There are so many things over which I disagree with Trump. When he talks about China, I literally disagree with him on everything he says – currency manipulation, unfair trade, aggressive trade policies, an all out assault to gut America of jobs…
Yet I see every attack on Trump in the media – and yes here on this blog – as the worst of Western media propaganda. I am writing here not to support Trump (although I would definitely support him over Clinton), but to show what I consider to be Western media’s hypocrisy … and the power of the hypocrisy to brainwash everyone here! 😉
According to the Economist, here are some of the worst of Trump’s offenses.
Because each additional Trumpism seems a bit less shocking than the one before, there is a danger of becoming desensitised to his outbursts. To recap, he has referred to Mexicans crossing the border as rapists; called enthusiastically for the use of torture; hinted that Antonin Scalia, a Supreme Court justice, was murdered; proposed banning all Muslims from visiting America; advocated killing the families of terrorists; and repeated, approvingly, a damaging fiction that a century ago American soldiers in the Philippines dipped their ammunition in pigs’ blood before executing Muslim rebels. At a recent rally he said he would like to punch a protester in the face. This is by no means an exhaustive list.
Trump has referred to illegal aliens as rapists? That’s quite a twist of words. Trump has said that we should stop illegal aliens because many crossing are criminals. I have given Trump flap for this on the account that he is characterizing an entire group in terms of the acts of the inevitable few. But he never said all illegals are criminals. It is a documented fact that many illegals are criminals. The news is full of such stories. I don’t like Trump making the criminal part of illegals part of the national discussion because people who don’t pay attention (lazy democracy) will get the wrong idea. But Trump’s idea to control crime by controlling undocumented immigrants is not per se fringe.
About the idea that Trump hinted that Scalia might have been murdered – again that’s reading too much into Trump. It is well documented that choas and confusion surrounded Scalia’s death. Arising from those have been many “conspiracy theories.” Trump only mentioned that the report of a pillow on top of Scalia’s head after he is found dead is “pretty unusual.” I don’t see any problem there…
About proposing banning Muslims from entering America until we figure out how extremism is being controlled and spread … I already discussed above:
Imagine if we know Africa has some serious pandemic that we understand little of, is it wrong to say let’s stop all people flow from there? At a certain threshold of seriousness, it must be ok.
Now imagine if the same pandemic is sweeping through the Arab world … or Islamic world (for whatever reason), what’s wrong with saying, ok, let’s hold everything for a few months until we understand what’s going on?
Terrorism … or more specially, radicalism, is a kind of pandemic … from certain perspectives.
To the extent we don’t understand how extremism is being spread, i.e. how ISIS reached San Bernardino, what is so crazy about that? What if another world trade center type attack occurs… What if two more … three more? AND if they are carried out by “Muslims” – even though I have written that we must not confuse political Islam from religious Islam – what is wrong with what Trump proposed?
Would China be so crazy if Tibetan exiles or Turkey trained Uighurs start carrying out more and more public terrorist act to restrict flow of ethnic Tibetans from India or Uiyghurs from Turkey?
As for the “damaging fiction” of American soldiers in Phillippines around turn of century dipping ammo in pigs blood before executing Muslims … I don’t know. There are definitely enough “rumors” about or similar to it (see, e.g., this or this or this or this or this). In any case, what’s so “bad” about what Trump is saying? Doesn’t freedom of speech – Western style – include the freedom to discuss rumors? (after all often where there is smoke there is fire?) If it’s true … it’s the only way to uncover it. If it’s false, it will be squashed and fall out of people’s attention anyways…
There are other things. There is this flap about Trump’s comment on torture – that he’d use waterboarding and things that are even worse. An ex-CIA director even publicly said that military would disobey Trump’s orders (should he become President) they considered illegal.
But Trump never said he supported torture. He only said he’d support waterboarding (some consider it torture, others’ don’t) and things that are worse (worse things that might feel worse, but not necessarily be something categorically deemed torture). Also – imagine if some Chinese military guy had said the same … there would be all the reports about the military controlling the political branch. Who’s the CIA director to deem what is legal or not vis-a-vis the U.S. President?
Related to this is also Trump’s assertion that he’d go after the family members of terrorists. Trump didn’t make clear exactly what he meant, but people jumped to conclusion that he’d go around innocent family members per se. I am not sure if that’s what he meant. He could have also meant that to the extent that family members often help each other out, and family members of terrorists are often involved, he would go after them first, and not presume they are innocent to start with.
Besides, even if he goes after innocent members per se to make would-be terrorists think twice, what would be wrong about it – as a matter of ethics? If we kill 5 to save 5,000 or 50,000 or more, what is the problem???
We already go after innocent Iraqis and Afghans and Libyans and Muslims to stop terrorism here. What’s the morality in allowing for the killing of fellow countrymen and religious believers but not family members (remember, one reason we so kill is so they would oust their leaders)?
Look if terrorism becomes sufficiently dangerous – let’s say they are striking with much higher frequency or playing with dirty bombs, etc. – where do we draw the line? Trump raises good issues – they should be discussed not snickered at.
There has also been calls by politicians and media across the spectrum for Trump to publicly refute support from people such as David Duke (whom media brands incessantly as a white supremacist). I find this odd. Why single out David Duke – a private citizen? It’s not as if David Duke is a politician that is appearing on stage with Trump as his running mate?
Should Trump publicly refute support from celebrities who happen to pro-Choice (Trump being pro-Life now)? This is crazy. People support Trump for any of several reasons. They aren’t all saints. Some criminals in jails … and some priests who has molested kids in Churches may support Trump for their own reasons … that doesn’t mean Trump need to decide to accept or reject. In my mind: as long as they are American citizens, Trump can accept their support, no more question asked!
Remember, Trump also came under fire for saying that Planned Parenthood does good things outside of abortions… He is not ideological. He is not PC. That’s what’s so great about him.
But just to do a sanity check, I decided to see why David Duke supported Trump. Here is what I found.
In my lifetime, in such moments of dire international crisis, I do not ever remember a presidential campaign or season where the candidates, on their own or because they were forced to by moderators or by the public or the media, won’t tell us what they think other than a bumper sticker like “I hate Putin and I won’t talk to him,” things like that, tell us what they would do if they were president today or tomorrow. Of the Republicans, since Rand Paul left the race, all of them simply say “we’ll punch Putin in the nose and that will solve the problem.” Only Donald Trump, also in bumper stickers, has said something different. He said:
1) He doesn’t accept all of these criminal allegations against Putin because there’s no proof, they’re just allegations, and in America we have due process.
2) He keeps saying that he’s a man who knows how to make a deal with Putin. So I interpret this for Donald Trump, who never uses the word, to mean “diplomacy.” That he would do diplomacy.
Now what there’s been since the beginning of the New Cold War is a complete collapse of American diplomacy, or the militarization of American diplomacy towards Russia. Kerry is struggling, as we have already spoken, to demilitarize American diplomacy and to restore real negotiations. Trump in his odd way — “I’m the greatest deal maker in the world, I can make a deal with anybody, Putin doesn’t bother me, I’ll sit down and make him an offer he can’t refuse, and will make a deal and things will be okay.”
Alright, he probably doesn’t know exactly what he means. But I would prefer a president who tells me not that “I’m going to send more troops to Russia’s borders in order to provoke them into a war,” but a president who tell me “I’m going to sit down and discuss this with you and see if we can work it out.”
David Duke doesn’t seem to be supporting Trump for any white supremacist reasons. I actually would accept all the reasons given above as reasonable… Why the need to disavow him? Does this also make me a “white supremacist”???
Finally I read here and other places that Trump is taking advantage of people’s fears … and that leaders that arise from such crisis are inevitably bad…
But the truth is that the American Revolution also arose because of people’s fears and a sense of crisis, too. To be honest, every revolution arises from that. The Chinese Revolution that pushed away first the feudal systems then the corrupt Republic system was also. So was the French Revolution. So is the Arab Spring… (I can go on and on and on…)
Just because a Hitler arose from such – and to be honest, Germany did have a gripe against the then-existing world order – doesn’t mean every other person that so arise is a “Hitler”… every system that so arise is “Fascist.”
The attack on Trump – that somehow he is illegitimate – to me is a result of the oligarchy propaganda. People need to wake up. I am not saying you should support Trump. He is so wrong on so many things (relating to China at least), but he is not as ideological as Clinton and most other politicians. To me that per se is a huge improvement.
Every politician I know in the U.S. (or other Western democracies) have huge egos. There are very very few that wouldn’t lie … or that have real personal ethics (thinking about Hillary now…; see also her 10 other scandals). So why single Trump out as the worst … when he may be the breath of fresh air this country so need??? That’s hypocrisy at its highest…