?
From The Guardian: on immigrants there
From the Pew research center:
That’s an extensive report. I suggest you look beyond your personal feelings or experience and take a long hard look at the kind of ideology we’re letting into the country in fairly large numbers.
The way some people here carry on about “anti-science” Christians and the theocracy they supposedly want to install, and bitch about their oppressive moral views et cetera, I find it highly odd that you’d be championing the infusion of this kind of religious ideology into this country. especially those that openly endorse theocracy.
It’s like having a rule that immigrants must park their priors at the door. They can pick them up again when they leave.
Really? Now I know that you are full of shit. Given that the seven affected countries are predominantly Muslim, how do you justify the following from the EO?
”
Let me translate for you since you obviously have a reading comprehension issue:
Yes I do. And did you know that the proportion of homosexuals amongst the refugees is probably the same as it is in any population of humans. So, are you suggesting that we should relegate homosexual refugees to their fate in those countries? That seems rather cruel to me.
Besides, I remember having had several heated discussions with you at UD about homosexuality and same sex marriage. Based on those discussions, you are not exactly an advocate for homosexual rights.
And do you seriously want to bring up misogyny on a thread about Donald Trump?
I am all in favor of letting LGBTQ Muslims into the US.
Good for you. But this thread is about Trump, and he is not.
I thought it was about Trump being the last vestige of the rich white man in full frontal display. In the future rich white men will be reduced to supporting rich white women.
🙂
I’m sure KN is working up the narrative as we speak. He still hasn’t explained where Hillary got her money from. My bet is on rich white people. Heresy, I know.
To me the bringing up of the Clintons or Obamas every time somebody criticizes trump is a clear, if weird, symptom of clubbism.
You say you didn’t vote for trump, but if so, it seems like you wish you had. Would you really be defending Hillary against her critics now if she had won? I seriously doubt it.
You’re obviously in the Trump club, mung. Fess up.
Well, dazz says I’m on my way to being a YEC. I suppose it’s possible I end up being a Trump supporter. But I say give it about 4 more years and let me see what Trump has accomplished and what the alternatives are.
At least Trump isn’t another Bush in the White House. And I do support that.
No… test the hypothesis!
No… test the exception!
This question is quite revealing about the subject in your OP. That this is mysterious points to the fundamental divergence here: Islam is more toxic overall as a religion than even Christianity. The world would be better without either of them.
BUT.
A much, much higher order priority is the securing of freedom of conscience and liberty of action. Getting “good ends” — some kind of setback for Islam (or Christianity) is a profound loss for me as an progressive, anti-theist, science-loving, LGBTQ supporting citizen, if that means violating the principles that underwrite these liberties.
Trump doesn’t have a clue about what underlies our liberties and freedoms, and this is his “policy”, his “meta-policy”, his realpolitik that transcends what by comparison are trivial details about “clean coal” or “ISIS infiltration”, or repealing Dodd-Frank and other minimally necessary banking regulations.
Sharia is much more likely to come via Trump destabilizing the political traditions and principles that have rendered it impotent in America thus far, than it is to propagate in an America strongly committed to liberty, rule of law, and due process, even with 20x the muslim population we now have.
We tolerate, and have tolerated, Christians who demonize and persecute homosexuals, for centuries. People who’ve used the Bible to justify slavery, America’s own brand of a Holocaust. And still, principled atheists will fight to support the Christian’s right to these evil values as values freely held, so long as they don’t harm others, because the instrument marshaled to “solve” the problem of Christianity is WAY worse than Christianity, as execrable as Christianity is.
Christianity should be defended and supported as an exercise of free conscience and practice, despite its poisonous nature. “Cures” posed for Christianity are much more problematic than the “disease”.
Same with Islam, which is, arguably, even worse than Christianity as malignant religions go. My freedom and liberty depends on defending the Jew, the Muslim, the Zoroastrian, Jain, atheist, whatever, as a secular principle, where the state cannot and does not deign to embrace the horrors of becoming a religious arbiter.
It’s no secret that Islam is even more violent and murderous (in some places) toward gays and women and “others” than Christianity. Better Islam perished from the earth along with Christianity, and soon. But it’s not a problem for me in the least that the one of the sponsors is “pro-sharia”, so long as she (or he) is “pro-freedom” and “pro-human rights” in a way that supersedes that, as a matter of practice, if not theology (Christians, too, can fantasize about the eternal suffering due to be visited on homosexuals and others of the damned in the “afterlife”, which is sad, but not a problem if if doesn’t interfere with the rights and liberties of these others in the here and now).
This is the American “secular religion”, the ideology of rights and freedoms that started with the Constitution, but which has become something bigger and evolved from that core. That’s why it seems quite quaint to read that Trump “simply fit my policy positions best”. Trump is to American Secular Politics as a historical tradition what an atheist is to Christianity. A disbeliever, a destroyer and critic, a radical disrupter of American institutions. That’s his right to advance that kind of challenge and “burn it all down”, but it’s odd to have a conversation in light of that about voting for Trump because one thinks the marginal top tax rate should be reduced to 25%…
Lastly, this point is hard to avoid if you actually know and work with Muslims, just as you know and work with Christians. The religions are poisonous, but there many good and decent people who practice them, many ‘trapped’ by upbringing and cultural barriers that make breaking free of that very costly and painful. I know and respect many muslims who are devout and follow Sharia as it is given and directed for muslims in a country like the USA, and they are good and decent, peaceful people. Perfectly capable of living in peaceful harmony, even with Christians. That Sharia-loving protester couldn’t bring America down even a micro-notch, compared to the precipitous fall Trump threatens.
Atheists have condoned and sanctioned Christian intolerance? Sheesh. Next thing you know they will be sanctioning and condoning child abuse. Slippery slope!
Per US Today;” Of the more than 8,000 Syrian refugees admitted to the country so far, 78% are women or children, according figures released by the State Department this month. Fifty-eight percent are children, with a roughly even split between girls and boys.”
Most empathic humans of any persuasion would feel sympathy for their hardship.
The men , the needs of the families would outweigh political considerations, anyway the power of this group to translate their intolerance into political actions is so incredibly tiny compared to the segment of the American populace who are actively intolerant that it would be unnoticeable .
He highlighted it ” because the instrument marshaled to “solve” the problem of Christianity is WAY worse than Christianity, as execrable as Christianity is.”
Unlike the Catholic Church atheists have no reputation of the Mother Church to put ahead of the children abused.
Mung, I think you misunderstand the word “tolerate”. It doesn’t imply or require condoning or sanctioning. Rather it means that some practice or belief is not forbidden, or that practitioners are not coerced into stopping.
A Christian that believes homosexuality is a vile sin (“worthy of death” as Paul might put it, and did in Romans 1) and yet votes to support marriage equality, or for laws that forbid discrimination in hiring or leasing, etc. on the basis of their homosexuality is tolerant but yet neither condones nor sanctions homosexuality. I don’t condone the practice of Islam, or Christianity and for basically the same reasons, but it is crucial that we maintain a society that is tolerant of them both, and all other religions. An America that cannot tolerate Islam, and LOTS of muslims, cannot tolerate atheists, or anyone else, ultimately. It simply won’t be tolerant, and will become wholly despotic.
tolerate: allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
tolerate: accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.
condone: accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
condone: approve or sanction (something), especially with reluctance.
Like most atheists, you’ll believe what you want to believe in spite of any evidence to the contrary. You should thank God that theists continue to tolerate your existence. 🙂
William is a Breitbart fan. They said it, he believes it. No evidence required.
Re: hysteria. Remind me–did you defend Hillary Clinton when the pizza shop nonsense was brought up here?
I’m fairly certain their empathy just allows them to overlook the differences they have with other cultures if it means helping a marginalized group in some meaningful way.
People that are hostile to our way of life are screened well before they even reach our borders with an extremely high degree of success.
WJM:
DNAJ:
WJM:
Oh dear. The assumption that you are rocking, William, is that the people fleeing the violence in these countries share those reactionary views on gay and women’s rights. So the attitudes of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in England is scarcely relevant, and the attitudes of the Afghani population is entirely irrelevant. Religious fundamentalists of all stripes are nasty oppressive bawbags. People fleeing oppression and violence, not so much.
The fact that you cannot see this distinction, and automatically equate the politics of refugees with the politics that they are trying to escape, is a compelling demonstration of your xenophobic tribalism. Thank you for making my point.
Yikes. Well, we know what side Mung would have played on during the Inquisition.
What do you base that view on? You do realize that ideological screening of immigrant applicants was completely abandoned by 1990 thanks to Barney Frank. There currently is zero ideological screening going on, which is why Trump said he would start to ideologically screen immigrants to make sure they were compatible with our liberal democracy and specifically to protect the LGBTQ community. He went so far as to say that if an applicant doesn’t believe in equal rights for the LGBTQ community, they shouldn’t be allowed in the USA and immigrants on temporary visas who share those views should be kicked out.
From a poll of US Muslims run by T=the Center for Security Policy:
Those are the facts, Ace. Now, admittedly, not all of those responding are immigrants or refugees, but you can imagine that since the poll included Muslims who were citizens and had time to acclimate to our culture or were born here – if, even with those citizens in the poll, the figures for those beliefs are that high, it’s reasonable to assume they are much higher for those coming in from countries where those beliefs are far more widespread and severe.d
Which, again, brings up the same question: why do liberal, feminist, LGBTQ rights-supporting atheists, agnostics and SJW’s want to keep the doors wide open for any amount of such immigrants?
Would you feel the same way if the immigrants where mostly white fundamentalist Christians who held similar views?
I don’t want anyone coming to this country who doesn’t share belief in our democratic and equal rights & freedoms values. I damn sure don’t want people coming into this country that think it’s okay to kill gays or chop off a thief’s hand. Do you?
No, DNA jock. You don’t get it. I’m not assuming that refugess and immigrants from those countries have those values and beliefs I’m just pointing at the facts that show it is rational to have concerns. if I were assuming they all had those beliefs, I’d be calling for a permanent ban with no ideological vetting.
Unlike you and the Democratic party and Obama and Hillary and SJW’s, apparently, I’m not assuming they don’t have those beliefs. That’s why I prefer to have ideological vetting for all immigrants and refugees from wherever they come from.