Donald Trump: Political Intolerance

[Stavros]

Funny, all of us who belong to or support the LGBT community who constantly remind people to be tolerant of others as well as their beliefs and associations; then come to make postings such as this speaking of distancing themselves from "friends" for exercising their Constitutional rights in supporting a Presidential candidate that does not match our own. The next time any of us wish to remind others to be tolerant, perhaps we need to remind ourselves of it first.

Looking on this as a foreigner without a vote, it strikes me that the real problem is that Trump does not engage in robust debate with anyone, and that this is encouraging others to abandon debate for abuse. When Trump is criticised, he responds by accusing the critic of being a liar; he does not criticise Hillary Clinton's foreign policy or domestic policy in detail, but attacks her personally, framing every reference to her as 'Crooked' or 'Lying' Hillary, making debate pointless. He doesn't even have policies as his website refers to them as 'Positions'.

Something is going badly wrong in the US. it strikes me that the polarisation of the political parties that has been going on, and it began before 9/11, is in danger of hollowing out the rational centre where bi-partisan decisions used to be made, and leaving politics to the margins. The belief that Trump appears to sponsor, that the US political system is broken, is a very dangerous one.
It could be argued, for example, that the Republican Party in Congress has refused to maintain the integrity of the Supreme Court, while Donald Trump has in effect declared that one US Judge is not an American -because the Judge ruled against him in Court. But if the Supreme Court and lower Courts are no longer fit for purpose, are part of the broken system, by treating them as inferior means that the third branch of government is no longer equal to the other two. Add to that Trump's belief that President Obama is not an American and that he acts against the interests of the USA, and you have the Executive branch of government becoming part of the problem of broken government, even if the repair man is someone with no experience of political office of any kind.
The third, and most worrying aspect of this is the belief Trump made that had the gay men and women in Pulse been strapped and ready (which some might have been, if you excuse the double entendre), Mateen would have been shot much earlier (Trump didnt assume such a situation might have resulted in 60+ or 70+ casualties rather than 50+). What this feeds into is the belief that in addition to the Presidency and the Judiciary, law enforcement is no longer capable to dealing with terrorists on its own, and that armed militias should be promoted to become part of the law enforcement service in your town, possibly even to replace it. Trump could even argue that it would be constitutional to allow the formation of armed militias, though even Trump might not be persuaded to appoint Herr Zimmerman as the Czar to co-ordinate them across the country.

The danger is that Trump is not so much reflecting the disaffection Americans have with their economy and political system, but radically changing the way in which these issues are discussed, where rational solutions are replaced by extreme ones, some of which, maybe most, lie outside the legal and moral compass that has held the US together since 1776. I guess its your choice: Appomattox, or Civil War?

[martin48]

In a lesser way (not that much lesser), we are seeing the same replacement of reasoned argument and policies by mud slinging and downright lies in our EU campaigns. It is strange that in both cases, the proverbial man-in-the-street sees the Trumps and Johnsons of the world as being one of them - while they are solid members of the 1%.

[Stavros]

Years ago we were told by Moral Crusaders that the 'permissive society' was responsible for abortion, one-parent families, epidemics of sexually transmitted disease, drug addiction, and an insolent attitude to authority. The relaxation of rules in broadcasting and censorship in films, with increases in violence, nudity and sexually explicit scenes plus bad language had 'lowered the tone' of public culture and meant anything was now possible. How far the liberalisation of the law was in fact responsible for social problems has never been established, I suspect its role was minimal.

Has the 'permissive environment' in contemporary politics -much of it related to uncontrolled indeed uncontrollable social media- become part of a toxic environment in which politicians ridicule each other as liars and crooked, while on social media female representatives are threatened with rape, males with castration -and much worse- because they adopt a position someone opposes? Is it the case that Donald Trump, by 'lowering the tone' of the debate in US politics, and by calling for an end to 'political correctness' not to mention threatening protestors with violence, is giving his supporters and others licence to follow his example?

The shocking murder of Labour MP Jo Cox by a man who identified himself in court not as Thomas Mair, but as Death to Traitors, Freedom for Britain took place in an atmosphere poisoned by a debate in which, on social media and in the comments pages of newspapers, is replete with people calling politicians like the late Edward Heath and David Cameron as 'traitors', with the now famliar sprinkle of words like liar, deluded, stupid and so on. On the other side Trump is ridiculed as a 'fascist' or a 'nazi' who will drag us all back to the 1930s. The consequences of this have been put, angrily it must be said, into words by the journalist James O'Brien on his radio show -he occasionally front BBC-2's Newsnight -

Sometimes rhetoric has consequences. If you spend days, weeks, months, years telling people they are under threat, that their country has been stolen from them, that they have been betrayed and sold down the river, that their birthright has been pilfered, that their problem is they’re too slow to realise any of this is happening, that their problem is they’re not sufficiently mad as hell, then at some point, in some place, something or someone is going to snap. And then something terrible is going to happen.
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/art...to--ZkwDtK284Z

One can only hope that Jo Cox is the last elected representative who will die as a consequence of someone else's rage, or paranoia, or whatever it is that motivated the crime. We can engage in robust debate in democratic societies, but I do worry that the kind of polarisation that has been taking place in some of our democracies may end up undermining it from within.

[SHEMALES YUM-YUM]

Wow. So many posts of people saying how bad the people are who support Donald Trump. I understand people can disagree with those who support him, thats also a Constitutional Right. Liberals always seem to be the least tolerant of others. Its fine when they want their voice to be heard, but dont disagree with them or they will block access to your rally. You rarely see conservatives protesting Hillary or Bernie rallies, if they do, they are no where near as disruptive to the rally, nor do they typically attempt to block the entrance or cause it to be cancelled. But at a Trump rally, liberals think they can do as they please: block access, disrupt the proceedings, etc... Then they scream about their Constitutional Right to protest. I doubt most have even looked at that great document that theyre throwing around like a football. The Right to protest is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. There are actually 5 Rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. I bet most liberals could not name more than 2. For those of you reading this, here they are if youre curious:

1. The Right to Free Speech
2. The Freedom of the Press
3. Freedom of Religion
4. The Right to Protest

If you didnt know about number four after reading the first part of this post, you need to be deported. And the final Right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The one that everyone always seems to forget about......

5. The Right to Assemble.

A person's Right to Protest ends when it infringes upon other people's Right to assemble. That's correct, even Trump and his supporters have Rights. Imagine that, conservatives having Rights equal to everyone else. Trump supporters feel just as strongly about their view of issues as liberals do. You may see building a wall to be a bad thing. Someone who has a family to support that can't find a decent paying job because of the flood of cheap labor from illegal immigration would disagree with you. But wait a minute, liberals have that problem fixed too, just tell all the American work force to get welfare and food stamps. Free food and money for everyone! Dont worry we will just keep borrowing from China and print more money. To borrow from Winston Churchill, Liberals says a Conservative doesnt have a heart, however a Liberal doesnt have a brain.

Well, Im done with my post. Come on liberals bring it on. I dont mind standing alone. Bring on your hate and intolerance of my view point.

[trish]

Sorry to disappoint, too busy celebrating Independence Day weekend. Try trolling again next week.

[fred41]

Sorry to disappoint, too busy celebrating Independence Day weekend. Try trolling again next week.

Happy Fourth Trish, Love ya!

[Stavros]

Wow. So many posts of people saying how bad the people are who support Donald Trump.

To borrow from Winston Churchill, Liberals says a Conservative doesnt have a heart, however a Liberal doesnt have a brain.

1) You will find that most of the posts on Trump and most of their content refer to Donald Trump rather than his supporters.

2) Your Churchill quote is both wrong and he never said it, and in addition Churchill was a Conservative in his youth but entered Parliament as a Liberal before abandoning the Liberals to become a Conservative...as historian Paul Addison put it:

'If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.'
There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University made this comment: 'Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie [Churchill's wife], who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?'
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/reso...ely-attributed

The original quote appears to have been a French reference to the English Conservative Edmund Burke who wrote a famous pamphlet attacking the French Revolution, eliciting this response somewhat later in 1875:
« Celui qui n’est pas républicain à vingt ans fait douter de la générosité de son âme; mais celui qui, après trente ans, persévère, fait douter de la rectitude de son esprit. »

-“He who is not a républicain at twenty compels one to doubt the generosity of his heart; but he who, after thirty, persists, compels one to doubt the soundness of his mind.”
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/

[buttslinger]

Trump is no deeper than a microphone and a camera, and the only people he's fucking over is the SHEMALE YUM YUMS who get their news from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. When he loses he will blame the Republican Party. He ain't using me, YUM YUM, he's riding your racist ass all the way to World Wide Stardom. One for the History books. He will profit bigtime from your loss. That's been his playbook from the time those poor kids beat him up as a kid. Living well is the best revenge, look at that bitch he's married to. I kinda doubt she share's YUM YUM"s views about anything.
As soon as the Election is over Trump will exit Republican Politics altogether, leaving in a self righteous huff. Back to his golf courses and champagne brunches.
YUM YUM will take solace in Fox News, ....I don't know if they'll propagandize up Trump or the Republican Party after all this. After I put in my vote, it's all entertainment to me. If I ACT, I'll get arrested!!!

[Ben in LA]

Someone who has a family to support that can't find a decent paying job because of the flood of cheap labor from illegal immigration would disagree with you.

Then prosecute those employers that hire the illegals in the first place, instead of hiring the home grown talent. And have them pay a living wage while they're at it.

Shouldn't it piss you off when in not one state a person can't work full time for minimum wage and have enough money for basic necessities?

But more republican trickle-down policies are the answer.

[broncofan]

Then they scream about their Constitutional Right to protest. I doubt most have even looked at that great document that theyre throwing around like a football. The Right to protest is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. There are actually 5 Rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. I bet most liberals could not name more than 2. For those of you reading this, here they are if youre curious:

1. The Right to Free Speech
2. The Freedom of the Press
3. Freedom of Religion
4. The Right to Protest

If you didnt know about number four after reading the first part of this post, you need to be deported. And the final Right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The one that everyone always seems to forget about......

5. The Right to Assemble.

A person's Right to Protest ends when it infringes upon other people's Right to assemble. That's correct, even Trump and his supporters have Rights.

I hope that I can be of some service by explaining to you how the bill of rights works so that you don't at once chastise others for a lack of understanding and at the same time misunderstand the document in the most basic sense. The Bill of Rights binds the behavior of the federal government and state actors only. It does not apply to the behavior of individuals. Therefore, if I am not acting as an agent of the state, I cannot violate your first amendment rights.

The bill of rights also applies to the individual states by incorporation through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Therefore state governments are also not allowed to violate the bill of rights.

An individual who prevents someone from speaking by force may be violating a criminal statute. They may, for instance, commit assault. If they engage in what's called the "heckler's veto" to shout down a speaker in a public forum, they cannot claim the protection of the first amendment because their actions are not considered expressive.

For historical perspective, the first amendment to apply to private conduct was the 13th amendment, which prohibited slavery as well as badges and incidents of slavery. But before you try to claim someone violated the bill of rights (the first ten amendments) you should ask yourself whether the government or one of its agents have infringed on those protected rights. Failing to do so shows a misunderstanding of the compromise our founders engaged in before enacting it.

You recommend (perhaps in jest) summary deportation for those who don't understand the Constitution. That of course would be a violation of the due process clause in the fifth amendment. Even a violation of the law does not deprive a citizen of Constitutional protections.

The last thing I want to say is that the title of this thread was somewhat facetious. I do not believe that people should refuse to engage with other viewpoints because they consider every difference a question of good v. evil and think that they cannot find common ground with people with other perspectives. But I was trying to acknowledge that there are times when someone presents a viewpoint that is so obnoxious and poisonous that it strains a person's ability to interact with them. So while you shrilly pretend to be a victim of intolerance, consider the Muslim-American, Mexican-American, and African-Americans whose civil rights have been and still are threatened.