@Sangre Naranjada , they are clearly spending like drunken sailors. Are you still thinking of voting Libertarian?
The Undercurrent, revisited
- Thread starter NJlonghorn
- Start date
@Sangre Naranjada , they are clearly spending like drunken sailors. Are you still thinking of voting Libertarian?
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
Trump pushes all of the standard stereotypes: that Jews love money more than anything, control the world, and are loyal to Israel. He sees these traits as positive and thus loves Jews for them. But these same stereotypes form the basis of much antisemitism across the last century or more. By perpetuating the stereotypes, Trump fuels antisemitism whether or not he himself is antisemitic.
Of course. That has been my vote since Bush the elder ran against Clinton.
I am extremely tempted to vote for Trump just as a big FU to people like Longest, and the more the liberal smear campaign continues in high gear, the more likely I am to give them the middle finger in the voting booth rather than giving it to both parties.
Of course, as you have noted many times before, the Democrats could point out Republican hypocrisy on spending issues (sound like fiscal hawks when out of power, spend like Democrats when in power), but every one of their candidates have lost all authority to speak on that subject through their own insanely expensive policies and proposals.
Yep. I noticed him pushing those ideas in the last State of the Union address, via Executive Order and policy proposals, and during his numerous stump speeches around the country. Not really. The only people pushing this narrative are Libs like yourself.
Clearly Jews identifying as Democrats aren't "loyal" to, or even a friend of Israel. Let them be allied with Hamas and see how that works for them.
That's not an example, that's your interpretation of stuff he says. No sale.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
Sorry. I didn't realize that posting a link to an article that gives examples doesn't count as giving examples. So I'll give a few examples directly.
Source -- the link I posted yesterday.
Source -- the link I posted yesterday.
Source -- the link I posted yesterday.
Source -- the link I posted yesterday.
These are just 4 examples, but there are literally hundreds more where President Trump "praises" Jews based on characteristics that not everyone views in a positive light.
Of course, this is on top of other things President Trump says that can't be explained away with the philo-semitic argument. Such as saying there are "very fine people" in a crowd marching with signs saying "Jews will not replace us" and other blatantly antisemitic sentiments. Or tweeting out a photo of Hillary Clinton superimposed over a Start of David and piles of cash, with a caption alleging corruption. Or tweeting repeatedly about the need to curtail the "global power structure" and similar things, where every accompanying photo is of a Jewish person.
As I've said before, I don't think President Trump says these things on purpose. My best guess is that he is naively oblivious to what his advisers are having him say. But he does say them, repeatedly.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
Sorry, I'm not following. Is there a connection between the philo-semitic / antisemitic issue and cuts to government spending?
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
I agree that nothing antisemitic has showed up in President Trump's actual policy proposals. That's not surprising, because he isn't antisemitic. And I don't remember anything that concerned me in his SOTU. To the contrary, I seem to recall some firm language opposing antisemitism. (Perhaps that is a reflection of which advisers write which of his speeches, but that's a different subject.)
But his stump speeches are a different story. Some of the philo-semitic stuff I'm talking about in this thread comes from his speeches. Even more comes from his tweets.
Okay, which ones? The ones above? Maybe we just have a difference in "interpretation" due to our heuristic bias.
NJH
"invoking an age-old anti-Semitic slur against the vast majority of American Jews." ? So what he said "invokes" an age old slur I have never heard.
So he called Israel a country for Jews? What is Israel?
"You’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money,” he said. “That’s okay, you want to control your own politician.”
This applies to any group who can't buy a Pol, Unions Planned parenthood Any Soros backed org any GOP group et al. How is that anti semitic?
Not even going to mention a comment from a guy trying to sell a book.
As someone pointed out in another thread Trump moved our embassy to Jerusalem. How could that be code to anti semitic people?
And you admit he is not anti semtic
So are you saying he deliberately says things that other people have decided are anti semitic and are meant to inflame anti semitic people?
How would that benefit Trump?
"invoking an age-old anti-Semitic slur against the vast majority of American Jews." ? So what he said "invokes" an age old slur I have never heard.
So he called Israel a country for Jews? What is Israel?
"You’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money,” he said. “That’s okay, you want to control your own politician.”
This applies to any group who can't buy a Pol, Unions Planned parenthood Any Soros backed org any GOP group et al. How is that anti semitic?
Not even going to mention a comment from a guy trying to sell a book.
As someone pointed out in another thread Trump moved our embassy to Jerusalem. How could that be code to anti semitic people?
And you admit he is not anti semtic
So are you saying he deliberately says things that other people have decided are anti semitic and are meant to inflame anti semitic people?
How would that benefit Trump?
Last edited:
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
More uneducated white voters.
Sometimes I think you're just trolling us.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
The concept that Jews exhibit "dual loyalty" is behind much of the persecution Jews have faced over the centuries. The fact that you are not aware of the history does not make it any less true.
The first example arose when Haman ordered all Jews killed because he didn't think they were loyal to Persia (or, more accurately, the Persian king Ahasuerus. The idea that Jews weren't loyal to Germany was one of the biggest driving factors behind the holocaust. Concerns about Jewish dual loyalty were behind much of the resistance against allowing Jewish holocaust survivors to immigrate to the US after the war. Here's an article discussing this point in further detail.
To be clear, I'm not saying that Donald Trump buys in to any of this. But by repeatedly talking about Jews' alleged dual loyalty, he adds fuel to the antisemitic fire.
Israel is a country for those who live there, the majority of whom are Jewish. It is not my country -- the USA is. Benjamin Netanyahu is not my prime minister. I'm not all that worked up about this one, except that it furthers the dual-loyalty stereotype.
If you take the comment completely out of the context of history, then yes, it is neutral. The fact that some people buy politicians is beyond doubt. The fact that some of those people are Jewish and others of them are not Jewish is also beyond doubt.
But you have to view President Trump's comment through the lens of history. Would a comment in a room full of blacks that "you sure do like your fried chicken and watermelon" be racially neutral because other people like fried chicken and watermelon, too?
From the context, it seems clear to me that the "you" and "your" were particularly meant to single out Jewish donors for wanting to control politicians. Nobody, Donald Trump or anyone else, would stand before any other interest group and accuse them of wanting to buy a politician. Yes, this is only 90% fact and 10% interpretation, but it is a reasonable conclusion, especially when put into the context of the fact that the most persistent and pernicious Jewish stereotype is the idea that we use our money to control the world.
Well isn't that convenient.
It isn't. Moving the embassy was a policy decision, for which there are good arguments in support and in opposition. President Trump might have thought that one benefit of the move was appeasing American Jews, but if so he miscalculated because a majority of us don't support the move. Same with pulling out of the Iran deal -- a legitimate policy choice, but not something most American Jews support.
My best guess is that he doesn't do it on purpose. We've discussed this extensively much earlier on this thread. My best guess is that he has advisers who put the comments into his speeches and texts on purpose. But I don't think he himself does it on purpose.
President Trump's comments fuel a passionate and extreme (albeit small) subset of the nationalist movement. This subset is amongst his most loyal followers.
Certainly possible.
NJH
I think you are giving Trump or his advisors too much credit.. You have pointed out nothing in his scripted speeches or his actions show any anti semiticism. We know he speaks off the cuff a lot. Do you think his advisors subliminally imprint remarks that can inflame a small subset?
Do you think his advisors think it important to inflame such a small subset?
I am not suggesting this is how you see things since I do not know you or your history
But I do know people can sometimes see things that tbey want or expect to see
based on their personal views. when that was from the intention of the speaker.
I do know you are not posting those opinions out of Trump hate so your opinions should be respected.
I think you are giving Trump or his advisors too much credit.. You have pointed out nothing in his scripted speeches or his actions show any anti semiticism. We know he speaks off the cuff a lot. Do you think his advisors subliminally imprint remarks that can inflame a small subset?
Do you think his advisors think it important to inflame such a small subset?
I am not suggesting this is how you see things since I do not know you or your history
But I do know people can sometimes see things that tbey want or expect to see
based on their personal views. when that was from the intention of the speaker.
I do know you are not posting those opinions out of Trump hate so your opinions should be respected.
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
lulz
The president said that Ginsburg, 86, is “strong” and “very tough” while speaking to reporters outside the White House on his way to leave for the Group of Seven (G-7) summit in France.
“I hope she does really well. And our thoughts and prayers are with her,” Trump said.
“I’m hoping she’s going to be fine,” he continued. “She’s pulled through a lot. She’s strong. Very tough. We wish her well.”
“I hope she does really well. And our thoughts and prayers are with her,” Trump said.
“I’m hoping she’s going to be fine,” he continued. “She’s pulled through a lot. She’s strong. Very tough. We wish her well.”
God, what an ******* he is.
Are you just trying to beat Longest and Seattle to the punch? Taking a little wind out of their sails?
@NJlonghorn , after reading your comments and the article, I don't think you and Rosenberg are making the same point. Your point seems to be that Trump isn't antisemitic but that he often obliviously says things that are - sorta like my maternal grandmother who used to refer to black people as "negroes" and sincerely thought she was being politically correct and respectful. Furthermore, your tone doesn't suggest hostility. It's clear that you're trying to be fair by acknowledging a lack of antisemitism in his policy agenda.
Rosenberg's point is that Trump is a raging antisemite who genuinely believes all kinds of bad things about Jews but considers them to be good things basically because he's bad and selfish. Furthermore, unlike yours, his tone is full of contempt.
Frankly, I think your point is a little too soft and that Rosenberg's (like most media criticisms of Trump) is so wildly overstated that it hurts his credibility. He makes too big of a deal about offhand remarks like the one about who's counting his money. I'm not saying that sort of thing is totally harmless. It does perpetuate a stereotype, but I don't put it on a level with real hostility and contempt. Hell, I've heard plenty of Jewish people say the same kind of thing and laugh about it.
Obviously I'm not Jewish, but the comments about loyalty to Israel and voting Democratic bother me a lot more. The reason why is that I despise identity politics, because it's a paper-thinly veiled attempt to avoid discussion of issues on the merits and therefore bad for politics. To me, Jews and everyone else should be treated as free-thinking individuals. A Jew can be pro-Israel, anti-Israel, or something in between according to his or her own conscience. Similarly, a Jew can vote Democratic or Republican or something else. We shouldn't try to pigeonhole or pressure Jews on either point just because they're Jewish. That isn't appropriate or fair. Neither you nor Rosenberg focus on this enough.
Of course, if you're a liberal activist or journalist (which are basically the same thing now), you're not going to make as big of a deal out of this for two reasons. First, you just got finished mitigating and/or explaining away Ilhan Omar's dual loyalty comments which are far more directly antisemitic and damaging. Second, if you push the issue too much, you beg the question of why it is bad to say Jews are being disloyal by voting Democratic but that it's perfectly acceptable to say that blacks, Hispanics, and gays (and until about ten minutes ago, Jews) are being disloyal if they vote Republican - a charge that is made far more often.
But it all bothers me. We should be treating people as individuals who have their own thoughts and opinions. We shouldn't expect them to all think alike or vote alike and shouldn't push garbage identity politics to try to force or socially coerce them to do so. It's not fair and promotes social division and racism. And of course, it greatly empowers real antisemites.
Rosenberg's point is that Trump is a raging antisemite who genuinely believes all kinds of bad things about Jews but considers them to be good things basically because he's bad and selfish. Furthermore, unlike yours, his tone is full of contempt.
Frankly, I think your point is a little too soft and that Rosenberg's (like most media criticisms of Trump) is so wildly overstated that it hurts his credibility. He makes too big of a deal about offhand remarks like the one about who's counting his money. I'm not saying that sort of thing is totally harmless. It does perpetuate a stereotype, but I don't put it on a level with real hostility and contempt. Hell, I've heard plenty of Jewish people say the same kind of thing and laugh about it.
Obviously I'm not Jewish, but the comments about loyalty to Israel and voting Democratic bother me a lot more. The reason why is that I despise identity politics, because it's a paper-thinly veiled attempt to avoid discussion of issues on the merits and therefore bad for politics. To me, Jews and everyone else should be treated as free-thinking individuals. A Jew can be pro-Israel, anti-Israel, or something in between according to his or her own conscience. Similarly, a Jew can vote Democratic or Republican or something else. We shouldn't try to pigeonhole or pressure Jews on either point just because they're Jewish. That isn't appropriate or fair. Neither you nor Rosenberg focus on this enough.
Of course, if you're a liberal activist or journalist (which are basically the same thing now), you're not going to make as big of a deal out of this for two reasons. First, you just got finished mitigating and/or explaining away Ilhan Omar's dual loyalty comments which are far more directly antisemitic and damaging. Second, if you push the issue too much, you beg the question of why it is bad to say Jews are being disloyal by voting Democratic but that it's perfectly acceptable to say that blacks, Hispanics, and gays (and until about ten minutes ago, Jews) are being disloyal if they vote Republican - a charge that is made far more often.
But it all bothers me. We should be treating people as individuals who have their own thoughts and opinions. We shouldn't expect them to all think alike or vote alike and shouldn't push garbage identity politics to try to force or socially coerce them to do so. It's not fair and promotes social division and racism. And of course, it greatly empowers real antisemites.
Last edited:
I generally agree with this.
Of course we would all feel differently walking down a dark alley and seeing five indviduals with standard thug-like appearance standing at the far end. That is when treating people as individuals probably gets you in trouble.
I'd still judge them by their thug-like appearance rather than their ethnicity or religion. It's not like I'd be in a position to ask, "ok, which one of you is Jewish so I know whom I should fear."
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
I can't believe y'all are arguing about whether some of Trump's statements may or may not be interpreted by others, who are anti-semitic, as supporting their position when there is so much open anti-semitism coming directly from the mouths of Omar, Tlaib, et al.
What if they were black males, you knew what the crime statistics of black males was?
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
