Today, when the electors meet and officially cast the votes that make Donald Trump the next President of the United States, Ethics Alarms will retire the “This will help make Donald Trump President” tag. I was going to wade through the many posts bearing that tag, but the task was too arduous and depressing, and besides, new examples pop up every day. Trump does not have the skills, experience, reliability, judgment or temperament to be trusted to serve the role that those who voted for him designated him to serve, but the reasons much of the nation desperately, fervently, urgently wanted someone to fulfill that role and now, should be evident to anyone who is not part of the problem.
Two examples suffice.
1. Illegal immigration. Thanks to Trump’s slovenly rhetoric, Democrats, illegal immigration advocates and the news media managed to turn what should have been a substantive debate over the U.S.’s enabling of illegal border-crossing into the false narrative that Trump was racist, xenophobic, and had called all Mexicans “rapists and murders.” (He never did that.) Then Trump himself allowed the debate to focus on his absurd impossible measures to address the crisis: a Berlin-style wall that he would “make Mexico pay for” and mass deportations of 11 million U.S. residents or more. These deflections didn’t change the facts, however: Eight years of the wink-wink-nudge-nudge Democratic and Republican policies of allowing a constant stream of law-breaking foreign citizens over our borders, bolstered by the Orwellian deception by journalists, elected officials and activists of calling them “immigrants” to make dissent from these policies vulnerable to attack as “racist,” had justly infuriated many Americans. After watching so many politicians pretend to oppose the flood across our borders and back down or descend into double-talking gibberish, it was refreshing and—yes, Mrs. Obama–hope-inspiring to hear someone, anyone, call the crisis what it was and pledge to address it, even in crude terms.
Illegal immigration, and the flaccid, dishonest handling of it by both parties is the issue that made Donald Trump’s rise possible, and all of the conditions that created public indignation and anger over the issue still exist.
1,574 illegal aliens were apprehended at the U.S. Mexico border per-day during the month of November, marking the fifth straight month of escalating illegal immigration into the southwest United States. Nobody knows how many weren’t apprehended, but it is probably more. In addition to the tens of thousands of illegals streaming in from Central America, officials are reporting increased numbers of Cubans and Haitians crossing into the United States from Mexico. No, they aren’t all rapists and murderers or even criminals, and they aren’t all Mexicans, but they all came here or tried to come here illegally. That makes them wrong and undesirable, and all the linguistic tricks being employed to make that simple statement difficult to express won’t alter that central fact.
This month, the Center for Immigration Studies reported that illegal immigrants with criminal records in this country probably total at least 820,000, with most having felony and serious misdemeanor convictions. Other estimates, naturally the ones cited by Trump, have suggested up to two million criminal illegal immigrants, but 820,000 is still a number larger than the populations of four Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont or Wyoming.
The immigration think tank cited numbers from the Urban Institute, but that liberal group framed its statistics by arguing against deporting any criminals who have children that were born here. This growing problem doesn’t get addressed because policy-makers and academics evidently don’t want it addressed. Enter Donald Trump.
To deflect the issue, the news media argues about numbers. When Trump said in his nomination acceptance speech in July that “nearly 180,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records, ordered deported from our country, are tonight roaming free to threaten peaceful citizens,” the reliable Democratic Party-supporting Politifact challenged his estimate, saying,
Trump’s campaign said his statement came from a June 2016 report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors more strict immigration policies. The Center for Immigration Studies, in turn, relied on data obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to CIS, there were more than 925,000 immigrants who had been ordered removed but were still in the country as of July 2015. And an estimated 20 percent of them had at least one criminal conviction — nearly all of whom were at large. So Trump’s numbers are correct. But experts say there is some important context.
Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, a senior researcher at Pew Research Center, said the figure includes immigrants from countries that won’t accept them back.
“In these cases, the immigrants have to be released after they have completed their sentences,” Gonzalez-Barrera said.
Got that? Even PolitiFact had to admit that it was impossible to tell whether Trump was accurate or not, because the government refuses to distinguish between immigrants and illegal immigrants in its statistics. All the better to call you–or Trump– racist and xenophobic with! Also, all the better to import future Democratic votes, legally or illegally, as well as sub-minimum wage workers for the “jobs Americans won’t do.”
There is no honest, principled argument for facilitating, enabling, rewarding and ignoring illegal immigration, nor is it unconscionable not to use every available mechanism to make it clear that while legal immigrants are the fuel of America’s greatness, illegal immigrants are not welcome.
This, more than any other single factor, is why Donald Trump will be elected President today.
2. Speech and expression suppression through political correctness, victim-mongering and power abuse by progressive and leftist institutions.
This story, for example: Buck Ryan, director of the Citizen Kentucky Project of the University of Kentuckey’’s Scripps Howard First Amendment Center, reported in an op-ed that the University of Kentucky punished him for “sexual misconduct,” “in part for singing a Beach Boys tune covered by Alvin and the Chipmunks.”
In China.
Under Administrative Regulation 6:1, Discrimination and Harassment, UK’s Title IX coordinator ruled that the song, “California Girls,” included “language of a sexual nature” and was somehow offensive, though no victims were identified. He explains,
The occasion for the song was the closing ceremonies for an inaugural Education Week at a Chinese university as part of a UK program. I taught a class, “Storytelling: Exploring China’s Art and Culture.” For my Chinese students, I sang a song to teach the many differences in Chinese and American culture. The Beach Boys riff was one of three takeoffs of popular songs (Sting, Wizard of Oz) that I sang in my closing remarks. A few of my top Chinese students attended the closing ceremonies, and they actually liked the song. One was impressed that I could use the names of Chinese places instead of the original American ones.
Somebody complained. He continues:
As a former director of the journalism school, I know that if a student or a faculty member comes forward with a complaint, the university insists on due process to resolve the problem. In my case, I sent an email asking to know what exactly were the complaints against me. My message was turned into an open records request by UK’s legal office. A few days later I received a two-page letter denying my request.The dean who issued my punishment never talked to me. I learned about my fate in a letter dropped on me by two assistants just before I was to teach a class. My punishment in this case-without-victims bans me from receiving international travel funds and strips me of a prestigious award worth thousands of dollars. When I inquired about my due process rights, I was told by the provost that I didn’t have any. Here’s the quote:
“There is no constitutional right to represent the University of Kentucky abroad. Nor is there a constitutional right to teach a particular class. Accordingly, the University has no obligation to provide you with due process.”
As a result, I was convicted without trial of inappropriate behavior, which never occurred, with two women students. They wanted to defend me, but they were never interviewed by university officials. The next time you read about the University of Kentucky’s struggle to handle Title IX cases, think about my Beach Boys song. As for the song that begins, “Well Shanghai girls are hip; I really dig those styles they wear,” what kind of mind views it as offensive for using “language of a sexual nature?”
Unfortunately, for the wrongly accused, it is the same kind of mind that can see innocent acts as perverted ones.
This kind of political correctness and institutional bullying will be familiar to any American who has followed the increasingly unhinged treatment of men, whites, speech, dissent and expression by American universities, and their administrators’ abuse of due process, often in response to the Obama Administration’s ominous “Dear Colleague” letter. Many Americans feel the garrotte of state mandated indoctrination tightening around the culture’s throat, and decided that a man who obviously wasn’t afraid to say anything, no matter how rude, untrue or stupid, was a good bet to loosen it.
Finally, it cannot be reasonably denied that the unAmerican conduct and behavior by Democrats, progressives and the news media since November 8 could not have demonstrated more vividly why this unlikely character was seen by sufficient numbers of voters to be worth the huge risk if he presented immediate hope that the oppressive arrogance, coercion, self-righteousness and disrespect for half the nation by the could be reversed, stopped, or at least slowed down.
And now, another song..
Ethics Alarms 
Jack, I don’t think Great Britain is involved. UK = University of Kentucky.
Umm… Jack, U.K. is the University of Kentucky abbreviation. The Brits are not involved at any level. Just thought you should know that.
Hopefully, that straightens out the weirdness you thought you saw. This is a straight-up First Amendment violation if the professor’s version of the facts is correct, but then again, it’s possible he did a raunchy version of “California Girls”, like this one. But given he’s a college professor, I rather doubt it.
Re: UK. I was confused too, but then I read it as University of Kentucky and it made sense.
Oh, was that it? Very confusingly written, at least for me. Thanks I’ll clarify it.
My father went to UK! I’m an idiot.
Don’t feel too bad. I was wondering what the United Kingdom had to do with Kentucky as well at first. 🙂
Jack,
This post hits the nail square on , and puts a finger on the frustration many feel with the illiberal pushes in our country. When the ‘enlightened, educated’ ones act like thugs and bullies, people resent the message.
Good job. After my experience in another thread (where reasoned comment was ignored and ridiculed with vile hatred) you have revived my spirits by just stating the truth.
You leave out a few things: First, the lie that the economy was doing great and that Obama was a jobs creator. Tell that one to the vast number of blue collar types out of a job forced to work part time changing tires at Pep Boys. Or dropping out of the labor market and staying home to drink bud. Second, Obama weakening the military to the extent that it can’t simultaneously respond to crisis in Aleppo, China’s worrisome incursions in East Asia, and so on. Third, the list of true deplorables such as Hillary, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi ad naseum.
If that were true, why the push for a $15,00 per hour minimum wage?
This is the redacted letter from the dean (regarding the professor), which may prove enlightening. Perhaps the song wasn’t the main behavior which brought about the professors tribulations? A little between line reading is necessary but opaque inferences are possible. For the record, I deeply respect this blog and have learned much from it. I also agree with the point which Jack makes in his post.
Click to access Ryan%20letter%20redacted.pdf
I still don’t understand this pretense that Trump’s rhetoric on illegal immigration isn’t xenophobic. He opened his campaign by spreading irrational fear of illegal immigrants. No, he did not say that all of them were rapists and drug dealers, he only implied that most of them were. His proposed solutions have been equally irrational. He has used terrorist attacks committed by natural born citizens to justify his position. He has Other-used the current president by demanding a birth certificate he had already produced, lying to his supporters that he had shocking revelations to reveal about it, then producing nothing. He has Other-ized Muslims by lying that he saw thousands and thousands celebrating 9/11 in NJ on TV. He has demanded a temporary ban on all immigrants of one religion. Xenophobia literally means irrational fear of immigrants and foreigners. What am I missing here? How does all of this not clearly match both the dictionary and commonly understood definitions of xenophobia?
You feel this way because you are willing to deny the undeniable. Nations have to maintain their borders. Illegal immigrants by definition do not respect our laws, or deserve to be hear. Objecting to them has nothing to do with who they are, but what they do. Meanwhil, over 800,000 criminals who have no right to be in the country are per se worthy of concern by the sane and rational. he didn’t imply that most of the illegals were violent criminals, but never mind: plenty are, and they don’t belong here even if they are candidates for sainthood.
“He has used terrorist attacks committed by natural born citizens to justify his position”—that’s not irrational at all, unless, again, you are in denial. The Islamic faith opposes assimilation—that’s one reason it is difficult to deal with. Arguing that the US should limit its admission of Muslims may not be the best solution or a good one, but it isn’t irrational at all.
“Xenophobia literally means irrational fear of immigrants and foreigners. What am I missing here?”
It’s pretty obvious to me: it is not xenophobia to fear law-breaking illegal immigrants and legal immigrants who deeply believe a faith that calls on them to kill people.
You feel this way because you are willing to deny the undeniable.
From my perspective, denying Trump’s xenophobia is denying the undeniable. It’s much more overt than his racism, and almost as overt as his sexism.
Nations have to maintain their borders. Illegal immigrants by definition do not respect our laws, or deserve to be hear. Objecting to them has nothing to do with who they are, but what they do. Meanwhil, over 800,000 criminals who have no right to be in the country are per se worthy of concern by the sane and rational.
This is not a response to anything I said.
he didn’t imply that most of the illegals were violent criminals
He did. That’s what this paragraph means:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
“He has used terrorist attacks committed by natural born citizens to justify his position”—that’s not irrational at all, unless, again, you are in denial.
What? Terrorist acts committed by natural born citizens indicate that we should restrict immigration? That makes no sense.
The Islamic faith opposes assimilation—that’s one reason it is difficult to deal with.
That strikes me as a huge overstatement. “The Islamic faith” opposes no such thing; if it did, we wouldn’t have as many assimilated Muslims as we have.
But your central argument seems to be that as long as a threat from foreigners exists, no reaction to that threat can possibly be called xenophobia or irrational. That doesn’t make any sense. By your logic, McCarthyism was not an irrational or xenophobic reaction to Communism. After all, the threat was real, so HUAC, the blacklists, and the ruination of innocent lives was merely “wrong,” not irrational.
But the fact is that counterproductive solutions that overreact to the problem and make it worse are by definition irrational. Banning Muslim immigration is a totally irrational solution to the problem (such as it exists) of Muslim non-assimilation. As many national security experts have explained, such a move would strengthen ISIS–since a large recruiting tool is that Muslims have no place in the West and will never be accepted here–alienate our allies, weaken crucial connections among Muslims and law enforcement agencies, and isolate Muslim refugees trying to escape ISIS. How is that not irrational?
I also notice you didn’t comment on Trump’s disgusting blood libel that he saw thousands of Muslims cheering 9/11 in NJ, nor his xenophobic lie that he had damning information about Obama’s birth certificate. Here’s another: his suggestion that Mrs. Khan “maybe wasn’t allowed to speak” at the DNC. Perhaps you don’t see promoting ugly stereotypes as a function of bigotry; if so, you’re wrong.
You want words like “racism” and “bigotry” used less often than they are because you see them as overused. I get that. But you’re letting that create a bias which leads you to rationalize obvious, inarguable examples of bigotry.
The quote you seem to think is so clear is not, and especially so knowing how Trump speaks. He said that those coming into the country illegally aren’t “the best” —meaning not successful, grounded in their commmunities, wealthy, with influence, in Trump’s view of “best.” That’s not wrong or unfair, from that perspective. They DO have lots of problems, among them living in Mexico. Some are rapists. Some are murderers. Plain meaning attaches…it would be absurd to argue all illegals are rapists, and thus disingenuous to claim that this is what Trump meant or that anyone sane understood him to mean. So he was saying that some are rapists, and some are.
Xenophobia means fearing all foreigners. Fearing law-breaking foreigners and those who ascribe to a religion that demands that believers kill non-believers is called “Sanity” and “prudence.”
it would be absurd to argue all illegals are rapists, and thus disingenuous to claim that this is what Trump meant or that anyone sane understood him to mean.
Since I never said that, what are you talking about?
Xenophobia means fearing all foreigners.
No. No, it doesn’t. Holy hell, no wonder you don’t think he’s xenophobic; by this incorrect definition, virtually no one is. Do you also think racism is hatred of ALL people of a certain race?
Fearing law-breaking foreigners and those who ascribe to a religion that demands that believers kill non-believers is called “Sanity” and “prudence.”
How about fearing “thousands and thousands” of non-existent Muslims celebrating 9/11 in NJ? How about painting the *president* as a secret foreigner? You still have not addressed this.
As George Baily says to Clarence, “You worry me.” Do you really trhik that xenophobia means fear of any foreigners? No wonder you allow ideology to blot out the sun. Xenophobia means an irrational fear of foreigners, not a rational fear of people who engage in conduct because of that conduct. Sometimes when we argue, I feel I’m able to have the privilege of examining a corrosive emotional malady close up. It’s fascinating. Your comment here defined “knee jerk.”
I have never read or heard of Donald Trump say that he fears foreigners, because they are foreign. There is nothing xenophobic about the position that illegal immigrants are undesirable, because by definition they are desirable. They are illegal. If they were desirable, they wouldn’t be illegal. This is obvious and undeniable, but blind liberal ideology has, for reasons known only to them, decided that the opposite is true. To them , and apparently to you, it is xenophobia to state the fact that people who cross out borders illegal are, in fact, law-breakers, uninvited, by policy and logic undesirable, and need to stay in their own country. There isn’t a counter-argument to this. Through some warped carnival mirror of left-wing can’t, this somehow gets transformed into animus toward foreigners. Yes, it’s true: you have to be a foreigner to be an illegal immigrant, but the issue is “Illegal,” not immigrant.Please, please reassure me that your tribe isn’t this deluded/stupid/ intellectually dishonest, Chris. I have assumed for years that the sly use of “immigrant” to mean ILLEGAL immigrant was a typical bit of linguistic dishonesty designed to make the lie stick that those opposing people who break out immigration laws also opposed legal immigration. Please, please tell me that the real reason isn’t that you don’t understand the difference. Please.
The fact that illegals are illegal would be, and is, enough to justify the position, indeed mandate it, that illegals are not welcome. Trump addressed the insanity of those who somehow deny THAT, by pointing out that a lot of them—over 800,000, it seems, but 150 would be enough–are criminals by breaking OTHER laws after they sneak in here. And not jay-walking: many of them are thieves, rapists and killers. He did not say “all” or mean all. Are “many” rapists and killers? Sure, as in “too many,” since not one single illegal alien has a right to be here.
To be xenophobia, Chris, a fear of foreigners must be 1) individuals because they are foreigners and no other reason AND irrational. Now, fear of foreigners from a particular region or country may be bias, or bigotry, as in “I hate Mexicans,’ but that’s not xenophobia, if the same person says, sincerely, “but I have no problem with Peruvians.” Blurring all thesse ket distinctions makes communication and policy impossible—is that the idea, Chris? Because I’d really like to understand. In the BIG BOOK OF PROGRESSIVE CANT, does it say somewhere that because this is one world and one big happy mass of humanity, rejecting a group of people for well defined reasons based on conduct is still proof of malign intent? Has the legitimate rejection of racism—which means denigration of individuals because not of what they do, but of their race, and only their race—caused something to snap in your brains to which rejection of anyone or any group for well defined and proven undesirable and wrongful conduct is now seen as wrong?
Islamophobia is not xenophobia, for example. We can call that a bias against Muslims, or we can call it a rational reaction regarding a violent, doctrinaire religion that encourages its believers to hate, kill and lie. I’ve been stewing about a post on this subject, but so far have not been able to crack it. I was inspired by the event in Saudi Arabia in which a British tourist was raped by two men, and the authorities arrested and charged her. I’m afraid of a religion that thinks like that. I’m afraid of a nation run by people who think like that, and people who ascribe to a religion that thinks like that. Everyone should be afraid. I don’t want that in our culture, and I think the United States has every justification for developing policies that attempt to block that from influencing our culture. This isn’t prejudice, bias, or xenophobia. This is common sense.
Ideology eventually makes its adherents abandon common sense. Is that where you are? It sure looks like it to me.
Do you really trhik that xenophobia means fear of any foreigners?
I believe it means fear of foreigners generally, because it does. You seem to think that if Trump likes any foreigners, anywhere, or if he has a rationalization for hating only a particular subset of foreigners, this invalidates the charge of xenophobia. Do you also believe that a white man with a black friend can’t possibly hold any racist beliefs? Do you believe laws against Chinese immigration were not xenophobic because we still let Europeans in? Do you believe “Irish need not apply” signs weren’t xenophobic because they didn’t apply to British immigrants?
Xenophobia means an irrational fear of foreigners, not a rational fear of people who engage in conduct because of that conduct. Sometimes when we argue.
And again, Trump has accused people of being secret evil foreigners for conduct they did not engage in. You have no rebuttal to this.
I have never read or heard of Donald Trump say that he fears foreigners, because they are foreign.
You can’t possibly believe that this is the standard by which to judge bigotry, can you?
You have called Donald Trump sexist. Why? Has he ever said he hates anyone because they’re women? Carly Fiorina, Megyn Kelly, Rosie O’Donnel–he never said he hated them because they were women.
See how ridiculous this line of argument is? And yet you are making the exact same argument to claim that Trump’s constant fearmongering about foreigners isn’t xenophobic.
You will find very few people in the world who will admit they hate X because they are X, even to themselves. There is almost always. a rationalization for it. “I don’t hate black people because they’re black, I just think their culture makes them lazy and criminal” is still racism.
Your screed about illegal immigration is not a response to anything I’ve said. One can be against illegal immigration and still find Trump’s rhetoric and proposals over the top and xenophobic. I do take issue with your use of the word “undesirable,” which historically leads to nothing good.
To be xenophobia, Chris, a fear of foreigners must be 1) individuals because they are foreigners and no other reason
No. That’s what you don’t get. There are always other reasons. Most racists don’t think they hate black people because they’re black. Most sexists don’t think they hate women because they’re women. This idea that as long as there’s some other justification–regardless of whether that justification is even based on facts or logic–one can’t call anything bigotry is nonsense, and an attempt to shut down discussions of bigotry.
Islamophobia is not xenophobia, for example.
Like anti-Semitism, Islamophobia is complicated. At the school I teach, I know a Muslim-American student and a Sikh-American student who have both been called “foreigner” by bullies. They were both born in this country. There have been hate crimes against Muslims (and Sikhs) in which that word has been used as a slur. It isn’t just one thing–racism, religious bigotry and xenophobia all converge when it comes to bigotry against these groups.
Trump has tried to paint Muslims as a whole as foreign invaders. That is both Islamophobic and xenophobic.
We can call that a bias against Muslims, or we can call it a rational reaction regarding a violent, doctrinaire religion that encourages its believers to hate, kill and lie.
I’m going to call it bias against Muslims, because what you’ve just written is unhinged.
I’ve been stewing about a post on this subject, but so far have not been able to crack it. I was inspired by the event in Saudi Arabia in which a British tourist was raped by two men, and the authorities arrested and charged her. I’m afraid of a religion that thinks like that. I’m afraid of a nation run by people who think like that, and people who ascribe to a religion that thinks like that. Everyone should be afraid. I don’t want that in our culture, and I think the United States has every justification for developing policies that attempt to block that from influencing our culture. This isn’t prejudice, bias, or xenophobia. This is common sense.
I was going to respond to this line of thought earlier when you said “Fearing law-breaking foreigners and those who ascribe to a religion that demands that believers kill non-believers is called “Sanity” and “prudence,” but I’m glad I let you spell out your thoughts more. This is nonsense, Jack.
Nearly one quarter of the world is Muslim. If their religion wanted us dead, we’d be dead. Be afraid of ISIS, be afraid of the Islamist theocracies, sure. But projecting that fear onto Islam as a whole is not rational. It is bigoted. Yes, you are capable of bigotry and bias, just like everyone else. I hope you find a way to work through that before writing your planned post.
I’m sorry, Chris, but you are really in orbit on this.
“I believe it means fear of foreigners generally, because it does.”
That’s not what your comments suggest. Point me to a single Trump statement consistent with that definition. There isn’t one. Objecting to illegals doesn’t suggest that, nor does wanting to avoid potential terrorists.
The rest is just various ways of rationalizing your own bias. “There are always other reasons” is an embarrassing dodge, but beautifully encapsulates your ideological delusion: default to racism, xenophobia, and sexism no matter how legitimate the real reasons are. No, Clinton didn’t lose because she’s corrupt and a lousy candidate! There are always reasons, but the real reason is sexism! No, the cop didn’t shoot Mike Brown because a 300 pound man who had just tried to grab his gun was rushing him and refusing to stop, it was racism! No, Trump doesn’t oppose illegal immigration because it is illegal and leads to criminals living here who don’t belong here, he really just hates foreigners! No, people don’t think Barack Obama is a weak and inept President because he is, the real reason the oppose him is because he’s black!
I don’t have to make a case that this is bats and intellectually dishonest, because it is obvious to anyone who hasn’t allowed ideology to eat their brain. What I want to know is how smart people get infected with this?
Your analogy with Trump’s misogyny is atrocious. There is no evidence that he doesn’t see women as sex objects and nothing else. He judges all women by their appearance. He speaks to them disrespectfully. His idea of discrediting them is to call them fat or ugly. You see, Chris–“they break the law” and “they kill people” are REAL, genuine black marks that justify fear, and don’t involve bias at all. “Fat” and “ugly” are not equivalents.
The rest is just various ways of rationalizing your own bias. “There are always other reasons” is an embarrassing dodge, but beautifully encapsulates your ideological delusion: default to racism, xenophobia, and sexism no matter how legitimate the real reasons are. No, Clinton didn’t lose because she’s corrupt and a lousy candidate! There are always reasons, but the real reason is sexism! No, the cop didn’t shoot Mike Brown because a 300 pound man who had just tried to grab his gun was rushing him and refusing to stop, it was racism! No, Trump doesn’t oppose illegal immigration because it is illegal and leads to criminals living here who don’t belong here, he really just hates foreigners! No, people don’t think Barack Obama is a weak and inept President because he is, the real reason the oppose him is because he’s black!
I’d thank you to stop putting words in my mouth, and to stop pretending that I am calling Trump xenophobic for “opposing illegal immigration.” I’ll take this as you being unable to rebut my actual points.
You see, Chris–“they break the law” and “they kill people” are REAL, genuine black marks that justify fear, and don’t involve bias at all.
“Thousands of them cheered 9/11 in New Jersey” is NOT real. “Maybe she wasn’t allowed to speak” is NOT real. “I have damning information about Obama’s birth certificate, maybe it proves he’s a Muslim, maybe it proves he’s a foreigner” is NOT real. “Mexico sends it’s people” is NOT real. “This judge is going to be biased against me because he is Mexican” is NOT real.
These are all examples of xenophobia.
“Thousands of them cheered 9/11 in New Jersey” is NOT real. “Maybe she wasn’t allowed to speak” is NOT real. “I have damning information about Obama’s birth certificate, maybe it proves he’s a Muslim, maybe it proves he’s a foreigner” is NOT real. “Mexico sends it’s people” is NOT real. “This judge is going to be biased against me because he is Mexican” is NOT real.
No, they aren’t. But if the only tool you have is a hammer—
“Thousands of them cheered 9/11 in New Jersey” is a lie, aimed at Islam, not “foreigners.” With all the terrorism in the past year involving Islamic citizens, this is not based on “xenophobia,” nor can it be called that.
“Maybe she wasn’t allowed to speak” is a mean-spirited insult focusing on the anti-woman aspects of Islam—which IS real. A stupid comment, but referring to an uncomfortable truth. This was a pissing match, as child-Trump lashed back at a personal attack on him. Was the couple showing anti-New York bias by attacking Trump?
“I have damning information about Obama’s birth certificate, maybe it proves he’s a Muslim, maybe it proves he’s a foreigner” is a personal and political attack based on a desire to undermine—you know,, like saying that Trump is in league with teh Russians. Are you really arguing that questioning someone’s qualifications to be President is xenophobia? The attack on Cruz’s citizenship was xenophobia? Ridiculous.
“Mexico sends it’s people”—sure, this was a literal assertion. It was referring to a specific policy issue, and had nothing to do with xenophobia. You obviously aren’t even paying attention.
“This judge is going to be biased against me because he is Mexican” is not xenophobia! Good lord. If Trump had been reported as insulting Rhode Island, he would have said, “This judge is going to be biased against me because he is Mexican.”
You are hopeless, and it bothers me that you are hopeless.
Thousands of them cheered 9/11 in New Jersey” is a lie, aimed at Islam, not “foreigners.” With all the terrorism in the past year involving Islamic citizens, this is not based on “xenophobia,” nor can it be called that.
Fine. Islamophobia, then? Bigotry, at least?
I don’t see how your sentence “With all the terrorism in the past year involving Islamic citizens” is relevant. So because some Muslims have committed terrorism, it isn’t bigoted to spread a lie that thousands of American Muslims celebrated said terrorism? That’s what bigotry means; judging a group for the actions of a few.
“Maybe she wasn’t allowed to speak” is a mean-spirited insult focusing on the anti-woman aspects of Islam—which IS real. A stupid comment, but referring to an uncomfortable truth.
It’s a stereotype, Jack, which is a function of bigotry. Good lord. You literally seem to be arguing that because some Muslim men mistreat their wives, it’s not bigoted for Trump to assume that this individual Muslim man mistreated his wife.
Was the couple showing anti-New York bias by attacking Trump?
What? What anti-New York stereotypes did this couple employ in attacking Trump?
“I have damning information about Obama’s birth certificate, maybe it proves he’s a Muslim, maybe it proves he’s a foreigner” is a personal and political attack based on a desire to undermine—
And the attack uses xenophobia and racism to undermine. Jeez–was the lie that John McCain had a secret black child not racist?
you know,, like saying that Trump is in league with teh Russians.
There’s a lot more evidence of that then there ever was that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii. But you know what, if you called the Russia theory xenophobic, I’d at least see your point.
Are you really arguing that questioning someone’s qualifications to be President is xenophobia?
You are being willfully obtuse. Questioning a president’s qualifications by spreading the lie that they’re a secret foreigner with a forged birth certificate is xenophobia. Obviously.
The attack on Cruz’s citizenship was xenophobia?
Yes.
“This judge is going to be biased against me because he is Mexican” is not xenophobia!
Fine. It’s racism, or at least ethnic bias.
You are hopeless, and it bothers me that you are hopeless.
The feeling is mutual.
Jack literally just called you out for making arguments based on blurring distinctions and definitions.
Your response?
Blurring distinctions and definitions.
Phenomenal.
What did I blur? Pointing out that xenophobia, racism and religious bigotry all exist within Islamophobia and that they aren’t easy to separate isn’t “blurring distinctions and definitions,” it’s true. It’s a fact. Maybe you see it as “blurring distinctions” when a Sikh man is beaten while being called a dirty Muzzie and a foreigner, but that’s not me doing that, it’s Islamophobes.
Jack laid it all out quite thoroughly when he called you out on it.
No, that’s called criminal battery. Mistaking a Sikh for a Muslim is called “ignorance.” Recognizing that the radical strain of Islam is dangerous and makes Islam itself a uniquely risky cultural ingredient is called “recognizing reality and not allowing abstract principles to create denial.”
It seems to me that you’re arguing that Islamophobia does not exist. If you can’t call actual hate crimes against Muslims Islamophobia, then you must think the word itself doesn’t describe anything real.
Is that your position?