All right, here we go! Sorry, it’s very long :)
misogynist claim in original article
It’s ok when people disagree with me, but if I feel their logic fails by using exaggerated derivatives to somehow proof he’s a misogynist, I speak out. I’m not defending his words, I’m simply stating that using vile or sexual language doesn’t make someone a misogynist. The comparison I made for example with women who talk this kind of talk, is just to get the subject out of the “anti-Trump”-ness that can cast a shadow over ones judgement on the issue. For example, I personally don’t find women who would use that kind of talk to be men-haters. My main intention is pointing out that the discussion will be much fairer if you can separate the issue from the person you oppose. Which was not done in the article and thus lacks a reality based core argument.
you racist, you
The thing is, you can almost make anyone a racist this way. What people did in the 70s is not necessarily representative of their current ideas and ways of living life. People change. You can never be sure someone is a racist or a probable racist in the future. This goes for all politicians ever elected and ever to be elected… It’s not a Trump-specific thing. There are things Hillary said that are a great example of racism too. Since the liberals are literally spamming racist claims on everything even slightly right-wing, it makes them irrelevant after a while. Show me a true racist, and I’m sure the Trump-backers will be as opposed to this person as the democrats. We really need to take politics out of these discussions as it is blurring the truth and casting shadows over any fair discussion.
I have used the N-word
I have used the N-word when talking to a black friend of mine. And not just once. He calls me white bwoy. Yes, with a w after the b. Often. It’s a personal joke for us, we don’t care. I don’t mean anything bad with it and he doesn’t take it that way either, and the other way around. There is no connotation of slavery or supremacy or whatever in our minds. Just friends busting each others ass. But videotape me while I say the N-word and use it when I’m 70y old and — surprise — you’ve made me a racist on your TV show. It’s just bullshit politics. Move on. Focus on the real racists. It might actually help us to get rid of racism.
I agree on your remark though about the judge with Mexican heritage, that made no sense and I think he realized the stupidity of his statement pretty quick. By the way, a lot of his “the Mexicans” should be interpreted as “drug cartels and their political power in Mexico”, and not as “the average Mexican”. I personally never understood it as if he was against Mexican people. Context matters. But if the sole purpose of ones listening is to try make him look bad to certain groups of voters, you will probably hear it differently, I realize that.
about so-called racists and generational influences
My mother had black friends in her childhood. Sounds pretty normal to you probably? Well, it was not normal at all. In her days, there was exactly 1 black family in our whole town. It was a new thing here. Nobody was used to it. I can imagine my grandfather having said bad things about blacks in his younger years. He was probably being openly racist (in words). But he had no problem with them playing in his garden together. He didn’t kick them out. The kids were welcome to eat with them, just like white kids would have been. Is my grandfather a racist because he had said racist things 20 years earlier? Or is he a victim of the time he grew up in and is actually trying very hard to overcome the bias he was made to believe during his younger years? I see a man trying to improve himself and capable to change his original opinions and consequential behavior. Because he’s a good person. People change. He’s not a racist.
about so-called gay haters and generational influences
When I was about 17y old, my mother once called me into the living room and told me to have a seat as she wanted to tell me something. If I have to sit down to talk, it’s a serious conversation. I probably did something wrong or something bad happened, you get the drill.
Me: What’s the matter?
Mom: Please sit down.
I sit down.
Mom: You know next week is our family dinner, right?
Me: Yes, what’s the matter? Did something happen?
Mom: Your cousin Kevin is coming too and he’s bringing his partner.
Me: Errr ok… And?
(What’s so shocking I need to sit down?)
Mom: So how can I say this… He’s bringing his partner and …/pause/… it’s not a girl.
I stood up from my seat and started laughing.
Me: Hahaha, so what, I don’t care. Are you seriously making me sit down for this?
Now, if you know my mom, she’s a probably the most caring person that exists, always helping out people, always understanding and helping those who need it. She has exactly zero problems with my cousin being gay. But in her world — in her generation — being gay isn’t as common as it is nowadays. She might be less comfortable with the idea than people of my generation, which explains her way of telling me this, but she fully supports my cousin and his partner. Is my mother against gay people? Nope, au contraire.
If I would apply the same logic the Trump-opposers use on him, however, I would be saying my mom hates gay people. She’s my mother however and I know her very well. I’m 100% sure of the fact that she is not against people being gay. In her world though, it was kind of new. She would be a bit shocked if I were gay, but she would be more than supportive.
Many politicians are of my mother’s generation. They said and thought things in the past that they nowadays would not agree with anymore. In the world they grew up in, there were different public opinions, situations, concerns, social dynamics and social evolutions. They had to adapt to new influences and trends in society, sometimes that is not always easy. Some modern day values might not be compatible with the values they grew up with.
We are 2017 now, 40 years later. They didn’t all of a sudden wake up unchanged 40 years later. They lived every single of those 40 years. They have evolved personally for 40 years. They are not the people they were back then. Opinions change and a small realization can change your opinion in a fraction of a second forever and maybe your opinion will be the exact opposite of before this realization. Why would Trump — or any politician — be an exception?
Not really familiar enough with all the Obama days and the history of Obamacare to give you a decent answer on this, but I think this is just a general political thing worldwide. In my country we have more than 2 parties in the government and they do the same: block each other and as a result nothing ever really changes. People are often more reasonable than the politicians they elected and they are aware of it. Things are changing because of that. Politics as we knew it, is in its end days, nobody agrees with the eternal status quo anymore. We want people like Trump who change things from day one.
I didn’t realize this was the way the interview was done and if that’s the case I agree this is shameful and harming. Journalists are well aware they are influencing public opinion and should use this power responsibly. But luckily people are aware of how politicized the media has become and things are changing because of that. Media as we knew it is currently being exposed and destroyed to the ground. A new media is rising and it will hopefully not be a better propaganda machine, but instead an honest channel that brings correct information to the public so they can make up their own minds instead of just having their minds made up by people who want them to think a certain way for a certain reason. Like media is supposed to be. People are taking back control and with Trump in the WH, they have real power on their side. He cán abuse his power, but I doubt people would let him.
The elections we’ve seen in US were not a Rep vs Dem election at all. The Trump-voters know this, politicians on both sides however seem not to realize it yet. It was about people who have lost all trust in their government (and rightly so) and are aware what is happening and how they are being controlled and suppressed. This is people vs government abuse. If Trump goes that way, he will be in the camp of government abusers and will loose the support of the people who are in power now. Trump is their voice but if he stops speaking their words, they will find another way to have their voices heard. It would lead to real protests, not the cheap fear based D vs R protests we’ve seen recently. Protests that would be based in reality and that could possibly even lead to an armed rebellion of people vs government… Trump is the last chance people are giving to the American government to prove they are on the side of the people and not controlled by — criminal — elite organizations. If he betrays the people, I predict a civil war (I’m not kidding). Same when “they” would take out Trump: civil war. Trump is powerless without the people, he cannot go against them.
About the abortion issue by the way. People here are made to believe Trump and the Reps are against abortion. No further information. In my country, abortion is limited to 12 weeks after conception. No full grown babies are cut into pieces. I’m very much in favor of our dealing with this, it protects unwanted babies (accidents, rape, etc) but it does keep a decent amount of the responsibility in the mothers hands too. Got pregnant and for some reason you really don’t want/are unable to support a baby, you have the chance to stop it. It’s also legal in case of medical complications. I’m sure if people here realized the pro abortion issue in the Women’s March for example was in fact for late term abortion, the march in Brussels would not have that abortion conversation for sure. People here are for abortion, but not for the kind of abortion the US democrats are promoting… I believe our way of handling it is a very good compromise between the two sides. And I also believe this is where the US is evolving towards. You are both right, and both wrong. (but it will be the Republicans who will install this middle ground by law, not the Democrats — watch my words)
Sender: email@example.com Subject: Re: But the emails.
I personally don’t think she should be imprisoned for the fact that she had her own server. I could care less. Even if there was proof (there is actually, see the FBI files released a couple weeks ago) she sent out secret documents to people who were hacked — possibly endangering national security — I don’t think it was done on purpose and I don’t think she should be imprisoned for this. The point has been made.
But if she deletes and digitally bleaches all content, it raises suspicion. What is she hiding? That’s what needs to be investigated and this is not the same issue as whether or not she should bear the consequences of having this server. I don’t even see why the people on her side of politics would be against this investigation. If she’s innocent, she’s innocent and it will take the suspicion away once and for all. If she’s not, the Democratic party can clean their own house and make sure the next politicians they propose for presidency are acceptable for voters. If we can’t trust a party, we don’t vote for them. So, why not investigate? What’s the risk? Do you prefer to be associated as a party with a person nobody trusts? Is she worth losing the whole party for? Are you in favor of not investigating this, and if so, what would you say the reason for this hiding and lying is other than keeping a dirty secret covered up? That is what people think of Clinton, it is not about the server at all. It’s not about the emails she gave them at all. It’s about the emails she didn’t give them. It goes way deeper than “but the emails”. You guys never listened to our real concern. And you still don’t. If you did, I wouldn’t be explaining this to an apparently well educated and well informed writer.
Why did so many who were questioned plead the fifth? This implies — although not legally — that they can’t speak or it would incriminate themselves. If it would incriminate themselves, it is because they are guilty of some crime. This is really common sense and has nothing to do with ones personal political preferences. If there is nothing to hide, why not ask for an in depth investigation themselves (and not while they are in control of the government and people in juridicial or intel departments) so they can prove it and prove they are still trustworthy in contrary to the popular belief? If they have nothing to hide, the way they deal with it doesn’t make any sense. What are they afraid of? What is in the emails that would make them try so hard to hide it?
Oh, and by the way: what if it was Trump who had a server in his basement with top secret documents on it? What if Trump deleted all content of the server after being subpoenaed? Double standard, hardcore double standard. It would headline the news in my country for a week, contrary to the deafening silence when it would be Obama or Clinton. Makes one wonder, huh? Makes one really wonder. The question is: does this make you wonder, yet?
Not willfully as in “they did what they did to get those people killed”, but it’s still wrongdoing or at least major incompetence. And the government blatantly lied to the people. I can imagine the Republicans will have used this politically and maybe too much, I don’t know. They might not be as guilty as the Reps suggest, but they are still responsible. Anyways, Benghazi is absolutely not an item on my personal list of why I am opposed to Clinton.
Clinton Foundation — a charity
Say what? There’s enough information out there. Have you looked into what they did in Haiti? Can you explain me why all of a sudden — now that Clinton lost the elections — donations to their foundation have dropped massively? Did everyone suddenly stop caring about charity?Can you look me into the eyes and say you really believe Saudi Arabia cares about charity or human rights? Uranium One deal? Foundation money used for Chelsea’s wedding? Reasonable enough? If you’re serious about being happy to look at it, please do so then instead of pretending there is “nothing to see here”. Seriously.
The CF is under scrutiny worldwide, this is not some Republican rumor thing. It smells like a major international corruption scandal or at least something fishy was going on. I’m also sure if all the donations to the CF were made to the Trump Foundation, you would not make the same statements, at all.
Not. At. All.
So, again, why would someone be against an investigation? If they’re innocent, they have nothing to fear and their name will be cleared and they can go back to doing charitable work. If not, they should be stopped as soon as possible and locked up if appropriate. No matter what your political preferences are, if they are criminals, you want them locked up
I am not seeing the ME foreign policy as an Obama thing only, you’re correct. It is the Bushes and it is Bill Clinton as well, definitely so. In my eyes its more a Republican thing than a Democrat thing even. But they are both guilty and on the same team. Trump is not on that team, so he can possibly change course fundamentally. Obama hasn’t changed direction at all, he continued it. There’s a video of him clearly stating they are training ISIL forces. Obama cooperated with nations that support terrorists. They arm them. They fund them. Plenty of examples already out there if you care to look around for them. Surprised it’s not a big issue in the main stream media. Well, actually, I’m not surprised.
This is a cover up, but it’s surfacing now worldwide. You say “you haven’t followed it closely”. I’m afraid this counts for too many people. Did anyone follow it closely? Were we even áble to follow it closely? No, we were not. We now see independent journalists countering US claims. That the so called moderate rebels are actually the violent groups that terrorize and slaughter Syrian civilians. Too many voices to ignore. I hope the situation there can finally be resolved now that Trump is president. And I’m glad Obama and co lost control of what is being told to the world. It’s almost as if Obama wasn’t even really trying to get rid of terrorists in Syria. Not even ‘almost’ if I can share what I really think. It appears he was on the wrong side of the war.
I agree taking out ISIS will not be as simple as Trump thinks and, as you say, it has many complications. But naming the enemy is a first step. Obama wasn’t trying to get rid of ISIS, he just wanted Assad gone. Taking out ISIS must be a top priority worldwide now and the previous strategy hasn’t worked at all. So we should definitely try a different approach. Pretty sure money/oil is of major importance here indeed. But also the change of political powers we witnessed happening in the Middle East is something we need to pay attention to. It seems salafist islam is the big winner in the end.
Immigration from Muslim countries is a real issue, and it’s an issue the US must take on now. The European way of handling it — which is more or less what US liberals want — has failed. I’m actually a leftist myself — don’t know if I said this before — and have always agreed with open border policies and helping out refugees. But what we are seeing here in the last years is proof this approach doesn’t work at all. Extreme vetting is in the end a good thing for the good muslims, although not fun. It’s the terrorists that create the fear for muslims in general, not the people who want to tackle the problem.
Good muslims are 100% welcome to live in my country. Political islamists however, are not. Sharia law advocates are not. People believing in jihad are not. Just like I — and you — would be in favor of extreme vetting people coming in from a Nazi regime. I want to help their victims, but I want to make sure I’m not helping the Nazi’s or people who agree with Nazi ideologies. I find Trump’s recent proposal of creating safe zones in their own region a reasonable solution that should be tried out and might actually lead to good results. The current way of dealing with the issue has failed, so why not try something else? We can’t be sure if it will solve the problem — maybe we can never — but not trying will definitely not solve the problem.
Targeting muslims for this vetting might seem racist to some people, but being muslim is the common denominator of all those terrorists, so it would be stupid not to do so. If all terrorist attacks were done by tall blonde women, it would make sense to keep an extra eye on all tall blonde women. It doesn’t mean you hate blonde people, it doesn’t make you a short person supremacist and it doesn’t make you a misogynist. The only thing it makes, is it makes sense.
build the wall
I understand the opposition towards this, but if I go to the US (I am there min 1 month/year), I have to go through a whole process. Visa, ESTA, luggage checks, full body scans, drug tests on the hands sometimes, etc. Although it’s not a fun thing because it is time consuming, I have no problem with that at all. Why not check people coming in by ground?
I’m well aware a physical wall will not block drug trafficking from Mexican cartels completely. But it will make it harder for them. Evicting illegal criminals does not work if they can easily come back. If you catch a burglar in your house, you don’t put him out in your front yard and leave the door open and then take off for work either. They call his wall a racist thing. It would be racist if you would only allow white people to cross the border, yes. But that’s not what the wall is being built for and that’s not what border regulations will do either. And as you are well aware of, democrats have campaigned on building a wall and deporting illegals too. Bill and Barack did, it was not a scandalous racist policy for them, so I don’t see why they can do it and Trump not.
Not sure he wants to do that? I personally don’t remember him saying this but I believe you.
target and kill relatives of terrorists
I definitely don’t agree with killing them — of course — but relatives and social circles of terrorist should be watched closely by intel. Is that what is meant by “targeting”? They often house them, hide them, transport them, aid them, supply weapons, etc. When did he say he wanted to kill their families, by the way? Never seen that.
Agreed. Glad he told us yesterday he’s going to follow General Mattis on this. Shows he’s capable of letting go of his personal ideas in favor of what people/experts/etc say. And international laws. But I guess Theresa May will also have had her say on this ;) If he was dictatorial he would’ve done what he wanted, so this is comforting.
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Not familiar with this, also didn’t hear him say this. Quick look on wikipedia tells me I agree with you, but I don’t know the details or the reasoning behind him wanting to get rid of it. So I can’t really comment more than this.
I’m not in favor of cutting tax for the richest (I honestly would have to read into this matter to see why and what would be the result). We did a similar thing in Belgium to get overseas money back into our country at a small tax rate, don’t think it had the wanted result. But I am very much in favor of cutting corporate tax. People are only against it because they think all companies are multinationals and when something favors companies, it does not favor people. They don’t realize that most companies are not that big.
Most companies are not capable of using the tax evasion strategies of multinationals. They pay their fair share. Taxes can be a heavy burden for smaller companies, especially if you start employing other people. And some companies are only 1 person (I am for example) who are pressured by corporate taxes AND personal taxes heavily. Cutting corporate taxes will stimulate all but specifically local businesses and lead to more jobs. The giant companies have set up international financial constructions anyways, so they’re basically not paying anything now either. Keeping their taxes higher doesn’t solve anything, they have ways of working around it…
I’m not familiar enough with this. I suppose his stance is mainly influenced by climate change discussion? See below for my comments on that.
increase oil production and therefore CO2 emissions
Until it can be replaced by alternative energy, the oil would have to be imported which will logically lead to even more CO2 emissions, right? Maybe not local but definitely global, so for CO2 emissions in worldwide numbers it would be worse if he didn’t. It will also lower oil price in US, which is good for the people.
Correlation between CO2 and global warming is generally agreed on, however it is not proven to be as big as they agree on yet — if that was why you used the CO2 argument. I’m a believer, but I am open for deniers to proof their point. Scientist disagreeing with the general scientific agreement should not be blocked but welcomed in the research, which is not what is happening today and which is honestly strange… The major difference in funding for pro/contra are also strange. If you believe in science, you must look into research with opposing results to come to a definite and provable conclusion. If you are already sure of the conclusions, you cannot do fair research.
I’m not a scientist however and neither are you I suppose. We can only make up our minds with what is currently available info for the public. We just have to believe it, basically. So I hope that what the opponents are saying is also given attention, the issue of climate change is too important and without definite conclusions we can not take the appropriate action. We need to take politics and corporate interest out of this. Political/corporate funding of research might not be really favoring science itself, they always have an agenda. I do believe that if climate research comes to a definite conclusion, Trump will take this into account and adapt if necessary.
I’m not familiar enough with the issue of education in US, but I can tell you over here US education is generally seen as below standard, except for specialized higher education.
I think he has always made clear that it is about criminal illegals, not just illegals, even if at the start it indeed sounded harder. If you paid attention though, he has been clear about it. He’s not gonna deport families if there’s no reason to do so. The issue of legal children in illegal families are a good remark you made. It doesn’t make sense to deport the whole family of a criminal, but at the same time you can also not deport parents while leaving their children here. So I guess the complication of this issue will be big enough to make it impossible for him. The real difficulty will be for example when a family has a criminal father, a good civilian working mother and some innocent children. But laws are laws, if you’re a criminal who got caught, you end up in jail or you’re not welcome anymore. Makes sense.
suspending housing of Syrian refugees
Agreed, it will indeed not make a difference in your case for now. It would make a difference in Europe though and I think we are earlier in the stage of immigration than you are (mainly because of geography, US is not around the corner). I think you can use Europe as a predictive model of the future if you would apply the same strategy in the US now. Don’t make the same mistakes we made. Immigrants from those countries must be very well vetted and followed up. There are also not so much families coming in as there are 18–30y old single males. Families have shown to integrate better, but we don’t get the families it seems.
ISIS has literally told in videos one of their strategies is to “conquer” non islamic countries by means of immigration and muslim population growth, so we must watch this very closely. We don’t have to be against muslim communities of course, but we must be cautious about the results of uncontrolled immigration. I see countries that have a small amount of muslim refugees are having way better results than for example Germany and Sweden, where it is running out of control. If there’s too much of them at once, they don’t integrate and they form a country within a country. They come from states where women have less or no rights and are sometimes even treated as cattle. Some are used to wars, violence and killing.
I used to live next to Molenbeek, Brussels. As a white Belgian guy, there’s parts of Molenbeek where you don’t go. And if you do go there, you will see how racist and disrespectful of our culture many of the people there are. Even if you’re a goodhearted liberal anti-racist who is interested in other cultures and is promoting diversity. You are white there and a non Muslim. That’s it.
If you want to get rid of real misogyny and racism, look no further than there. Just because they have a different color, are a minority, have a different religion, doesn’t justify anything. Positive discrimination makes people turn a blind eye to the real concerning issues. And if the police is already afraid to go there now, what will be next? How will it be in 10 years from now? It will not be the country my children will grow up in, I can tell you that.
Muslim communities all over Europe are growing exponentially and as a consequence their political power is too. It’s not a real problem at the moment, but it might be a risk soon. Extremist muslim will not win the votes of the original EU population, but they can have an influence in muslim communities. What if they have enough votes to imply sharia law? We must get the radicals out so they can not get a chance to spread their ideologies among moderate goodhearted muslims. Currently Europe is failing on this part (look at the UK for example).
The problem is coming from islamism, not from islam as a personal religion. We must be aware though that religious muslims are easier to convince to be behind political islam than non muslims. Nobody (ok, there are exceptions of course) has a problem with people being muslims, but I cannot say the same about political islam. And it’s not a far-right idea, it’s something also the left has to agree on. If they were Germans from the 1940s and they were openly in favor of fascism, you would take action too. Positive discrimination is a bad thing and liberals — at least here — are doing it all the time.
The collection of things he has claimed he would do as president is yuge
The sole fact that in the first days of his presidency he is already doing the things he promised during his campaign is admirable, whether you agree with the policies in question or not. Finally a politician that’s doing what he promised. I’m well aware that it will not always be possible to do so, for practical reasons, international relationships, reconsiderations etc. But in general he earned a lot of my respect already now during his first days. We shouldn’t be tolerating all those all talk no action politicians any longer. This feels like a relief to me and will bring back trust in politicians if he doesn’t betray us like they have often done.
Time will tell if he’s a ‘prototype’ of a new wave of politics or if he himself is also just another swamp creature. My hopes are still high and no matter how much I or you talk about it, only time can tell. And that’s the only thing we can be sure of.