On June 14, 2016, President Obama strongly condemned Donald Trump’s xenophobic comments following the horrific massacre in Orlando, comments that essentially reiterated his earlier calls to ban all Muslims from emigrating to the United States. “We are now seeing how dangerous this kind of mindset and this kind of thinking can be,” Obama noted of Trump and others’ intolerant attitudes.
Is xenophobia at home worse than killing foreigners abroad?
Because that seems to be the choice we're being offered: Bigot or Warmonger? Choose one.
When those are your options your best choice is to expand your options.
If not Sanders, Stein - or even better, Sanders/Stein.
They were calling Obama the 'Deporter in Chief' for awhile. And Clinton's greatest disaster, Libya, happened with his compliance. He also expanded drone use and gave Victoria Nuland free rein in the Ukraine.Still, many sources have pointed out Clinton is even more hawkish than Obama. But your point is well taken.
Every once in awhile one of these candidates seems to appear on the scene. It was George Wallace, then Pat Buchanan, and now Donald Trump. What makes Trump different is that he is the nominee of a major political party. So he could actually win. This clearly is one of the most dangerous points in US history. Trump is depending largely on getting white voters, particularly men. This strategy seems to defy reason given the growing number of minority voters in the US but there was a recent study showing that the number of white male voters may have been underestimated. This gives more credence to Trump's strategy. If he does win it would appear the US and the world will be headed for disaster, particularly given his lack of understanding about foreign policy and his denial of climate change. And also fascism could be a possible result.
Mr. Ramsey raised some good issues but it's what he doesn't say, what seems to completely bypass his cognitive (and empathetic) radar that PISSES ME OFF!
1. Not a mention of the 2nd class status of women.
The author does get "it" about the Chinese, then Japanese, then Germans, then Jews, and always the Blacks... yet the omission I mention is glaring.
"Of course, these examples of the consequences of what President Obama called a “dangerous . . . mindset” barely scratch the surface of the “shameful part[s] of our past” that the president reminded us not to repeat—a shameful past that also includes the mass killing of Native Americans, the enslavement and prejudice against African Americans, and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Throughout U.S. history those who were discriminated against and their millions of conscientious supporters resisted that “dangerous . . . kind of thinking.” Obama is correct: prejudiced thinking “betrays the very values America stands for,” and so, like those in the past, we must resist that “mindset.”
Secondly, you'd think ANYONE chastising the "dangerous mindset" might mention that Obama may give tolerance lip service; but the premise is 100% undermined by bombing campaigns aimed at wiping out too much of the Muslim world under the GUISE that a war on terror allows for such universal carnage. Besides, everything about the Drone War is a lie starting with the false flag used to engender it, and moving to the fiction that ONLY "enemy combatants" (mostly) are hit. The truth is, for every designated "enemy target" hit, 9 civilians are wiped out. With those odds, the entire boondoggle is nothing but Criminal Intent amplified to GRAVE WAR CRIMES.
And THAT is dangerous thinking that really needs to be mentioned!
Respectfully I would like to point out, there is no rational reason whatsoever to assume Trump wouldn't kill foreigners abroad. None.
The problem with the headline, 'Trump's "dangerous' thinking is that he doesn't think before he opens his mouth. Whatever he says today he will deny saying tomorrow. As he spends the major part of his campaign attempting to discredit others who don't agree with whatever he said today he will never have a real platform that his followers can sink their teeth into. His followers are just happy to hate whatever he hates at any given time.
Clinton's statements have been far more bellicose than Trump's and she has a history of neocon warmongering Trump doesn't have. That being said, Trump is a wild card, so you may be right.
Regarding him not having a "history of warmongering", well he does now. My sense is he is every bit as dangerous, if not more dangerous. Getting people excited to cheer him on as he is bragging about how his Administration will torture bigly, should be terrifying to any person who will actually contemplate the reality and horror of torture.
Trump hasn't YET had a position to direct State violence. If given the role to do so, he will most certainly do so.
That should be exceedingly obvious. Unfortunately, we might just get the chance within the next few years to see who made the better argument in regard to Trump.
It is easy to imagine the bellicose Trump relishing in his powerful role of Commander in Chief. And doing so "bigly".
Of course I'm not diminishing the war crimes of Clinton. Trump is itching to get his.
"Trump says very scary things—deporting immigrants, massive militarism and ignoring the climate. Hillary, unfortunately, has a track record for doing all of those things," Stein says. "Hillary has supported the deportations of immigrants, opposed the refugees—women and children coming from Honduras, whose refugee crisis she was very much responsible for by giving a thumbs-up to this corporate coup in Honduras that has created the violence from which those refugees are fleeing." Stein goes on to say, "We see these draconian things that Donald Trump is talking about, we actually see Hillary Clinton doing."
Obama is correct: prejudiced thinking “betrays the very values America stands for,”...
One could despair. The unspoken truth, to be blunt, is that any values that can be identified with the concept of America as a single identity - i,e, the USA - (a highly dubious approach to understanding a full 300,000,000 or so people in any case) is that those values are the military intimidation and domination of the rest of planet. Stop looking at the fucking stars and stripes and look at reality!!!
I'm addressing your false dichotomy that Clinton is a warmonger, and that Trump is not, and now you buttress that argument by quoting Stein. The other aspect of that false dichotomy is that Clinton is the only one who has directed State violence, and Trump merely talks about it.
How many times do I have to make the point, that Trump hasn't YET BEEN IN A POSITION TO DIRECT STATE POWER!!!!!!! Sorry, but how else can I get this point across?
You quote Stein, and you might as well quote my many statements against Clinton in this regard. I read the entire transcript, and she is speaking in the context of speaking to Hillary Clinton supporters who point to Trump's militarism and anti-immigration policies, but fail to recognize the policies and war crimes of Clinton in this regard.
in other words, you are sending me a quote from Stein, directed at arguments I'm not making.
So I’d say, don’t be a victim of this propaganda campaign, which is being waged by people who exercise selective amnesia. They’re very quick to tell you about the terrible things that the Republicans did, but they’re very quick to forget the equally terrible things that have happened under a Democratic White House, with two Democratic houses of Congress. It’s time to forget the lesser evil, stand up and fight for the greater good. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.
Since I repeatedly point out, that If Sanders isn't on the ticket, my choice is Stein, she would make no such statement to me, thinking she's telling me anything. So why are you telling me this, unless you think that me criticizing Trump is in effect supporting Clinton.
That is not the case. I have argued, as is Stein, that the real reason there is a candidate Trump stoking zenophobia, militarism, is the result of the neoliberal takeover of the Democratic Party that was started by the likes of Al From, and his eventual deal made to Clinton to take the leadership position of the newly founded DLC as a means to travel the country and run for president, expenses paid by the DLC.
That was the beginning of the corporate takeover of the Democratic Party that Stein is talking about, and that I have consistently pointed out over the years here on CD.
Again, I'm not the audience that Stein is addressing here.
Again, I'm arguing against this completely irrational notion that Trump, because he hasn't yet had the power to direct State violence, somehow is evidence that he won't in the same manner of Clinton, and in my view likely worse.
Did I just make the argument that Clinton is the lesser evil thus people should vote for her to keep Trump out? No I did not.
What I refuse to do is remain silent on the dangers of BOTH Clinton, AND Trump.
Trump was just a few days ago, and I think yesterday (haven't had the stomach to check) fanning the flames of xenophobia in the context of rallying his supporters to cheer about engaging in torture.
Is this not extra-horrifying? If this doesn't cross a new line, not sure that any line could be drawn.
Sanders or Stein in 2016
I think you've done an excellent job of making your point. The problem I have with it is that it's usually raised by people advancing a pro-Clinton, lesser evil narrative. Trump is a dangerous demagogue who appeals to the worst in people. There's no question a Trump Presidency would be a disaster. But would it be more of a disaster than a Clinton Presidency? I doubt it.
So I'm with you on Sanders or Stein,
There is nothing particularly "dangerous" about Trump's sorry excuse for a thought process. In fact it is reflective of the "mainstream" thought of The Political And Economic Elites in both Wings in Our Wall Street Owned One Party System. As a native Texan growing up during the 1950s and 60s I lived through the final unfolding of the Formal Era Of Jim Crow Racism as a despicable exercise in "political futility" second only to the genocide conducted against the Indigenous American population. Be they Dixiecrats, Midwestern or Northeastern Republicans the bottom line was that both parties were filled with racist who took real pride in continuing the highly profitable economics of racism and misogyny for their own well being and sensibilities. Nothing has really changed today. Our country is still ruled by Institutional Racism and Misogyny that is meant to serve the purposes of the Economic And Political Elite.
Since it is no longer socially acceptable to be overtly racist many of The Elite want Trump to shut up lest their continuation of Institutionalized Racism and Misogyny be jeopardized. As far as the Political Establishment is concerned that is the most dangerous thing about Trump. Although Hillary is just as Racist and Misogynist as Trump she has picked up the "political skill" to stand behind people of color and/or women as she plunges her knives of submission into their backs. Just because one's uncle, as the family's resident Fox News Parrot, spews their shit across the dining tables at family reunions the multitudes who claim to be "in favor of minorities and women" are not allowed to wallow in the comfort of political pigstys of deniability.
In my opinion the most dangerous thing is that he makes The Clintons look so damn good to The Political Establishment of Both Wings.
I am quite sure that Trump would probably have called Abraham Lincoln a racist because Lincoln was willing to kill white people over black people just to ensure that all African-Americans could at least start their lives with some semblance of "freedom".
The most dangerous thing about Trump's way of thinking is that The Political Elite could lose their grip on power because of Trump's lack of any skills in sewing The Establishment's New Clothes. On the other hand Hillary, et al has a wardrobe of invisible pantsuits tailored as onesize fits all! Either way politics is still very raw and naked in the good ol' USA.