Given trump's 'enemy of the people' rhetoric against the press, scapegoating of minorities in general and encouragement of violence in his rallies and tacit endorsement of extra judicial violence by local police (he praised Duterte's literal death squads!), I wouldn't be surprised to see actual pogroms in Trump country.
Trump has done quite enough to demonize himself while inciting insurrection and calling for violence.
Not that's anything new - Trump has long called for his supporters to be violent towards those he disagrees with, even going so far as to offer to pay their legal fees.
Agreed. Atrocities have happened and will most likely happen again with innocent victims.
But even with violent majorities there is usually a justification of the behavior that somehow involves something the minority party is doing (or not doing) that justifies the action. Not that this makes it any more morally palatable (or true) from an objective viewpoint but the division may exist to be seized upon.
I'd also argue that Trump isn't the cause of division so much as the result of existing divisions some of which are quite old and have been festering.
My last point is I really grow weary of hearing Trump slams. We get it. You don't like Trump. But some people do. Is there any way we could keep this repetitive bleating on Facebook or something? No offense to poster lastlogin. His comment history seems pretty solid, I'm just sick of the Trump slams every third forum.
It's so easy to see the outcome of these policies. Intolerance begats intolerance begats violence. There can be no other outcome other than an increase in violence, both domestic and international. And what will Trump do when the violence increases? He will whip the masses up with frenzied speeches and double-down on the executive orders to limit immigration. But the violence will not abate but will worsen. So finally, he will institute orders to deal with the violence, not the immigration orders that are the cause, but the violence. Protests will be banned, people will be put in prison, violence will be quashed by even more violent means, and they'll need to clothe these violence-quashers and will decide that brown shirts are the appropriate colour.
Trump is effectively inciting violent action among his supporters. And he's not even elected yet. I shudder to think what will happen to the rule of law in the United States.
Pres. Trump is being crucified right now precisely for failing to provide such a statement.
It's a bit more than that. Trump has had no problem condemning Antifa thugs and violent radical Islamists, so it is noteworthy when he equivocates on violent white supremacists, especially when some of them are claiming that he supports them.
Honest question - if you characterize this as baseless fearmongering, how would you characterize Jade Helm, the Bowling Green Massacre, Reconquista or whatever name applies to the terrorist immigrant onslaught that Trump ranted about incessantly during the 2018 election?
Perhaps the right tweet might do it. Trump has incited violence, explicitly and in subtext, before. So it's not a matter of a simple call-to-arms, like in the past, but then I'm not sure what would be the tipping point.
> Trump was demanding that "China pay" and people were beating up random Asians who were just walking down the street
Unfortunately, random Asian people getting brutalized when they're going about their daily business has been a long-standing problem in a number of cities. Is there any evidence to suggest that the people perpetrating these crimes were even aware of Trump's words, let alone motivated by them, rather than this just fitting the usual pattern of criminality combined with a generalized ethnic resentment?
Trump has made many concrete incitements to violence. Telling his supporters to "rough someone up", "someone should punch that person, I'll pay your legal bills", "maybe some of you second amendment folk can do something about Hillary".
That’s a scenario I find much less likely than the hundreds of Trump tweets that would set off domestic violence within minutes.
If Trump would tweet what the fringe communities want to hear (example: Trump tweets that state law enforcement have started rounding up people with Hawaii shirts and confiscating their weapons and should be seen as enemy combatants and engaged on sight. That would turn ugly very quickly).
A well crafted tweet about e.g the Taliban could easily put US soldiers abroad in harms way immediately too.
I am terrified that Trump supporters will respond to attacks on their ability to peacefully communicate with direct violence. We are entering an era where nobody believes in peace anymore.
It amazes me that people haven't caught onto the shtick yet. Trump keeps doing this to them over and over again. Trump takes some popular position and exaggerates it or maybe just plainly takes the position a little too far. And then his opposition, who reflexively just put a negative sign in front of everything he says, come out strongly against the popular opinion. "Propagation of weaponized hatred" is lunacy. At worst it's an exaggeration or slight overstep of the popular mainstream opinion.
People want the police to come in and stop the looting and burning of small businesses. Seeing people calling these peaceful protests while there's literal burning cars in the background is the most Orwellian thing I've ever seen. And when you point that out you get the "just a few bad apples" argument, which makes it even more hilarious.
You're defending a guy who brags every chance he gets about murdering several guys. Are we supposed to believe that footage of him is fake?
Let me guess, you support Trump, too? I never would have guessed that so many of my fellow Americans were such authoritarians. I knew there were some, of course, but it looks like they may comprise around 30-35% of our population. Tough times ahead for the liberty-minded...
Look, I get the appeal of Duterte. I'm sure that a large percentage of Filipinos are happy with his behavior. That doesn't mean it's right.
Finally, tu quoque is not a very good verbal defense tactic. Most people disregard it other than the people who already agree with you. Most famous example of this technique is Stalin's use of "and you are lynching negroes" [1]. He wasn't wrong, but that didn't mean he wasn't also carrying out political murders on a massive scale. It's just poor rhetoric.
Trump had years of fomenting and approving of violence. Offering to pay legal fees for anyone who attacked his detractors. "Stand back and stand by", etc.
He might as well said "it sure would be a shame if someone was to storm that nice capitol building there"
reply