Democrats and Hitler have a lot in common, too. Like trains and socialism.
Why the need to defend Trump? He’s barely a Republican any more than he is a Democrat. He is first and foremost a narcissist, it’s not clear whether he has any much interest in anything outside of promoting the Trump brand.
And where is the Orwellian stuff coming from? Trump has the right to say what he wants and people have to right to say that he is dangerously treading a path towards fascism. There is no idealogical test to become president. That’s up to the voters to decide.
Why the need for name-calling? First, it isn’t “treading a path toward fascism”. FDR created *internment camps* for *American citizens* during WWII. And he was hardly a fascist. Trump proposed something far more benign: restricting immigration of Muslims who aren’t even US citizens.
The “Orwellian stuff” comes from those many responses that Trump simply can’t say what he said merely because it isn’t politically correct. Loretta Lynch recently said that she would *prosecute* such speech. The White House said that it *disqualifies* Trump from the presidency. Sure some are challenging the merits of his statement. But I see far more challenges to the content of his statement. The left has clearly established acceptable thought boundaries (i.e. thoughtcrimes) that, if it had the power to do so at the moment, would prosecute (Loretta Lynch flatly said she plans to do this…though she lacks the legal power).
Where is Trump’s “safe space”?
I’m a Democrat and will very likely vote for Hillary… but I’m also not really opposed to Trump’s proposal as a temporary measure related to national security. I think determining who is a Muslim or not, though, would make the implementation impractical.
I stated above that I also agree that it’s impractical (as a radical Muslim could simply lie to get in). But there are measures that could achieve the same goal. For example, the House just passed (with overwhelming bipartisan support) travel restrictions on anybody that has travelled to Iraq or Syria within the past five years. Clearly that’s meant to target radical Muslims by proxy. Of course, Trump’s plan targets radical Musilms by proxy, too. However, the former appears acceptable to the PC thought police because the class of citizens that it targets (those who have travelled to Iraq or Syria) is not, in their mind, a protected class like “Muslims”.
^ It’s all in the delivery. Trump, for better or worse, is very blunt and off-putting to many. Many in the US are not used to his frank talk, and it seems would rather hear the watered down versions coming from their elected officials. But there really isn’t a clear distinction between what Congress has done this week and what the Donald is proposing. Perhaps if he was more clear on his exact proposal, specifically listing those “Muslin countries” that he considers to be the riskiest… The congressional bill, in coordination with the President, specifies those that have traveled to Iraq, Syria, Sudan and Iran in the last five years…Very specific and precise.
People do retain some cultural heritage, but integration at second generation is nearly 100% IMO. They might still eat curries, but they watch hockey and drink beer too. Hell, Hockey Night in Canada is now broadcast in English, French and Punjabi.
Slippery slope? Yeah, when President Carter revoked all Iranian visas and deported tens of thousands it was the beginning of the end. Why the rhetoric? Moratoriums on immigration are nothing new in America. We’ve stopped everybody for a while as well as targeting specific groups. Does it promote some agenda to suggest Trump’s comment is something radical? How does a temporary ban on Muslin immigration hurt me as an American? We have no obligation to allow people into this country that instruct women how to dress or instruct them to do anything for that matter. Remember we take more immigrants than the World combined. Lecture America… funny stuff.
Turkey, a NATO ally, is a “Muslim country”. Would Trump’s ban apply to anyone from Turkey? Although not a “Muslim country”, India has 177 million Muslims. Are they banned as well? China has more Muslims than Syria, Jordan, Libya, or Palestine. Banned?
I believe Trump said “Muslims”, not “Muslim countries”. The House just passed a bill prohibiting entry from those who have travelled to a specific list of countries within the past five years.
I don’t see much difference between banning travel from “Muslims” in general or the group of people who are known to have visited those several countries. In each case the goal is to prohibit entry of radical Islamists. In each case a number of people who are not radical Islamists will be swept into the category. The Congressional Bill seems more practical to me (but it’s actually not a law, not a campaign talking point). But besides that, it just seems like the hooplah over Trump’s comment centers entirely on political correctness and thoughtcrimes.
Like I said, we have banned everbody before. Nothing new. How about a new policy? We don’t assume an immigrant has good intentions. They must prove it. You’re banned unless you show without a doubt you want to adopt the American way of life. Fair?
my experience growing up in the GTA is similar. obviously people of similar race tend to hang out more often because they have more in common but i don’t know anybody who isn’t good friends with at least one of each South Asian, East Asian, Caribbean and Arab.
to put this in perspective. my best friend from 0-5 was white, from 6-13 was south asian, 14-17 was native american, 18-22 was caribbean. my close friend group includes a French Canadian, 6 Anglo Canadians (includes Italian), 1 Polish, 1 Norweigan, 1 Caribbeaner, 1 South Asian, 1 Iranian, 1 Tanzanian. this is not at all an atypical experience in Canada and speaks to the diversity that i’ve been talking about when comparing the U.S. to Canada.
So you don’t think blacks, whites, Hispanics and Asians in America party, work, play and cry together? Might want to travel around the states a little more. My roommates throughout my youth decended from many different parts of the world.
Really depends on where you live, no? I grew up in a suburban neighborhood that was 100% white (I honestly can’t remember a black, Hispanic, or Asian family in the entire neighborhood of 200 or so houses). While we lived there, my father taught in an inner city high school less than 10 miles away that was about 85% black, 10% Hispanic, and 5% white and other. My grammar school of about 500 kids (k-8) never had more than 3 black students at a time in the entire school. I don’t recall any Asian students and there were a handful of Hispanic students. I never even had a black classmate until my freshman year of high school.
There was even some self-segregation among the white folks, with some nearby neighborhoods that were predominantly German, some predominantly Polish, and one almost exclusively Italian.
Wow! “Asians”? What are those?
the term “white flight” is an American-only term. doesn’t really exist anywhere else.
You just used it. Are you American?
has no meaning here. but a quick 1.5hr drive to buffalo or a 2.5 hr drive to detroit and i can see it at the extreme.
True. In Canada many of the wealthier suburbs are fairly Asian. I’m think of NW Calgary, Richmond Hill/Markham (Toronto), West Island (Montreal). Hard to pick in Vancouver as the whole city is predominantly Chinese or Indian (though there is considerable segregation there between the two groups). The predominantly white areas tend to be the middle class not quite inner city but not affluent suburb areas. As communities scale in wealth in Canada, I’d argue diversity increases at all but the very highest levels.
Agree. When I was really young, primary years, lived in the northeast. 99% white schools and neighborhoods where I was. I wonder who has a greater number of mixed decent marriages? USA or Canada? Given the Canada is almost all white, would be surprising if it wasn’t the USA. Is Canada really being offered up as a diverse country because a couple cities have a few dining options?