Donald Trump: Political Intolerance

[broncofan]

I know there are a lot of threads about Donald Trump but I want to ask a specific question that relates to him.

At what point is it acceptable to not want to associate with other people because of their political beliefs?

The reason I ask is because I have friends on both the left and right side of the political spectrum. It should not be a surprise that in person when I encounter someone with different political beliefs I am not as vitriolic or candid about those beliefs as I can be here. A good friend of mine for instance has a special interest not just in the second amendment but in every imaginable kind of gun, is obsessed with the military and with America maintaining military supremacy. This difference has never strained our friendship and never even prevented us from having in depth political conversations that are less like debates than collaborations (we find some common ground).

But I don't think I could find common ground with someone who supported Trump at this point or who, in their good judgment thinks Trump is fit for the presidency. It is not just the fact that he has made appalling statements about Muslims and Mexican Americans, but that he has condoned violence at his rallies and threats of it on the internet in a nauseating and horrendously dishonest way. When a man was punched at one of his rallies after flipping people off, he seemed to blame this man for his own assault. In my view nobody who does that is fit for office, and anybody who supports such a person has seriously questionable judgment. So my question is:

If you are friends with a Trump supporter, is your friendship unaffected, strained, or irreparably damaged by their support for this man?

[fred41]

If you are going to shy away from Trump supporters, then you are going to shy away from slightly less than half the voting public at this point...according to guesstimates by present polling. There are basically only two choices left and people sometimes choose one over the other for the slightest of reasons. I can see trying to stay away from a rabid supporter (well...of any political view really)...but..

I assume that I am friends with many Trump supporters...but that doesn't mean we have a big discussion over it beyond perhaps a sentence or two. Obviously not every voter thinks their choice is the end all of the universe....lol.
...and sometimes people just hold their noses and pick the person they disdain the least.

So...color me mostly unaffected then.

[fred41]

...As an after thought - I guess it all comes down to your definition of a supporter too.
or rather how strongly the support given.

[broncofan]

I didn't give an answer either. It's true it's only slightly less than half the voting public, but I am not sure how many people I know who are voting for him (many do not disclose their support and it's probably a very small percentage of people I interact with regularly). I have a family member who is a Trump supporter and it won't affect that relationship.

I think I would think less of someone who is voting for him (you're right that it matters at what point they became a supporter). If it was someone I was good friends with I would avoid political subjects altogether and the friendship would unfortunately not be as close....I would not say that in person to anyone because it seems self-righteous but I just shake my head at the fact anyone could support him.

[broncofan]

...As an after thought - I guess it all comes down to your definition of a supporter too.
or rather how strongly the support given.
Yeah, that's a good point. Are they someone who thinks he's the only person who has the answers and viciously attacks anyone who disagrees with him or is it a registered Republican who cannot support Hillary because they disagree with democrats on everything and think most of Donald's rhetoric is just for show?

[fred41]

Yeah, that's a good point. Are they someone who thinks he's the only person who has the answers and viciously attacks anyone who disagrees with him or is it a registered Republican who cannot support Hillary because they disagree with democrats on everything and think most of Donald's rhetoric is just for show?

or...a registered Democrat who doesn't like Hillary. I bet there's a lot of people like that also (or as Flabby posted - the people that are going to secretly vote for Trump).

[broncofan]

or...a registered Democrat who doesn't like Hillary. I bet there's a lot of people like that also (or as Flabby posted - the people that are going to secretly vote for Trump).
Yeah I guess I should clarify that I probably mean someone who thinks Trump is going to "make America great again" and has thought that for some time rather than someone who will vote for him as a compromise. When I say strained friendship I probably mean that if I thought the person was great and wise and then I heard them talk about how refreshing Trump is I would re-evaluate it. I really don't mean it's worth dissociating from them.

I guess a broader question is whether anyone here has ever felt that way about a political viewpoint or movement that has garnered mainstream support?....that though politics is generally not personal it can be.???

[Untitled.]

Trumps beliefs are so objectively wrong that I have no problem personally distancing (not being rude to, of course, just distancing) myself from those who support him and his ideas. Politics ispersonal, and if I absolutely disagree with those politics, I have every right to disassociate myself for those who support such hatred in modern society. It's not about the physical act of supporting Trump; but what he stands for, and that specific mindset/view of the world, and of people, he/they represent(s). Peace!

[trish]

When my next door neighbors put up Bush signs, McCain signs and Romney signs I merely shrugged. I live in the rural midwest - just about everybody here is Republican. I haven’t seen any Trump signs yet, neither in my neighborhood nor my town. But I was shocked when Trump won the Republican primary here. It was a creepy feeling walking down the street, knowing a portion of these people passing me on the sidewalk voted for that bloated, self-absorbed and ignorant bigot. It’s not Trump that bother’s me so much (although he is absolutely unfit and unqualified to be president) as the fact that this reality tv celeb is capable of conjuring up so many unthinking, fist waving, zombie followers. Those crowds chanting in “A Wall” and “Mexico” in antiphony are too reminiscent, too close in geography and time to the lynch mobs we’ve seen in the US just last century; too close to the fascist mobs the rallied against Jews in Europe.

I haven’t ostracized any friends yet (though I’ve had a few people ‘unfriend’ me in the past because of my anti-carry views). My mother told me that when the push was on to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment she just couldn’t abide ‘friends’ who argued against it. She said she was deeply insulted by their position and that she could be friends with them no longer.

[broncofan]

My mother told me that when the push was on to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment she just couldn’t abide ‘friends’ who argued against it. She said she was deeply insulted by their position and that she could be friends with them no longer.
Wonderful post. That's a very understandable sentiment.

Politics aren't personal until they are. I just wanted to know where everyone's red line is. Honestly, Trump about reached it for me when he responded to the guy getting sucker punched by saying he wanted to pay for the assailant's legal fees and that the guy who got punched really did a nasty nasty thing or whatever superlative he used. It just represented everything I despise. The people who are in my life are going to stay, but it creates a bit of distance and apprehension.

[Stavros]

If it is not too cynical the judgement may be a case of the friend being 'nice to have not need to have'. Other than that I think political opposites can work if there is an intellectual honesty to the relationship that does not involve the kind of prejudice that results in violence or social exclusion.
When I was an undergraduate and still a Labour Party activist, I was friends mostly with a Conservative Party activist, the kind of person I should have been at war with. In fact I had a bigger problem with people on the left I was supposed to be in sympathy with mainly because they had no flexibility in an argument, but everything was rooted in 'facts' as was also the case with two Tories in my year who were impossible to debate with because everything Thatcher said was right. Maybe that flexibility is the key, and not taking politics too seriously. On the other hand, some years later I was friends with someone who after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait became more and more defensive of Saddam as the west's victim, and prone to conspiracy theories in which she insisted there was a secret world government run by the Illuminati, the Jews and so on. There comes a time when there is noting left to discuss, and as I did not need her friendship I let it go and she didn't care much either. It is a pity when such differences come between people, but if the quality of the friendship declines because of what each party knows about the other, it is best to knock it on the head and go elsewhere. Though not politically related, I lost two precious friendships because of friends who married men who clearly disliked me, to the point of mutual loathing. You can't do much about it but move on.

[broncofan]

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/203888/donald-trumps-little-boy

I did not know where to put this. But since we are talking about the new constituents Trump has pulled into the race, I thought this was an amusing profile of a buffoon supporter of Trump. It also touches a little bit on the alt-right, a segment of the right wing I am having trouble defining. I think it's relevant that the story is written by someone who describes himself as right of center, because it is not an ideological attack on conservatism, but rather on a sort of vacuous nihilism that has taken over in certain circles.

[Stavros]

Makes me think of Jean Genet, the permanent outsider. Having grown up gay when it was illegal and spent a life in and out of prison for petty theft, Genet considered himself unable and unwilling to fit in to society, so he decided to permanently oppose whatever it was that people fought for regardless of its content. In Funeral Rites he resurrects that peculiar gay fetish for the uniformed Nazi not out of any sympathy for national socialism, but because they had become so hated he embraced them as someone who had been hated in his past, just as he idolised thiefs and murderers in his classic The Thief's Journal. I have never heard of this Milo Mind-bender and hope never to encounter him again. But as a fall back position is it easy to be a nihilist as you can then condemn every political idea, every social movement, and every government, and never have to offer an alternative. Anyway according to Elon Musk we are just bytes in a super-computer.

[broncofan]

I have never heard of this Milo Mind-bender and hope never to encounter him again. But as a fall back position is it easy to be a nihilist as you can then condemn every political idea, every social movement, and every government, and never have to offer an alternative. Anyway according to Elon Musk we are just bytes in a super-computer.
For a variety of reasons I also hope you never encounter him again. He is so far succeeding in providing cover for very obvious white supremacists.

He has a following of 200,000 twitter followers, but right now is a grassroots harassment racket...we'll see how much it grows. The other day on twitter one of his followers told me that objecting to a dead-serious death threat was to muzzle free speech. The derangement of this alt-right subculture cannot be put into words without witnessing them; even the article I posted only scratches the surface. If there is one thing in that article that may have more lasting relevance than the fool it profiles, it's the movement he represents, and the important issue of whether it remains fringe or gains traction. He is a circus clown providing cover for dangerous morons.

[blackchubby38]

I'm a registered independent who has voted Democrat since I turned 18 in 1992. So I am by no means a Trump supporter. But I totally understand why he has become the Republican nominee due to the fact that I spend a considerable amount of time online with people who have said they will vote for Trump. I also have seen people who would identify themselves as a Republican who say they can't bring themselves to vote for Trump.

Having said all that, if the violence that happened last night at the Trump rally in San Jose continues to happen during the general election, Trump will be sworn in as president in January. Those images were disturbing and they are playing right into the hands of the Trump supporters who are shouting, "Build the wall"! Those images may also convince any undecided voters that politics in this country have swung too far to left and Trump is exactly what this country needs in order try to balance things out.

Damn it, why can't there be a viable third candidate.

[Stavros]

I'm a registered independent who has voted Democrat since I turned 18 in 1992. So I am by no means a Trump supporter. But I totally understand why he has become the Republican nominee due to the fact that I spend a considerable amount of time online with people who have said they will vote for Trump. I also have seen people who would identify themselves as a Republican who say they can't bring themselves to vote for Trump.

Having said all that, if the violence that happened last night at the Trump rally in San Jose continues to happen during the general election, Trump will be sworn in as president in January. Those images were disturbing and they are playing right into the hands of the Trump supporters who are shouting, "Build the wall"! Those images may also convince any undecided voters that politics in this country have swung too far to left and Trump is exactly what this country needs in order try to balance things out.

Damn it, why can't there be a viable third candidate.

Violence is not new in American party politics, in my lifetime the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago in 1968 remains the most violent and chaotic, but that took place when demonstrations against the Vietnam War were increasingly violent and when the Democrats were tearing themselves apart over the war and civil rights issues. Trump himself has encouraged violence and there has been more at his rallies I believe and I think this is part of his 'no-nonsense' agenda anyway, and an indication of how reckless this man is. The problem surely is that these events attract people who are looking for a fight whether or not they are 'card-carrying' Democrats and Republicans.

Viewed from the UK, and lacking the nuanced perspective you have in the US, it looks like both parties are divided among themselves, unable to agree on where they are going or even why. The Clintons appear to me to represent the kind of politics one associates with Tony Blair and 'New Labour', making an accommodation with 'neo-liberalism'/globalization in order to win elections. Labour lost 4 general elections in a row between 1979 and 1997, the Democrats three between Reagan and Bush Snr, they eventually became so desperate for power they were prepared to ditch decades of policies to move to 'the the centre' where the centre ground had been re-located by Reagan and Thatcher; but note too that both parties historically had been successful with blue collar workers but that by the 1990s heavy industry was in decline taking the traditional party base with it. I think in both countries, Democrat and Labour have attempted to replace their declining blue collar constituency with public sector workers and high tech and social media and mostly urban voters.

The financial crisis since 2008 has tested this agenda with some arguing for a return to state involvement in the economy (Sanders) or a more libertarian agenda composed of state withdrawal from welfare, tax cuts, and hostility to liberal social policies on abortion (TEA Party). As I have suggested before, I think this election is a write-off and you have four more years of what you have had in the previous eight, which begs the question will someone with a fresh agenda emerge to capture the 2020 election? We have the same problem in the UK with the country agonising over the European Union but with no major politician able to tell us where jobs and economic growth are going to come from over the next 25 years whether we are in or out of the EU. And we appear to be lumbered with the same political parties as in both the US and the UK small parties like the Greens or the Libertarians cannot get enough votes and seats to gather any forward momentum. There is also the question of 'permanent war' given that the US has been militarily engaged without a break since 2001, and that those 15 years account for the 'longest war' the US has been involved in since 1776, with no sign of it coming to an end.

And anyway, in spite of the noise, I think people are afraid of change -real change- and Trump for all his trumpeting, is more likely to change the tone of politics than hard core policy so where do all those disillusioned voters go, on both sides of the divide? That may even be the scariest question, if they choose 'direct action' rather than disengagement.

[blackchubby38]

Violence is not new in American party politics, in my lifetime the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago in 1968 remains the most violent and chaotic, but that took place when demonstrations against the Vietnam War were increasingly violent and when the Democrats were tearing themselves apart over the war and civil rights issues. Trump himself has encouraged violence and there has been more at his rallies I believe and I think this is part of his 'no-nonsense' agenda anyway, and an indication of how reckless this man is. The problem surely is that these events attract people who are looking for a fight whether or not they are 'card-carrying' Democrats and Republicans.

Viewed from the UK, and lacking the nuanced perspective you have in the US, it looks like both parties are divided among themselves, unable to agree on where they are going or even why. The Clintons appear to me to represent the kind of politics one associates with Tony Blair and 'New Labour', making an accommodation with 'neo-liberalism'/globalization in order to win elections. Labour lost 4 general elections in a row between 1979 and 1997, the Democrats three between Reagan and Bush Snr, they eventually became so desperate for power they were prepared to ditch decades of policies to move to 'the the centre' where the centre ground had been re-located by Reagan and Thatcher; but note too that both parties historically had been successful with blue collar workers but that by the 1990s heavy industry was in decline taking the traditional party base with it. I think in both countries, Democrat and Labour have attempted to replace their declining blue collar constituency with public sector workers and high tech and social media and mostly urban voters.

The financial crisis since 2008 has tested this agenda with some arguing for a return to state involvement in the economy (Sanders) or a more libertarian agenda composed of state withdrawal from welfare, tax cuts, and hostility to liberal social policies on abortion (TEA Party). As I have suggested before, I think this election is a write-off and you have four more years of what you have had in the previous eight, which begs the question will someone with a fresh agenda emerge to capture the 2020 election? We have the same problem in the UK with the country agonising over the European Union but with no major politician able to tell us where jobs and economic growth are going to come from over the next 25 years whether we are in or out of the EU. And we appear to be lumbered with the same political parties as in both the US and the UK small parties like the Greens or the Libertarians cannot get enough votes and seats to gather any forward momentum. There is also the question of 'permanent war' given that the US has been militarily engaged without a break since 2001, and that those 15 years account for the 'longest war' the US has been involved in since 1776, with no sign of it coming to an end.

And anyway, in spite of the noise, I think people are afraid of change -real change- and Trump for all his trumpeting, is more likely to change the tone of politics than hard core policy so where do all those disillusioned voters go, on both sides of the divide? That may even be the scariest question, if they choose 'direct action' rather than disengagement.

I have only seen news footage of 1968 Democratic Party Convention and of the events that occurred that year in general. That tumultuous year helped Nixon get elected. So that's why I was thinking the same could happen with Trump. Think about it. Replace "hippie counterculture" with "PC culture" and the "anti-war" movement with the "black lives matter" one and Trump becomes the new leader the "silent majority" desperately yearns to put into office.

You're right about how both parties are divided among themselves and there is a disconnect between the base of the respective parties and the party keaders. That disconnect is what led to Trump becoming the GOP nominee. While Hillary Clinton is the nominee the party wants, but a portion of the base doesn't know and/or care about the name of Clinton and wants Bernie Sanders to be the nominee.

You bring up an interesting point about this election being a write-off and we are going to have four more years of what we have in the previous eight. If that happens, I think the Republican party as we know it is pretty much finished and whatever party rises from the ashes maybe the one with a fresh agenda that people are looking for.

The one thing I would look for in a new party is the notion that "Isolationism" doesn't work (I get a sense that part of the Republican party has reared its ugly head again in the wake of Trump's success), but also finds a way to put an end to the "longest war" this nation has been involved in.

[Stavros]

I think the context is where you find important differences. When the Democrats lost in 1968 they were more divided then than they are now, or divided in a different way. The radical politics of the 1960s meant divisions over the wars in South-East Asia; the 1960s slogan the personal is political became part of the identity politics which at the time appeared chaotic as different groups vied for their slot in the Conference and recognition as people who had that most crucial legacy of 1776 -Rights, where Rights should become the basis of policy (in reality I suspect the Supreme Court has been the key arbiter of Rights). The Democrats also had a geographical problem as the decline of the 'Dixiecrats' is said to have followed extensive civil rights legislation eating away at the Democrats support in the South, though one notes Texas had a Democrat governor as late as the 1990s (Ann Richards), and Carter was from Georgia, whereas since the 1990s I suspect Democrats have been in decline across the South. But the party was out of power for two terms -thus for most of the 1970s and 1980s- as Carter only managed one term. And yet the identity politics which may have weakened the Democrats in its wilderness years became an essential part of the Clinton Presidency, even as he ditched New Deal economics in favour of Neo-Liberalism, so that these days it is not so much the Rights based politics of diverse groups that is the issue in the party but its overall economic programme and what it offers the USA in terms of job creation and economic growth. Mrs Clinton may create jobs by extending the remit of Federal agencies, but that is not the same as economic growth.

The Republicans do use this Rights-based trend to argue their 'traditions' -the family in particular- are under threat, from abortion to same-sex marriage to gun control and so on, and I think on a lot of the Rights based issues they have lost the plot in recent years, but they face the same dilemma as the Democrats, having to offer a credible economic framework to create jobs and economic growth that is not just based on tax cuts. But I also would not rule the Republicans out because they can adapt to identity politics and in the end, it is the economy that matters.

Sanders, Clinton and Trump are offering the US more of the same policies that have failed. The difference, I think, is that neither New Deal economics or Neo-liberalism are credible as alternative choices as they were perceived to be up until 2008, and that neither party has been able to articulate a 'third way' -as yet. But to an outsider the USA has always found a way to innovate its way out of a crisis, although I think the hardest part these days is not creating economic growth, but creating the jobs that go with it. The biggest danger, however, is that differences across US society, or societies become hardened into irreconcilable factions gaining enough support at the level of the state to undermine the integrity of the Union. The question then revolves around 'third party' politics and whether or not breaking the duopoly of Democrats-Republicans would be good for the USA or pave the way for the breakdown of the Union in, say, 25 years time or a generation. As long as the two parties delivered for enough people, they survived. Are the independents like Sanders and Trump a one-off or part of a growing trend? Easy enough for someone of my generation to think little will change in the near term, but a new generation may decide otherwise, and they are the people who will be around for the next 50 years.

[senestro]

Look Dude or dudess Peeps dont want millions of muslins over here !!!! Hillary wants to bring them over here in troves,by the millions.She calls it freedom of religion!!! This is a big turn off.Just look at the current situation and ask yourself ,is that what I really want?.Plus Hillary is under investigation still and she is wanted dead in the middle east for war crimes.Good luck negotiating anything on those grounds!

[trish]

Peeps are anti-Christian as well - they get eaten to near extinction every Easter. But regardless of what peeps want, the Constitution and more than two hundred years of jurisprudence guarantees religious freedom.

Now my reading of the dictionary is that a trove is a "store of valuable or delightful things." So although it might be a bit presumptuous for you to claim to know what Hillary wants (especially when she said nothing resembling your claim) millions of troves sounds pretty nice. The U.S. has promised to take in ten thousand Syrian refugees (millions is larger by a factor of several hundred). To our shame no one in the U.S. (including Hillary) is volunteering to help with more. As of April we only took in 1285 refugees, and it really doesn't look like we're going to keep our promise. Meanwhile about four to six million war weary, terrorized civilians have escaped Syria. It's a problem the world needs to solve with a great deal of cooperative effort. Carpet bombing Syria (Cruz's solution) or nuking it (Trump's solution) or do nothing (Trump's other solution) won't give these people a home to go back to or give them a place to be in the interim.

Hillary has been a target of egregious and trumped-up legal attacks ever since she was First Lady. White-water amounted to nothing after umpteen investigations by republican appointed examiners. She was accused by republicans for the death of Vince Forster, which turned out to be just a horrendous GOP exploitation of a very sad suicide. There have been over ten investigations of Benghazi, all politically motivated, all initiated by key GOP players, and none of them turned up anything. Now she's being investigated for thwarting State Department Email Guidelines. Really? When Colin Powell, Bush's token black man, did the exact same thing as Hillary and said so.

Everyone of substance is wanted dead by some fanatic somewhere. It's hardly an argument that the President of the United States won't be able to negotiate with the powers that be in the Middle East.

[Stavros]

To be fair Trish, Senestro did refer to Muslins, which you can now buy in packs of 5, without added boat.


940693

[hippifried]

So, uh, Trish... Ya figger the fact that Hillary's been vetted to death already might have some slight effect on the trumpeteers' hillarphobia? Just seems to me that unless you really need the typing practice, replying to the Kool Aid drinkers is pretty much an exercise in futility that can't do anything but raise your blood pressure. Wouldn't want anything bad (like a hemorrhage) happening to my favorite girl. Get Zen baby girl. Let those eyes roll back in your head & follow the tunnel to the inner light.
Aaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmm...

Of course it you get there & see a pale image with a duckface & bad hair, babbling something incoherent about walls, & telling you you're fired...
Well then... I'm sincerely sorry.

[trish]

Every once in awhile you gotta counter Chief Little Hands' branding strategy and chomp the head off of one of his soft, marshmallowy peeps.

[martin48]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-orlando_us_575d92e6e4b0e39a28addbe6

Nice guy

[SHEMALES YUM-YUM]

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.

[trish]

So we should congratulate our friends for supporting the candidate who wants to build a wall - a huge wall? Who wants to ban Muslims from coming into the country? There is a distinction between friendship and tolerance of the freedom of others to express their views - a distinction which I think your post overlooks. No one telling to go out make friends indiscriminately, we're just telling you not to hate indiscriminately.

[trish]

So we should congratulate our friends for supporting the candidate who wants to build a wall - a huge wall? Who wants to ban Muslims from coming into the country? There is a distinction between friendship and tolerance of the freedom of others to express their views - a distinction which I think your post overlooks. No one telling to go out make friends indiscriminately, we're just telling you not to hate indiscriminately.As you can tell, I'm having trouble expressing myself today. I'll try again. No one is telling you to go out and make friends indiscriminately, we're just advising you not to hate indiscriminately.

[broncofan]

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.
What does it mean to tolerate intolerance? To enjoy a man standing on a podium mimicking the staccato, poorly controlled actions of someone with a disability?

It's not only constitutional to support Donald Trump for President, it would be constitutional to support David Duke for President. And while Trump is not as nakedly hateful as Duke, each of their actions are constitutional and support of both men is also constitutional. It would be unconstitutional to muzzle them, through prior restraint, through prosecution, or civil action for their indecency.

But you know what isn't unconstitutional? Choosing not to associate with people for any number of reasons, including their adherence to viewpoints one finds repugnant or their support for someone who embodies all of that ugliness.

Do I have a right to not want to affiliate with those Trump supporters on twitter who see my Jewish last name and decide to send me pictures of ovens with trails of dollar bills leading to their insides? Or to someone who responded to me saying I'm going to wear orange in support of gun control by saying, "if you see a Jew wearing orange shoot'em"? Is it okay if I don't invite this asshole into my home?

You know what, nevermind. Go fuck yourself for not even trying to understand why people might be disturbed by Trump and his supporters. And double fuck yourself for not understanding the constitution. F-

[broncofan]

The next time any of us wish to remind others to be tolerant, perhaps we need to remind ourselves of it first.
Tolerance is intended to apply to things that are morally neutral such as race, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation. One is tolerant if he does not pass judgment on a gay man for marrying his partner. One is not intolerant if they are disgusted by somebody mocking a disabled reporter, or people who are insensitive to that.

Enjoy it and by god please tolerate it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUA

[broncofan]

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.
So I have to affiliate with (your buzzword is tolerate) anyone who does anything that they are constitutionally allowed to do? So if someone says they think genocide is funny, or that they hate Mexicans, it is intolerant to not want to associate with them? Funny fucking world you live in.

[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/article/every-word-of-james-obriens-rant-about-jo-cox-and-britains-political-climate-is-worth-listening-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/resources/quotations/135-quotes-falsely-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.

[hippifried]

Too many people confuse freedom of speech with some nonexistent right of impunity. Speech is an act, and actions have consequences. The concept of fighting words has been upheld by the courts. Anyone can speak, and anyone can be shouted down or just ignored. That's other people exercising their free speech. There's no such thing as a right to be heard, except in court when you're being accused. There used to be an equal time rule for the public airwaves, but that was removed in the '80s by executive fiat.

There's also confusion about rights in regard to personal status. Citizens of the US have some specific rights and privileges, but basic rights are held by all people within the jurisdiction of the US, regardless of status. That distinction is spelled out in the 14th Amendment, in section 1, under the due process and equal protection clauses.

I really wish that the people who whine about the Constitution would take a few moments out of their oh so busy lives and actually read the document, instead of reciting nonsensical talking points from their cult literature &/or websites. It's not that long. It's an easy read for anyone who's at all literate. The National Archives (NARA.gov) has it available under "Charters of Freedom".

[Ben in LA]

I really wishthat the people who whine about the Constitution would take a few moments out of their oh so busy lives and actually read the document, instead of reciting nonsensical talking points from their cult literature &/or websites. It's not that long. It's an easy read for anyone who's at all literate. The National Archives (NARA.gov) has it available under "Charters of Freedom".
They only care about the first and second amendments; every other one is basically moot. They also refuse to comprehend those first two amendments correctly.
947094

[nitron]

I'm convinced his a plant by the Clinton camp, to assure her success.

[trish]

Thinking back on the GOP clown cars filled with presidential candidates over the past few cycles, I'm pretty sure he's the end result of a rather short and nasty de-evolution of Republican electorate accelerated by their insipid devotion to their inbred, monocultural, infotainment news media.

[nitron]

I'll know if he got paid well, just a short time after she's elected, he'll prosper....
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftimedotcom.files.wordpress.com%2F 2016%2F01%2Fbill-clinton-donald-trump.jpg%3Fquality%3D75%26strip%3Dcolor%26w%3D550&f=1
....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbFDd7GQv_A