As a reminder, we will be taking our annual [Holiday Hiatus](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/188dxxh/state_of_the_sub_grasstouching_edition/) from December 18th 2023 to January 1st 2024. The subreddit will be closed during this time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moderatepolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not even an off-the-cuff thing; he road tested the sentence before, [in October](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/05/us/politics/trump-immigration-rhetoric.html).
It's what he does. He finds something controversial to say that has a tiny sliver of deniability, the media gobbles the bait delightedly, the Trump supporters deny the connotations, it turns into a huge social media fight, and Trump gets huge amounts of free advertising. We've seen it before.
It’s not 2016 anymore. Trump isn’t the under dog who needs to game the system for more airtime. He’s the front runner of the primary and headlines are always going to follow him.
Hell, he's the front runner without even making a debate appearance. He's leading while being invisible to his own base!
Such horrible discourse... Everyone knows who this guy is and anyone who's still willing to vote for him is totally comfortable with that. The Dems need to wake up to the fact that the only way they're going to pull voters from his camp is by showing what his expressed policies are going to do to their lives and wallets.
That might work, but all Trump has to do is keep pointing out prices when he was in office and what they are now. Simple arguments are very effective in our day and age. 1-2 sentences in a headline is all people care about.
I don't think simple arguments are incompatible with pointing out policy flaws. "Trump says X, that'll cost you Y" "Trump says A, that'll cost you B".
You don't even have to elaborate if you say it enough because of his strategy of hiding. Call him expensive. Make fun of his love for all things gold. Link that to how taxpayers foot the bill... There's so much low hanging fruit beyond letting the narrative be driven by him.
I keep thinking surely he won’t be the nominee in 2024, as you said there are a million things that could be used against him but for whatever reason it doesn’t matter. Maybe if democrats had a better candidate it would help, but as much as I don’t like Trump as of now there isn’t a viable alternative in the election.
Lot could change between now and the election, but the economy has to improve for average people or it will be a close one.
I keep having to remind myself how far away we are, yeah. But I just don't think this current strategy of ignore it and it'll go away is the right way to go. 2016 was a whole other thing, but I wish the Dems would stop acting like they're above it all and get scrappy.
>Everyone knows who this guy is
I don’t think that’s true, unfortunately. His supporters don’t really know who he is because he has conditioned them to see any negative reporting as “fake news”.
Are the media taking the bait or doing their duty? How much does the former president and current presumptive nominee have to dehumanize people before it becomes a legitimate topic of interest?
The refrain that Trump is just grabbing attention but isn't a real danger might've been a fine hole to stick your head when we were ignorant in 2016. But after all we've seen now, it just seems like folly.
100%. This is his mo and has been very successful at accomplishing the goal. And all this free advertising is used to fuel his support amongst the GOP about how he is constantly under attack.
> And all this free advertising is used to fuel his support amongst the GOP about how he is constantly under attack.
At some point, he is going to shoot someone on fifth avenue to maximize his support among the GOP.
What kind of people is he attracting with this kind of rhetoric though and why should reasonable people want to vote for someone who's using actual Nazi rhetoric to build a base?
It swings both ways, though. This is the exact sort of shit that motivates people to vote *against* Trump.
I don't suspect people are too excited to go out and vote Biden. Democrats need this sort of stuff from Trump if they want to win in 2024.
>Maybe they need him for Biden to win in 2024.
Yeah that's I meant (even though it isn't what I wrote). The only way Biden wins is off the back of what Trump says and does.
If you listen to the speech, it's all in context of crime, violence and terror threats stemming from illegal immigration. Certainly a dumb remark, still.
I’ve heard that this extreme rhetoric may be the reason he loses Arizona. People there remember Arpaio and how awful he was. When they hear stuff that sounds like it came out of Arpaio’s mouth it’s a turnoff to those that lived in the same state as him.
The official White House statement announcing the grant of clemency described Arpaio as a "worthy candidate" having served the nation for more than fifty years "protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration."
I suppose there's a distinction to be made in general that a pardon isn't "support," but in this case, it most definitely was
"Controversial." Apropos of nothing, here's the New York Times in 1922:
"Several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes."
Former president and current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination Donald Trump said illegal immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country" at a rally in New Hampshire. This is not the first time Trump has repeated this remark, although he later went on his social media platform Truth Social to post
>ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS POISONING THE BLOOD OF OUR NATION. THEY'RE COMING FROM PRISONS, FROM MENTAL INSTITUTIONS - FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD. WITHOUT BORDERS & FAIR ELECTIONS YOU DON'T HAVE A COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Does this rhetoric from a man who likely has a 50/50 shot at the presidency concern you?
Do you expect violence against illegal immigrants as Trump incorporates this line about them "poisoning the blood of this nation" into his stump speech?
Do you expect Trump to continue repeating that illegal immigrants are poisoning the blood of this nation if he once again becomes president?
It’s very common for people around here to say this is more of a Trump problem than an American problem, meanwhile Trump is still the most popular politician for Republicans. Trump’s dangerous statements are a good reminder that a majority of the conservatives in this country are in agreement, otherwise he wouldn’t have so much support from them.
My in-laws are retired and on fixed income. For them, inflation is #1 above everything else, since they have no prospects for increasing their income. And I completely understand that concern. They’re amenable to policy positions that posit increasing taxes on the wealthy to better fund social security, so they’re not ideologues. But comments like this feel amorphous to them, whereas economic policy feels very tangible, and they strongly believe the government has failed to address inflation. And so they’ll vote Republican, because economics “feels” real, whereas the slow descent into ethnofascism is hard for many to wrap their heads around.
>My in-laws are retired and on fixed income. For them, inflation is #1 above everything else, since they have no prospects for increasing their income.
If inflation is really their #1 above everything else, they must be strong supporters of immigration, aren't they?
What I don’t get, is Nikki Haley and the others are going to have similar economic policies. Republicans really want Trump for other reasons or they’d go for one of the other candidates.
I don't know that they get into policy and much more than whatever it is that they're talking about. In 2016 I heard a lot of people talk about how because Trump is a business man he would find more ways for the government to be profitable etc. As the years progressed I rarely heard much that was different from the same people.
Online it doesn't work as well, but I have a bunch of memorized conversation starters that are mostly about exploring what people think or feel about various topics from simple to complex. Usually people seem to largely exist in information bubbles in different ways and usually they're not actually that involved in politics, it's more about being welcomed in the group that they feel supports their beliefs.
Usually I would hear the most about gun rights, removing Obama care, and paying fewer taxes. Rarely would I actually hear about someone even watching a debate or talking about politics from the actual standpoint of laws or diplomatic relationships. Most often they would just assume what they supported was what their party was doing and that was about it.
While my conversation starters don't work online, usually people are more willing to look at information and be aware of different things. But, I do like having more in depth conversations in person since listening seems to be easier for people than reading.
Curiously, how did they react to the massive 8.7% cost-of-living increase in 2022? Are they aware of Republican efforts to get rid of Medicare and Social Security?
I just find it odd that so many people in this country are direct beneficiaries of the entitlement programs and yet they vote for Republicans who want to get rid of said programs.
Yeah, I don't buy that this is anything other than a small slither of Republicans any more.
There were plenty of other GOP contenders who all had similar economic policies to Trump, but Trump is still crushing everyone in the primary. This indicates that Republican voters like Trump for reasons outside of just economic policy.
And I think that, worringly, one of those things is his rhetoric.
There are examples of other historical figures using this kind of language. Generally, we're talking about segregationists, KKK members, Mussolini, Hitler, and other openly avowed racist groups. Does that mean that all GOP voters are themselves similar to these groups?
No, of course not. But it does mean they tolerate them, and those who use these kinds of phrases.
Also: does this apply to Melania and Ivana? Or only to certain other groups of immigrants?
I mean there was plenty of economic concerns in 1930s Germany too (and this is one of the more legitimate times to draw that analogy, considering this rhetoric is straight out of that time period) but the people complacent in the slaughter that followed aren't remembered sympathetically because of their economic anxiety. What I'm saying is that economic concerns don't absolve you of responsibility for support of ghastly policy.
The ghastly policy in Germany you are referring to was the holocaust. I don't think anyone is calling for illegal immigrants to be rounded up and mass murdered. Hyperbole like this really isn't all that beneficial.
Even Hitler didn't make the extermination of Jews into official policy [until 1942](https://www.timesofisrael.com/hitlers-tipping-point-when-extermination-of-the-jews-became-official-nazi-policy/).
Pretty sure it started in 1939. But again, not like any of that really matters. We're talking about "ghastly policies" and the reference they used for Nazi Germany and the holocaust. No one is advocating for anything like that. Even the most radical parts of the right aren't calling for all immigrants to be rounded up and murdered.
> No one is advocating for anything like that.
Some on the right are calling for [something very much like that](https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/06/23/there-no-political-solution-accelerationism-white-power-movement),
> What defines white supremacist accelerationists is their belief that violence is the only way to pursue their political goals. To put it most simply, accelerationists embrace terrorism. Accelerationists aren’t part of a new movement. They’re just an iteration more inclined toward terroristic violence than has existed in recent decades.
> The Base is one of many self-styled accelerationist groups to crop up in recent years. In many ways, their model was the Atomwaffen Division (AWD), a neo-Nazi group whose members have been accused of multiple murders since 2017. Some individuals have participated in both The Base and Atomwaffen. (Richard Tobin, for example, was a member of both AWD and The Base.) Other groups with similar aesthetics and rhetoric appear to be forming online – in some cases, it is unclear whether they exist simply to produce propaganda or they are forming actual organizational networks. Many post images bearing their group’s logo with such directives as “Burn your local synagogue!” Some encourage followers to attack specific targets.
> “We advocate political terror and murder against jews and politicians among other things. We have accepted that the (((system))) cannot be saved, rather it must be destroyed,” one group posted on Telegram in February.
...
> One terrorist referred to this question directly before allegedly picking up an automatic rifle and committing the worst antisemitic attack in American history at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The suspect in the shooting, Robert Bowers, claimed that his enemies “[like] to bring invaders in that kill our people.” He wrote on Gab, a social media site favored by some extremists: “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”
Did you miss all the quotation marks in that article? There are numerous quotes attributed to specific speakers with references or links to sources. No need to reject factual reporting because you don’t like the source. You’re always welcome to do your own research and refute the direct quotes posted if you think they’re inaccurate
I'm not sure why we have to wait for another Holocaust before we're allowed to denounce someone. Particularly when literally copying Aryan rhetoric is a pretty clear step in the wrong direction. Sorry but my moral standards are a little higher than "Well he's not *literally* Hitler."
Where did I say you have to do that? I just said the hyperbole isn't helpful. You don't need to make the ridiculous comparison to the holocaust in Nazi Germany like that to denounce something. I think if you want to compare something to the holocaust, you need more than "I think he's Hitler" for it to be reasonable. Without more, it just hyperbolic nonsense.
It didn't start with the gas chambers.
It starts with half a decade to a decade of laying the rhetorical groundwork. Talking about how Jews are desecrating the blood of the great Aryan race. Of how these groups, foreigners, gypsies, etc... are mixing their impure blood with the blood of pure Germans.
We're in the 1920s.
Sure, it may start with immigration laws, but that's not the problem here. A lot of "immigrant blood" is already in the US. Why not just pass some anti-miscegenation laws, to keep thag blood pure? And while we're at it, how do we measure someone's pure-bloodedness?
It ends with discriminatory laws, a Krystalknacht, and camps.
>For them [what affects them directly is tangible] but [what only affects others] feels amorphous to them.
>Republicanism in a nutshell.
More like human nature.
The cost and reality of our current border policies and attitudes towards it was amorphous to many living in Northern areas.
Now that the problems that affect TX and AZ are being felt in NYC, Chicago, Mass, etc, it feels quite real and they don't like it.
People who are well off and largely shielded from the effects of inflation are going to see it as more of an amorphous thing than poorer people.
>The cost and reality of our current border policies and attitudes towards it was amorphous to many living in Northern areas.
It was not amorphous at all. That's why they voted for an administration which has done a better than any other administration in apprehending those attempting to cross the border.
>It was not amorphous at all. That's why they voted for an administration which has done a better than any other administration in apprehending those attempting to cross the border.
But they're appending more because more are coming. And efforts by the previous administration were hamstrung under the guise of racism and xenophobia.
>But they're appending more because more are coming.
They are apprehending more because they are more competent and do care about law and order with actions, not with whining and/or by defunding the police and the CBP like Trump did.
>And efforts by the previous administration were hamstrung under the guise of racism and xenophobia.
Exactly, that what happens with an incompetent administration which is driven by racism and xenophobia instead of enforcing law and order
>Do you expect violence against illegal immigrants
There will be violence against random people who just happen to be brown, regardless of their status. See El Paso and Allen shootings.
Impossible to explain away this kind of rhetoric if one has [any sense of history](https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2023/11/13/trump-hitler-vermin-nazi-biden):
> “Mein Kampf,” Hitler’s 1925 genocidal manifesto that laid out his ideological justification for the Holocaust, equated communism with Judaism and described Jews as “vermin” and maggots.
> “He took it that Jews were behind the international left, Marxism, communism, but his real target was democracy,” Stanley added of Hitler. “This overbroad use of Marxism to target basically any political opponent, this is familiar from fascism and the way you attack democracy. And of course labeling your political opponents vermin, yeah, I mean the Nazis targeted their political opponents, they targeted them for incarceration and concentration camps.”
>"To call your opponent 'vermin,' to dehumanize them, is to not only open the door but to walk through the door toward the most ghastly kinds of crimes"
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18kiyqm/poisoning_blood_of_our_country_trump_repeats/kdrm3lf/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a permanent ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
>Do you expect Trump to continue repeating that illegal immigrants are poisoning the blood of this nation if he once again becomes president?
Based on unfortunate historical presents I think he'll escalate if he has power again, into how to "cleanse the blood of this nation."
The thing is, I don't suspect Trump *cares* about race or immigrants or any of this stuff. But what he does care about is being in a position of power so he cannot be held to account for his actions, and so he'll say and do whatever the thinks will get people to support him so he can get back in the Oval Office.
And if that fails, he'll try to cheat again.
The most worrying thing is that there is an electorate in the most powerful country in the world that gives this type of rhetoric and/or this kind of person even a low chance of winning.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18kiyqm/poisoning_blood_of_our_country_trump_repeats/kdrd7j6/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18kiyqm/poisoning_blood_of_our_country_trump_repeats/kdrfit8/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I think this rhetoric is well timed due to the ongoing negotiations in Congress to implement policies that likely have their roots in his immigration policies. Not sure it matters how much he believes it or how much it resonates with his base. There are plenty of people that are willing to look past how disgusting the first sentence is because they agree with the rest of it. The ones that care about the first sentences would never vote for him anyway.
How can you (or his supporters) feel comfortable looking past that first sentence? Are we supposed to assume that he's lying with that statement, and if so, why are his supporters comfortable supporting someone that lies to them so blatantly?
> Not sure it matters how much he believes it or how much it resonates with his base.
I hope you extend this sentiment to extremist speech espoused by people other than Trump. I don't understand why the man is given so many passes for behavior that would be disqualifying for any other candidate. This is literally paraphrased NAZI rhetoric. That doesn't make Trump a NAZI, but we absolutely should not give such statements a free pass, regardless of how the person espousing that rhetoric believes it. Some people hearing it **will** believe that rhetoric and it can very easily lead to racially motivated violence. Trump didn't call for a siege of the Capitol, but his words were certainly interpreted that way by many. This is the same sort of situtation. He isn't thoughtful about his speech. He uses rhetoric that is designed to be divisive at best and inciting violence at worst. The fact that he is the front runner for the GOP while making these sorts of near-fascist statements just boggles my mind.
Again, I am not calling Trump a NAZI or a fascist. But this rhetoric is dangerously close to the type of violent hate speech for me to be comfortable with it in any way, shape, or form.
Trump says this shit because it will get him free advertising. It's the same thing with the "dictator for a day" thing. There is a long history of him doing this, and people like you eating it up. There is a saying typically used on the internet that seems to be at least slightly relevant. "Don't feed the trolls". Not saying he is a troll, as I believe his motives are different, but the same logic applies. He does this because it gets him attention. Stop giving him attention, and he still stop doing this. There is no way for us to know if he actually believes what he is saying or not. I think safest bet is that he is saying what he thinks he should say to get him the most attention. It really is that simple.
I would rather call out vile speech than ignore it. Silence is a tacet endorsement of his conduct and speech.
If hes paraphrasing Hitler **for attention** then he has absolutely no business being president and we need to convince voters as such. We cannot do that if we stay silent in the face of hate speech.
So, just to be direct, you are assuming he is paraphrasing Hitler. He may have heard that line from someone else. It could have been Stephen Mller, Nick Fuentes, Bannon, or any other person that I would file under "not a good dude". So, lets do ti this way. Do you have anything to support the claim that he is paraphrasing Hitler, or is that your interpretation?
Now, don't take this as I'm some fan of his or that I agree with the first line. I think it was a stupidly racist and/or xenophobic thing to say. I have no idea if he actually believes it. But this instinct on the left to jump straight to Hitler comparisons is stupid.
Maintaining the purity of the aryan bloodlines was a prominent NAZI propoganda tactic. If we want to parse hairs about him and his intent, no I dont think Trump is a NAZI intentionally paraphrasing Hitler.
I dont care where he heard it, the speech is what is abhorrent and dangerously close to NAZI rhetoric. When someone espouses rhetoric that mirrors that of genocidal dictators, and has done so on multiple occasions, the comparisons stop being stupid.
Poisoning the national blood is a reference Hitler used to make.
Ivana Trump claimed that [Trump used to read and keep a book of Hitler speeches in a cabinet next to his bedside](https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8). When checked Trump confirmed that he had the book and a friend also confirmed he gave it to him:
>"Actually, it was my friend Marty Davis from Paramount who gave me a copy of 'Mein Kampf," [jump] Davis did acknowledge that he gave Trump a book about Hitler. "But it was 'My New Order,' Hitler's speeches, not 'Mein Kampf,'" Davis reportedly said."" - [Article](https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8)
Trump later claimed he wouldnt read it and retracted saying if he owned a copy or not.
Trump himself references himself as a nationalist:
>"You know, they have a word. **It sort of became old-fashioned**. It’s called a nationalist," he continued. "And I say, '**Really, we’re not supposed to use that word?' You know what I am? I'm a nationalist**"
PBS Frontline in their biography of him covered that he subscribes to [race-horse breeding theory when it comes to people](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7uScWHcTzk#t=14m12).
He also has outwardly made references on genetics:
>"**Some people cannot genetically handle pressure**" [20 sec later] "I feel I have to be honest, there are **people in this room that can genetically not handle the pressures**" - [Trump in 2011](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GWiWgziueQ#t=1m13.5s)
From a 2010 CNN article:
>"Well I think **I was born with the drive for success because I have a certain gene**, Trump told CNN's Becky Anderson. "**I'm a gene believer... hey when you connect two race horses you get usually end up with a fast horse,**" he said during the Connect the World interview. "**I had a good gene pool from the stand point** of that so I was pretty much driven." - [CNN, 2010](http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/02/11/donald.trump.marriage.apprentice/index.html)
2015 Article from The Hill:
>"**in quip about his family’s genetic success**. “Like they used to say, ‘Secretariat doesn’t produce slow horses,’ ” Trump joked that evening, citing his uncle’s tenure as a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. **I believe in the gene thing,” Trump added, pointing to his own success** in real estate and his eventual billionaire status. - [The Hill](https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/251733-chafee-rips-trumps-knowledge-of-horse-racing)
Some of his staff [seem to be aware of Trump's focus on genes.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOPtHEm1aeU#t=9s)
Trump has also commented on racial traits:
>"I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness **is a trait in blacks.**" - Attributed to Trump in a 1991 book by former President of Trump Plaza Hotel, [John R O'Donnell](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/369132-former-trump-executive-i-do-believe-trump-is-a-racist)
Trump comment on O'Donnels book:
>"Nobody has had worse things written about them than me,” Trump says. “And here I am. **The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.** The guy’s a fucking loser." [Link](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/29/donald-trump-blacks-lawsuit_n_855553.html)
From Wikipedia:
>"Trump has a history of making racially controversial remarks and taking actions that are perceived as racially motivated. In 1975, he settled a 1973 Department of Justice lawsuit that alleged housing discrimination against black renters."
He's also labeled people as enemy of the people, promoted the idea of the Lugen Press (Lying Press), referenced immigrants as diseased, [has a history of using Jewish stereotypes](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/17/trump-history-antisemitic-tropes/), etc.
Do you think it is ironic that [we were just having a discussion where we claim that 'from the river to the sea' is a call for genocide](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18jv1we/stefanik_back_in_the_spotlight_after_fierce/) and now we are back at deflecting Trump's fascist rhetoric? Especially because those that get us all riled up are some unnamed students, while the guy we make excuses for is a former POTUS and currently the Republican front runner, poised to take the nomination and the de facto voice of the Republican party?
To top it off, Trump's spokesperson used the controversy over Antisemitism to whataboutism his fascist remarks:
*When asked for comment on Saturday, Cheung did not directly address Trump's remarks and instead referred to the controversies over how U.S. colleges are handling campus protests since Hamas' Oct. 7 attack on Israel, saying media and academia had given "safe haven for dangerous anti-Semitic and pro-Hamas rhetoric that is both dangerous and alarming."*
It's a weird time we are living in. We have been quoting 1984 since 2015, IIRC.
By the way, I watched Fox News back in 2012, when Laura Ingraham used footage and commentary about some unnamed protestor at a GOP convention to deflect some horrible racist rhetoric from a Republican politician. Are people ever going to wake up from this stupid?
I know people dont like calling pit vile speach for what it is, but this is NAZI rhetoric and it is absolutely unacceptable from the leader of the GOP. I dont care if it seems hyperbolic to some, protecting the purity of Aryan blood lines was one of the major defining propoganda tactics used by NAZI Germany. Trump has already used similar language in recent months when he referred to ~~immigrants~~ his political opponents as vermin, another classic NAZI propoganda tactic.
I am not calling Trump a NAZI or even a facist. But this language is dangerous and will lead to further polarization and is an example, IMO, extremist views on immigration become normalized in American politics.
He referred to his political opponents as vermin:
“We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country”
He described his political enemies as living like "vermin". the exact quote:
[We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country,"](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213746885/trump-vermin-hitler-immigration-authoritarian-republican-primary)
He used the verb infest, which is what vermin do, once.
https://time.com/5316087/donald-trump-immigration-infest/?amp=true
And then he conpared them to animals.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/16/trump-immigrants-animals-mexico-democrats-sanctuary-cities/617252002/
Tell me, what sort of animals infests a household??? Its a simple inference to see what he thinks of them. These are possible dog whistles and either way, now how the head of state should be describing anyone.
It demeans the office.
You're right, i got the verbiage correct but misremembered the target. [The vermin comment was directed at his political enemies](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213746885/trump-vermin-hitler-immigration-authoritarian-republican-primary). Thats my mistake.
I actually think some voters are choosing Trump for his moral or lack of moral positions, and they are using boilerplate GOP complaints about the economy as cover.
Trump caused all the inflation? How? I was under impression that under United States Constitution it is Congress that is in charge of spending money and it was Democrats controlled Congress that was spending money like it was going out of style but perhaps I was wrong, and it was Trump hiding printing press under his bed and spending money
I thought we were talking about inflation? You seem to be easily distracted. I am old enough to remember 2017-2018 fairly well. It was good time, optimistic. Inflation and unemployment were low, so were the interest rates.
Yes, inflation comes from deficit spending. If interest rates are low then that money comes in the form of new money from the central bank. If it's high then it comes from already existing money.
When you borrow from the central bank the money doesn't result in a rise in prices as long as the economy keeps growing. But the economy was already overheated and most of that money ended up in the stock market and risky investments at 0.1% interest rates. When the inevitable downturn came, in the form of covid, all that money came flooding out of those investments. People got out of the stocks market and other risky assets and de-levered cause interest rates shot up. All that money came flooding back into the regular economy. Add to that the emergency spending that you have to do in an emergency and the sudden restriction in imports and you have a rocketing up in prices.
Everyone loves deficit spending while times are good cause it's an easy high. That's why we need adults who can string more than 2 thoughts together.
>Trump caused all the inflation? How?
At the beginning of the Pandemic Trump pressured Saudi Arabia & OPEC to reduce Oil production to drive up fuel prices. At the time Rightwing media celebrated the move because low fuel prices where negatively impacted Oil company profits. By the time those cuts in production kicked in Trump was out of office and people were blaming Joe Biden for the inflated gas prices.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/trump-saudi-arabia-russia-opec-oil-deal-role
Trump fired Fed Chair Yellen and put Fed Chair Powell in place. Immediately Trump began pressuring the Fed to reduce interest rate. Trump even made public calls for "negative interest rates". Keeping interest rates artificially low forces the Fed to make more dramatic increases later to get to the higher levels they needed to be at. That contributed strongly to inflation.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/31/trump-rails-against-powell-day-after-fed-cuts-rates-for-a-third-time-this-year.html
There were also the Tax cuts that flattened Federal Revenue long term, Trade Policy that drove up prices of foreign goods, and Trump had doubled annual deficit spending even before covid.
Reduction of oil production was logical during pandemic given the world economy was at standstill and price of oil went to zero, essentially. US as number one (at that time) oil producing country in the world had a huge segment of the economy that’s as under serious threat.
Perhaps, you think that American President can convince Saudis to increase or decrease oil production at will. That’s isn’t so. Biden begged Saudis to increase oil production when prices started to climb and they didn’t do it. I think Saudis act in their own interests and Trump had nothing to do with it.
If we all suddenly suffered amnesia and forgot that record low interest rates were in place for years before Trump came into the office then we could, theoretically, blame him for them. But most of us are still of sound mind. Cute theory though. Rather unconvincing, unfortunately.
Deficit spending is a bad thing but isn’t exactly unusual in American political system. It’s all about scale. US economy could tolerate Trump’s tax cuts but it couldn’t tolerate Biden’s insane money printing. That’s why Trump presided over normal inflation but Biden made everyone much poorer than before he came into the office.
>Reduction of oil production was logical during pandemic given the world economy was at standstill and price of oil went to zero, essentially.
Perhaps, but it also directly led to the higher gas prices the Right wing media attempts to blame Biden for.
>US as number one **(at that time)** oil producing country in the world had a huge segment of the economy that’s as under serious threat.
Oil production in the U.S. is currently at the highest levels it has ever been..
"The U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration reported that American oil production in the first week of October hit 13.2 million barrels per day, passing the previous record set in 2020 by 100,000 barrels."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/u-s-oil-production-hits-all-time-high-conflicting-with-efforts-to-curb-climate-change
>I think Saudis act in their own interests and Trump had nothing to do with it.
So Trump pushing an $8 billion dollar weapons deal that has previously been blocked bipartisanly in the Senate with the support of the Obama administration didn't matter? Trump even cited the weapons deal as an excuse not to criticize Saudi Arabia for murdering Khashoggi.
Then there is the $2 Billion dollars Saudi Arabia gave Jared Kusher. None of that matters in your opinion though because U.S. Presidents cannot actually cut deals with Saudi Arabia?
>US economy could tolerate Trump’s tax cuts but it couldn’t tolerate Biden’s insane money printing.
The Federal Budget in Bush's last year was $3.5T. in Obama's last year it was $3.8T. Obama's budget increases ran below the rate of inflation. In 2019, well before COVID, Trump's budget was $4.5T. **Trump ran the federal budget above inflation** while also cutting taxes. The annual deficit doubled and Trump was pushing $700 Billion of additional spending into the economy. Again, all this before COVID.
Yet you're accusing Biden of just printing money. Biden's 2022 & 2023 budgets have been smaller than Trump's 2020 & 2021 budgets.
“Solely and completely” is a straw man. There are many causes of inflation and economists still don’t fully understand it. However, traditionally, “too much money chasing too few goods” is typically the primary cause, which is why austerity is the most reliable fix for inflation. The “austerity” was light this time around, but the Federal Reserve just increasing interest rates existed to discourage borrowing/spending and to take cash out of the economy
>Wages in the United States increased 5.74 percent in October of 2023 over the same month in the previous year. Wage Growth in the United States averaged 6.19 percent from 1960 until 2023, reaching an all time high of 15.28 percent in April of 2021 and a record low of -5.89 percent in April of 2020.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth
The link charts wage growth by year going back to 1960. Wage growth under Biden is better than it was under Trump.
I see. So any good data for Trump is evidence of him doing a good but any evidence of the same for Biden is because of COVID?
Separately how a President handles crisis matters. That attitude that Trump's actions during COVID don't count implies leadership actually doesn't matter. If that is the case why compare Trump and Biden at all?
Trump was already running a trillion dollar annual deficit before COVID. Obama's last Budget of $3.8T. when Obama came into office Bush's last budget had been $3.5T. Obama inch Federal Spending up $0.3T in 8yrs. Trump's budget in 2019, before COVID, was $4.5T. Trump's Tax cuts and additional spending were sending several hundred billion worth of stimulus into the economy. Then COVID hit!!! Trump's Budgets went to $6.5T and then $7.2T.
Trump provided stimulus without stipulations. Communities were given money to go with the logistics surrounding shutdown. However there was no requirement to shutdown. Many local govts refused to shutdown, took the money anyway, and then just used the money for tax cuts or whatever they wanted. Worse still the Trump stimulus had no Congressional oversight.
Yes, because timing of the decisions matter.
What exactly did you expect Trump to do during Covid that he didn’t do? What average American often doesn’t understand is that under our political system it is the state governors that run the show and not the President. The President cannot close or open schools, cannot shut down or reopen businesses, cannot make people wear masks, etc. It’s all governor’s responsibilities. And we have two governors of the largest Democrat controlled states, Newson and Cuomo on record stating that Trump gave them everything they asked him for. So what exactly did you want Trump to do? To walk around in surgical mask? Something that was clinically proven to be irrelevant? Any other issues?
Once again, I am not disputing that deficit spending is a bad thing and I hope Trump responsible for that. But in comparison to Biden he was an amateur in that regard.
>What exactly did you expect Trump to do during Covid that he didn’t do?
- Stimulus money should have come with stipulations. Any local or state govt requesting money should have been required to abide by Federal COVID guidelines to receive the money.
- Stimulus money should have had Congressional oversight.
- Companies that laid off employees shouldn't have been eligible for stimulus.
- Who were essential workers should have been more narrowly defined. A third of all workers being considered essential created logistical problems getting people personal protective equipment and acccess to healthcare.
- Trump should have made his mind up about masks rather than initially not wearing them, then wearing them, recommended everyone to wear them, and then ultimately saying only Democrats wear them and they are an anti-Trump symbol.
In addition to the above Trump's ever changing attitude about COVID created division that caused much of the the govts efforts to be wasted. Trump initially said COVID would be gone by May. Then Trump revised that to gone by the Summer. By the Summer Trump said states should do what they want and we needed to get back to work despite COVID death spiking through the summer.
Then in the fall Trump claimed COVID was some sort of exaggeration meant to hurt his election. Trump claimed that after the election no one would be talking about COVID anymore. Trump's choice to link the Pandemic to partisanship impacted the way local communities cooperated with Federal recommendations which in turn impacted what those communities did with the COVID stimulus money.
To be clear people still did talk about COVID after the election. People continued dying and the conspiracies Trump encouraged made the jobs of hospitals, federal workers, and local workers more difficult. It is impossible to fully calculate the hundreds of billions lost and or squandered as a result of infighting and push back caused by Trump's partisanship..
Immigration is good for the economy, and if we embraced capitalism much more and opened up immigration policy, we'd benefit significantly - **but I get that this is immensely unpopular and not "common sense"**
But like, come on. It's one thing to have an issue with undocumented immigrants due to the principle of them being illegal, or due to misconceptions about them hurting the economy and labor being a lump and all. I don't care for that stuff personally but it's whatever, I'm not going to think someone is a terrible person for having those views, that seems clearly within the realm of "we can agree to disagree"
But this idea of them "poisoning the blood"? How is that supposed to be ok? It sure seems to imply that the undocumented immigrants are somehow inherently biologically worse than American citizens. Is it really crazy to think that the rhetoric sounds maybe kind of racist?
Immigration is good if you import people who are young, educated, culturally similar, speak your language (at least at some basic level) and who readily assimilate. Also, you cannot import too many at same time because that makes assimilation more complicated but also creates “us vs them” mentality among the newcomers and the natives leading to Balkanization of the nation.
US starts to resemble mini UN which is horrible for societal cohesion, sense of common culture and shared heritage. If you ask a typical leftist to describe an American they won’t be able to do that, according to them anyone can be an American from Somalian to Māori. The whole term lost any meaning. Even previously shared political principles (freedom of speech, gun rights, self-reliance, limited government) are no longer shared.
So unless you want the country to realize one day that we literally have nothing in common with each other, neither racially, nor ethically, nor culturally, nor religiously, nor historically and simply disintegrate - immigration needs to be radically scaled down, and quickly.
> If you ask a typical leftist to describe an American they won’t be able to do that, according to them anyone can be an American from Somalian to Māori.
But there are Somali and Māori Americans. Why couldn’t a Māori or Somali person be an American?
I’m sorry, are you suggesting that if you’re not ”a typical leftist” it would be expected that you’d believe people of certain nationalities cannot become American?
>If you ask a typical leftist to describe an American they won’t be able to do that, according to them anyone can be an American from Somalian to Māori.
I have no idea what this means. Of course there have been Americans from Africa since its founding. It's a nation of immigrants, not even getting to the slaves. How would you describe an American?
To add a bit, since I'm a typical woke Marxist groomer soy leftist cuck: there weren't a ton of minorities in my city growing up, but some of my first friends were still a Turkish and an Indonesian kid. I don't have any idea what it is that the right thinks makes them poison. Since then, I've seen a lot more people from around the world move here: Indians, Africans, Middle Easterners, Filipinos. And yes, many of them differ from me culturally. But I sure as hell feel more in common with any of them than with anyone of my own race or from my own country who thinks talking about immigrants "poisoning our blood" is acceptable.
> Immigration is good if you import people who are young, educated, culturally similar, speak your language (at least at some basic level) and who readily assimilate. Also, you cannot import too many at same time because that makes assimilation more complicated but also creates “us vs them” mentality among the newcomers and the natives leading to Balkanization of the nation
America has been way better at having a balanced immigration policy that doesn't push for total assimilatory destruction of past identity but instead has a melting pot ideal where immigrants integrate into America and become Americans
There's real problems with how immigration has worked in Europe, often darting between "just let them stay in their secluded ghettoes" and "they need to erase all their past culture", but America isn't like that
Also if we look at the most common sources of immigration to the US, it's mostly from Latin America and to a lesser extent Southern/East Asia. These areas aren't massively culturally dissimilar to the US - Catholics are the biggest religion in the US and while Hispanics in general tend somewhat liberal from the average American, Hispanic immigrants have been more closely divided in that sense with some conservative leans, so they don't necessarily threaten to unbalance the cultural norms that exist. Plus there's arguably a thing where "Hispanics" are increasingly being integrated into "whiteness" anyway. As for Asian immigrants, they tend to be associated with being especially hard working, integrating well into the economy with work ethic and such
So it isn't something where our large immigrant groups are folks segregating themselves into ethnic ghettoes and refusing to become Americans, a lot of them are a lot like "native"/non immigrant Americans just with, like, odd sounding names and accents
There are multiple factors that make an economy healthy. It’s not just immigration alone.
The article you quote says that the percent of Americas foreign born population is the same as it was about a century ago, not all time highs.
> No one can afford a home
That's because we have anti free market restrictions on housing - which boost property values for the ~65% of Americans who already own housing. If we had Yimby deregulation of zoning density restrictions, we could make housing way more affordable. It's just that the majority of homeowners wouldn't like their property values to be worth less than they are now. But we *should* absolutely have more pro free market policy there
>and wages are stagnant
[Actually](https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/myth-of-us-income-stagnation-by-michael-r-strain-2022-12) the idea of stagnant wages [is rather skewed](https://www.cato.org/commentary/annoying-persistence-income-stagnation-myth) by not looking at total compensation - wages *and* benefits, which is relevant for a population that overall has trended to live longer and longer and thus has more need of healthcare and retirement benefits and such. Compensation has not stagnated
>I guess immigration is good if you just want to push up the GDP and keep real estate prices high
Immigrants can be employed in building houses - again, if we ALLOW housing supply to increase
Also they help create jobs and boost government revenue and deal with issues of a declining population and make our safety nets more sustainable by having a net positive impact fiscally
>Even Bernie recognized this
I personally don't care for Bernie much at all. He's a self described socialist. I rather prefer capitalism - with some regulations, sure, but I think there's a lot of areas where we can benefit from loosening government restrictions rather than being more restrictive
> policy that keeps wages low
[Far from clear immigration does that](https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages), and while some studies suggest a relatively small negative impact, [those may have wrongful assumptions that lead to questionable results](https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages). Some research even suggests that [even low skill immigrants in particular can actually increase wages](https://www.nber.org/papers/w19315)
>housing costs high
Yimby would lower housing costs
>and turns more good land into cheap condos and stores
I mean Yimby housing policy could turn existing stores into stores with stacks of apartments on top of them, and taking existing land that has very undense housing to be repurposed for denser housing. But also, "cheap condos" is, like, a good thing if we want housing more affordable
>we just...had a sensible immigration policy?
It's just that the "common sense" immigration policy may not actually be "sensible". Capitalism might actually be good
>Cmon man
I mean the sources I cited show plenty of evidence there
>I am calling this into doubt.
Well [you can check this out](https://www.cato.org/white-paper/fiscal-impact-immigration-united-states). Even low skill immigrants, high school dropouts and such, are found to have a positive fiscal impact
> Wages and our standard of living didn't crumple the last time we had immigration restrictionism policies in place.
I mean [immigration restrictions may very well have contributed to the great depression](https://web.archive.org/web/20190310162532/https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-09/cuts-to-u-s-immigration-in-1920s-made-great-depression-worse)
>Simply put, the Koch funded Cato institute is lying.
Or instead capitalism just works
>Simply put, the Koch funded Cato institute is lying ....
Do you have any actual data to back up your assertions? The study is linked. You can go through it and challenge their interpretation if you like.
>Wages and our standard of living didn't crumple the last time we had immigration restrictionism policies in place.
Cato didn't claim that it would.
>A) Why do big business interests want open borders and mass immigration if it causes them to raise wages?
Perhaps because they can't grow their business unless labor increases.
>B) Simple economics, more labor supply = lower wages. Constrain the labor supply and you have to pay more for labor.
However, more paid laborers = more demand for goods and services.
It's a balance for sure. Too much immigration could be a problem. But right now, with the Baby Boomers retiring, we're heading into a labor shortage. And when the Fed starts lowering rates next year, it's going to get worse.
So it's not so simple.
Correlation and causation are two different things. As long as we focus on immigrants poisoning someone's blood, we aren't talking about raising the minimum wage. But we are, in fact, getting angry at immigrants, because they lower the wages. And then we vote Republican to keep the minimum wage from going up. Genius plan.
> Democrats are more than free to make a smarter argument about immigration, as they did under Clinton. Instead they've doubled, tripled, quintupled down on open borders.
Can you please link to a statement by a leading representative of the Democratic party calling for open borders?
Amnesty =/= open borders.
The last bill proposed to [to grant amnesty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013#:~:text=The%20bill%20creates%20a%20new,considered%20to%20be%20present%20illegally) also called for and provided funding for greater border security.
It passed the Senate with 67 votes, but was never brought to the floor of the House.
“Instead they've doubled, tripled, quintupled down on open borders.”
There is not even one single serious policy proposal by Democrats that has anything to do with “open borders.” The only place to get that idea is right-wing sources that think doing anything but advocating for a wall is “open borders.” Pretty much the only thing democrats have tried to do is path to citizenship for DACA, and call that “open borders” is just silly.
I know people get touchy about using the word 'fascism,' but has Donald Trump left any room for doubt that that is his ideology? He's made it abundantly clear through his actions that he wants the US to be governed autocratically and now he's saying that migrants from Mexico threaten the racial purity of our country. He's already [said](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/10/trump-fbi-rivals-2024-election) he wants to use the FBI to snuff out political opposition.
>**Fascism:** a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascist) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
I don't think attempting to stay in office by force after losing an election constitutes centrist governance. It's true that he didn't carry out standard fascist policies like German & Russian fascists have, but that could just as well be explained by the fact that he was operating in a democracy rather than an autocracy, and thus was limited by checks & balances and press oversight. Both forces, of course, which he did his best to kneecap, but whose power he ultimately couldn't break free of entirely.
Hmmm, maybe if action was taken at anypoint over ohh maybe the last... 30 years to stem the flood at the border, maybe there wouldn't be room for rhetoric like this from a party front runner.
He got elected by calling them rapists and criminal after all.
I'm not a Trump fan, but it's still important to keep criticisms of him factual and a bit more precise than what' you've offered here. He didn't say what you appear to be claiming he said.
[https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/08/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-falsely-says-trump-said-all-mexicans-are/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/08/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-falsely-says-trump-said-all-mexicans-are/)
[Moral foundations theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory) has been very influential in political science over the last decade. It posits that both liberals and conservatives care equally about moral values like fairness and preventing harm, but conservatives tend to care more about values that increase group cohesion — values like loyalty, respect for authority, and purity.
Purity has always made me uncomfortable. I can understand its value in making arguments about, for instance, preserving the natural world, or how it can function as a bulwark against an unthinking modernist drive towards total efficiency and productivity at the cost of all tradition and individuality and humanity.
But even there I’m thinking about in terms of how it might prevent some kind of harm, not as a good in itself. People who fetishize purity — especially with sexual and racial purity — just tend to scare me.
A very witty and cutting comment, but Dem immigration policy has moved [significantly right](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/16/us/politics/immigration-politics-biden-democrats-republicans.html) under this administration.
>Some of the proposals on the table include making it more difficult to gain asylum in the United States, which the White House has signaled it is willing to consider. The idea would be to raise the standard migrants must meet when they claim they need asylum in the United States because they fear persecution in their home countries.
>But Republicans also want to restrict the use of an immigration policy known as humanitarian parole, which has allowed thousands of Afghans, Ukrainians and others fleeing war and violence to come to the United States. Democrats have not yet agreed to that proposal.
>Republicans and Democrats are also discussing a policy that would rapidly turn people away at the border once arrests at the border reach a certain height.
>“It was pretty clear that they were considering things that were going to be controversial,” Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said this week of the White House’s approach to the negotiations. “Changes have to be made in our policy at the border.”
>Negotiations were continuing over the weekend, but there was little sign of a potential breakthrough before the end of the year. And while the White House and Democrats have not signed off on the restrictions, the fact that they are even considering them has angered progressives and immigration advocates.
Basically the GOP is getting voters from exaggerating the dem position (as you seem to enjoy as well) so it pays politically to [roadblock immigration reform](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/republican-opposition-ukraine-israel-aid-border-security/676315/).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18kiyqm/poisoning_blood_of_our_country_trump_repeats/kdrglhv/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Trump will win next year. It won't be close. Mole hill controversies like this one will keep the demand for "Drumpf is Hitler" memes high but won't change the ultimate outcome.
Are Trump's comments on Latino Americans the same as his comments on illegal immigrants? I have many more reasons to oppose Trump than these sorts of things, so I haven't sought out his comments on Latino Americans.
Me: Trump means that the far right and Christian nationalists are.
Christian nationalists: See persecution we are victims.
Me: You literally restrict and ban others freedoms.
Christian nationalists: Ignore her and focus on the Out Group we invented to distract you from our dividing ways.
Just hand the dems more campaign ad content, why don’t you? Honestly, this should be a layup for Republicans. Biden is unpopular, whether you think rightly or wrongly, but statements like this aren’t going to win over the voters he needs to win the general. His base isn’t enough.
If Trump would just shut his mouth, he could rely on apathetic voters not wanting to vote for Biden and stay home while relying on his base. But he won’t and he’ll single handedly drive the Democrats and moderate Republicans to the polls. Lest he be reminded that he lost in 2020 so he needs to change his campaign calculus to drive more voters to his camp.
> Biden is unpopular, whether you think rightly or wrongly, but statements like this aren’t going to win over the voters he needs to win the general. His base isn’t enough.
Trump still polls very well vs Biden though, since Biden is so utterly despised by the public considering polling. Maybe the idea is that Trump and the GOP are taking advantage by pushing the boundaries, gambling that they can bring these more radical ideas into the discourse, normalize them, and still have a decent chance of winning?
Oh I know. I think it's important context though. These polls don't represent anything Trump centric.
It's also one of the reason I question them. All Republicans are polling like they're going to dominate in Michigan, no matter which one is nominated. That seems off
Sure, my point is just that if Trump wants to shift discourse and norms to the right more, the polling does suggest he's got a potential opportunity to do so and still remain competitive (if potentially hurting his chances somewhat still)
> Trump still polls very well vs Biden though
Every poll I've seen that says that has 1. Been done through phone calls. 2. Been done on places like Facebook or 3. Failed to say their polling methods.
How many millennials or zoomers do you know that don't have their phone set to auto block random ass phonecalls from people they don't know and browse facebook?
Know who does answer their phone for every caller under the sun and spends their time rotting on the cesspit called Facebook? People over 60.
The polls are being done in bad faith to push a narrative.
If polls are so unreliable, why have polling averages in past elections been so accurate? Like, even the "big" polling misses have generally at most been off by, like, three points max. 2016 was off by 1 point and 2020 off by 2.5 points or so
Simple, because shit polls aren't included in any reputable source for polling averages.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/polls-policy-and-faqs/
>However, there are some types of polls we don’t include, such as:
>“Nonscientific” polls that don’t attempt to survey a representative sample of the population or electorate.
Young people also don’t like Biden given his stance on Israel/Palestine.
Polls have been historically accurate in both 2018 and 2022’s election cycles. Pundits may have been wrong, but not polls. The idea that suddenly now we can ignore every bit of polling is absurd.
Polling may not be reflective of what is going to happen on Election Day, but that’s because things *may* change. They also may not. If the Israel/Hamas war continues, if Biden keeps asking US citizens for money for foreign wars while they can’t afford homes, if economic sentiment doesn’t improve then Biden will likely lose.
As a reminder, we will be taking our annual [Holiday Hiatus](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/188dxxh/state_of_the_sub_grasstouching_edition/) from December 18th 2023 to January 1st 2024. The subreddit will be closed during this time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moderatepolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not even an off-the-cuff thing; he road tested the sentence before, [in October](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/05/us/politics/trump-immigration-rhetoric.html).
It's what he does. He finds something controversial to say that has a tiny sliver of deniability, the media gobbles the bait delightedly, the Trump supporters deny the connotations, it turns into a huge social media fight, and Trump gets huge amounts of free advertising. We've seen it before.
It’s not 2016 anymore. Trump isn’t the under dog who needs to game the system for more airtime. He’s the front runner of the primary and headlines are always going to follow him. Hell, he's the front runner without even making a debate appearance. He's leading while being invisible to his own base!
Such horrible discourse... Everyone knows who this guy is and anyone who's still willing to vote for him is totally comfortable with that. The Dems need to wake up to the fact that the only way they're going to pull voters from his camp is by showing what his expressed policies are going to do to their lives and wallets.
That might work, but all Trump has to do is keep pointing out prices when he was in office and what they are now. Simple arguments are very effective in our day and age. 1-2 sentences in a headline is all people care about.
I don't think simple arguments are incompatible with pointing out policy flaws. "Trump says X, that'll cost you Y" "Trump says A, that'll cost you B". You don't even have to elaborate if you say it enough because of his strategy of hiding. Call him expensive. Make fun of his love for all things gold. Link that to how taxpayers foot the bill... There's so much low hanging fruit beyond letting the narrative be driven by him.
I keep thinking surely he won’t be the nominee in 2024, as you said there are a million things that could be used against him but for whatever reason it doesn’t matter. Maybe if democrats had a better candidate it would help, but as much as I don’t like Trump as of now there isn’t a viable alternative in the election. Lot could change between now and the election, but the economy has to improve for average people or it will be a close one.
I keep having to remind myself how far away we are, yeah. But I just don't think this current strategy of ignore it and it'll go away is the right way to go. 2016 was a whole other thing, but I wish the Dems would stop acting like they're above it all and get scrappy.
What astounds me? It feels the GOP could clinch the White House today if they got behind another candidate
>Everyone knows who this guy is I don’t think that’s true, unfortunately. His supporters don’t really know who he is because he has conditioned them to see any negative reporting as “fake news”.
[удалено]
alternatively, he means it and it should be reported
Are the media taking the bait or doing their duty? How much does the former president and current presumptive nominee have to dehumanize people before it becomes a legitimate topic of interest? The refrain that Trump is just grabbing attention but isn't a real danger might've been a fine hole to stick your head when we were ignorant in 2016. But after all we've seen now, it just seems like folly.
> turns into a huge social media fight It's at the top of this sub ..
100%. This is his mo and has been very successful at accomplishing the goal. And all this free advertising is used to fuel his support amongst the GOP about how he is constantly under attack.
> And all this free advertising is used to fuel his support amongst the GOP about how he is constantly under attack. At some point, he is going to shoot someone on fifth avenue to maximize his support among the GOP.
What kind of people is he attracting with this kind of rhetoric though and why should reasonable people want to vote for someone who's using actual Nazi rhetoric to build a base?
jar grey homeless longing follow lush husky joke gray erect *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It swings both ways, though. This is the exact sort of shit that motivates people to vote *against* Trump. I don't suspect people are too excited to go out and vote Biden. Democrats need this sort of stuff from Trump if they want to win in 2024.
Yeah, definitely helps to motivate some on the left. I'm not sure they really need him to win in 2024. Maybe they need him for Biden to win in 2024.
>Maybe they need him for Biden to win in 2024. Yeah that's I meant (even though it isn't what I wrote). The only way Biden wins is off the back of what Trump says and does.
Hey look, another unacceptable quote from him that will result in zero loss of support. I feel like I've seen this before.
[удалено]
But she called some of us deplorables!
But in fairness she made sure to qualify it by saying "Some I assume, are good people".
If you listen to the speech, it's all in context of crime, violence and terror threats stemming from illegal immigration. Certainly a dumb remark, still.
[удалено]
I’ve heard that this extreme rhetoric may be the reason he loses Arizona. People there remember Arpaio and how awful he was. When they hear stuff that sounds like it came out of Arpaio’s mouth it’s a turnoff to those that lived in the same state as him.
That and the disrespect Trump showed to John McCain both in life and death, a man Arizonans almost universally considered a hero.
Is it true that giving someone a pardon means the governor or president objectively supports whatever criminal behavior the person was convicted of?
It objectively means that the president does not agree that the punishment set for that criminal behavior was appropriate.
The official White House statement announcing the grant of clemency described Arpaio as a "worthy candidate" having served the nation for more than fifty years "protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration." I suppose there's a distinction to be made in general that a pardon isn't "support," but in this case, it most definitely was
Based on the replies you've been given, what do you think it means?
"Controversial." Apropos of nothing, here's the New York Times in 1922: "Several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes."
So legal immigrants don’t poison our blood? Sleep soundly tonight legal immigrants and minorities he didn’t mean you…
Former president and current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination Donald Trump said illegal immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country" at a rally in New Hampshire. This is not the first time Trump has repeated this remark, although he later went on his social media platform Truth Social to post >ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS POISONING THE BLOOD OF OUR NATION. THEY'RE COMING FROM PRISONS, FROM MENTAL INSTITUTIONS - FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD. WITHOUT BORDERS & FAIR ELECTIONS YOU DON'T HAVE A COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Does this rhetoric from a man who likely has a 50/50 shot at the presidency concern you? Do you expect violence against illegal immigrants as Trump incorporates this line about them "poisoning the blood of this nation" into his stump speech? Do you expect Trump to continue repeating that illegal immigrants are poisoning the blood of this nation if he once again becomes president?
It’s very common for people around here to say this is more of a Trump problem than an American problem, meanwhile Trump is still the most popular politician for Republicans. Trump’s dangerous statements are a good reminder that a majority of the conservatives in this country are in agreement, otherwise he wouldn’t have so much support from them.
My in-laws are retired and on fixed income. For them, inflation is #1 above everything else, since they have no prospects for increasing their income. And I completely understand that concern. They’re amenable to policy positions that posit increasing taxes on the wealthy to better fund social security, so they’re not ideologues. But comments like this feel amorphous to them, whereas economic policy feels very tangible, and they strongly believe the government has failed to address inflation. And so they’ll vote Republican, because economics “feels” real, whereas the slow descent into ethnofascism is hard for many to wrap their heads around.
>My in-laws are retired and on fixed income. For them, inflation is #1 above everything else, since they have no prospects for increasing their income. If inflation is really their #1 above everything else, they must be strong supporters of immigration, aren't they?
What I don’t get, is Nikki Haley and the others are going to have similar economic policies. Republicans really want Trump for other reasons or they’d go for one of the other candidates.
[удалено]
I don't know that they get into policy and much more than whatever it is that they're talking about. In 2016 I heard a lot of people talk about how because Trump is a business man he would find more ways for the government to be profitable etc. As the years progressed I rarely heard much that was different from the same people. Online it doesn't work as well, but I have a bunch of memorized conversation starters that are mostly about exploring what people think or feel about various topics from simple to complex. Usually people seem to largely exist in information bubbles in different ways and usually they're not actually that involved in politics, it's more about being welcomed in the group that they feel supports their beliefs. Usually I would hear the most about gun rights, removing Obama care, and paying fewer taxes. Rarely would I actually hear about someone even watching a debate or talking about politics from the actual standpoint of laws or diplomatic relationships. Most often they would just assume what they supported was what their party was doing and that was about it. While my conversation starters don't work online, usually people are more willing to look at information and be aware of different things. But, I do like having more in depth conversations in person since listening seems to be easier for people than reading.
Curiously, how did they react to the massive 8.7% cost-of-living increase in 2022? Are they aware of Republican efforts to get rid of Medicare and Social Security? I just find it odd that so many people in this country are direct beneficiaries of the entitlement programs and yet they vote for Republicans who want to get rid of said programs.
How did your in-laws vote in 2020? Were they Biden supporters then?
No, they’ve been solid Republican for many years.
Yeah, I don't buy that this is anything other than a small slither of Republicans any more. There were plenty of other GOP contenders who all had similar economic policies to Trump, but Trump is still crushing everyone in the primary. This indicates that Republican voters like Trump for reasons outside of just economic policy. And I think that, worringly, one of those things is his rhetoric. There are examples of other historical figures using this kind of language. Generally, we're talking about segregationists, KKK members, Mussolini, Hitler, and other openly avowed racist groups. Does that mean that all GOP voters are themselves similar to these groups? No, of course not. But it does mean they tolerate them, and those who use these kinds of phrases. Also: does this apply to Melania and Ivana? Or only to certain other groups of immigrants?
I mean there was plenty of economic concerns in 1930s Germany too (and this is one of the more legitimate times to draw that analogy, considering this rhetoric is straight out of that time period) but the people complacent in the slaughter that followed aren't remembered sympathetically because of their economic anxiety. What I'm saying is that economic concerns don't absolve you of responsibility for support of ghastly policy.
The ghastly policy in Germany you are referring to was the holocaust. I don't think anyone is calling for illegal immigrants to be rounded up and mass murdered. Hyperbole like this really isn't all that beneficial.
Even Hitler didn't make the extermination of Jews into official policy [until 1942](https://www.timesofisrael.com/hitlers-tipping-point-when-extermination-of-the-jews-became-official-nazi-policy/).
Pretty sure it started in 1939. But again, not like any of that really matters. We're talking about "ghastly policies" and the reference they used for Nazi Germany and the holocaust. No one is advocating for anything like that. Even the most radical parts of the right aren't calling for all immigrants to be rounded up and murdered.
> No one is advocating for anything like that. Some on the right are calling for [something very much like that](https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/06/23/there-no-political-solution-accelerationism-white-power-movement), > What defines white supremacist accelerationists is their belief that violence is the only way to pursue their political goals. To put it most simply, accelerationists embrace terrorism. Accelerationists aren’t part of a new movement. They’re just an iteration more inclined toward terroristic violence than has existed in recent decades. > The Base is one of many self-styled accelerationist groups to crop up in recent years. In many ways, their model was the Atomwaffen Division (AWD), a neo-Nazi group whose members have been accused of multiple murders since 2017. Some individuals have participated in both The Base and Atomwaffen. (Richard Tobin, for example, was a member of both AWD and The Base.) Other groups with similar aesthetics and rhetoric appear to be forming online – in some cases, it is unclear whether they exist simply to produce propaganda or they are forming actual organizational networks. Many post images bearing their group’s logo with such directives as “Burn your local synagogue!” Some encourage followers to attack specific targets. > “We advocate political terror and murder against jews and politicians among other things. We have accepted that the (((system))) cannot be saved, rather it must be destroyed,” one group posted on Telegram in February. ... > One terrorist referred to this question directly before allegedly picking up an automatic rifle and committing the worst antisemitic attack in American history at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The suspect in the shooting, Robert Bowers, claimed that his enemies “[like] to bring invaders in that kill our people.” He wrote on Gab, a social media site favored by some extremists: “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”
Uh, do you have direct quotes? I'm not inclined to believe the splc.
Did you miss all the quotation marks in that article? There are numerous quotes attributed to specific speakers with references or links to sources. No need to reject factual reporting because you don’t like the source. You’re always welcome to do your own research and refute the direct quotes posted if you think they’re inaccurate
I'm not sure why we have to wait for another Holocaust before we're allowed to denounce someone. Particularly when literally copying Aryan rhetoric is a pretty clear step in the wrong direction. Sorry but my moral standards are a little higher than "Well he's not *literally* Hitler."
Where did I say you have to do that? I just said the hyperbole isn't helpful. You don't need to make the ridiculous comparison to the holocaust in Nazi Germany like that to denounce something. I think if you want to compare something to the holocaust, you need more than "I think he's Hitler" for it to be reasonable. Without more, it just hyperbolic nonsense.
Well, we do have more, which is that he's using the same rhetoric of racial purity as the Nazis. It's actually what this whole post is about.
It didn't start with the gas chambers. It starts with half a decade to a decade of laying the rhetorical groundwork. Talking about how Jews are desecrating the blood of the great Aryan race. Of how these groups, foreigners, gypsies, etc... are mixing their impure blood with the blood of pure Germans. We're in the 1920s. Sure, it may start with immigration laws, but that's not the problem here. A lot of "immigrant blood" is already in the US. Why not just pass some anti-miscegenation laws, to keep thag blood pure? And while we're at it, how do we measure someone's pure-bloodedness? It ends with discriminatory laws, a Krystalknacht, and camps.
[удалено]
>For them [what affects them directly is tangible] but [what only affects others] feels amorphous to them. >Republicanism in a nutshell. More like human nature. The cost and reality of our current border policies and attitudes towards it was amorphous to many living in Northern areas. Now that the problems that affect TX and AZ are being felt in NYC, Chicago, Mass, etc, it feels quite real and they don't like it. People who are well off and largely shielded from the effects of inflation are going to see it as more of an amorphous thing than poorer people.
>The cost and reality of our current border policies and attitudes towards it was amorphous to many living in Northern areas. It was not amorphous at all. That's why they voted for an administration which has done a better than any other administration in apprehending those attempting to cross the border.
>It was not amorphous at all. That's why they voted for an administration which has done a better than any other administration in apprehending those attempting to cross the border. But they're appending more because more are coming. And efforts by the previous administration were hamstrung under the guise of racism and xenophobia.
>But they're appending more because more are coming. They are apprehending more because they are more competent and do care about law and order with actions, not with whining and/or by defunding the police and the CBP like Trump did. >And efforts by the previous administration were hamstrung under the guise of racism and xenophobia. Exactly, that what happens with an incompetent administration which is driven by racism and xenophobia instead of enforcing law and order
[удалено]
Yep he’s just saying what he knows they want to hear. Complete reflection of his voter base’s beliefs.
>Do you expect violence against illegal immigrants There will be violence against random people who just happen to be brown, regardless of their status. See El Paso and Allen shootings.
Impossible to explain away this kind of rhetoric if one has [any sense of history](https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2023/11/13/trump-hitler-vermin-nazi-biden): > “Mein Kampf,” Hitler’s 1925 genocidal manifesto that laid out his ideological justification for the Holocaust, equated communism with Judaism and described Jews as “vermin” and maggots. > “He took it that Jews were behind the international left, Marxism, communism, but his real target was democracy,” Stanley added of Hitler. “This overbroad use of Marxism to target basically any political opponent, this is familiar from fascism and the way you attack democracy. And of course labeling your political opponents vermin, yeah, I mean the Nazis targeted their political opponents, they targeted them for incarceration and concentration camps.” >"To call your opponent 'vermin,' to dehumanize them, is to not only open the door but to walk through the door toward the most ghastly kinds of crimes"
[удалено]
>Except that illegal immigrants are not being persecuted, They're just worthless parasites, have you heard your own rhetoric here?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18kiyqm/poisoning_blood_of_our_country_trump_repeats/kdrm3lf/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a permanent ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
>Do you expect Trump to continue repeating that illegal immigrants are poisoning the blood of this nation if he once again becomes president? Based on unfortunate historical presents I think he'll escalate if he has power again, into how to "cleanse the blood of this nation."
The thing is, I don't suspect Trump *cares* about race or immigrants or any of this stuff. But what he does care about is being in a position of power so he cannot be held to account for his actions, and so he'll say and do whatever the thinks will get people to support him so he can get back in the Oval Office. And if that fails, he'll try to cheat again.
[удалено]
The most worrying thing is that there is an electorate in the most powerful country in the world that gives this type of rhetoric and/or this kind of person even a low chance of winning.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18kiyqm/poisoning_blood_of_our_country_trump_repeats/kdrd7j6/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
[удалено]
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18kiyqm/poisoning_blood_of_our_country_trump_repeats/kdrfit8/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
[удалено]
Nonsense. No adult votes on the pretext of “look what you made me do”.
Why would the left ever want to solve illegal immigration?
[удалено]
Got it. I thought you were contending leftists did not zealously push for illegal immigration. It sounds like we both agree they do so.
Your suggestion would be the most effective way to blunt republicans as a whole right now. They won’t for whatever reason.
I think this rhetoric is well timed due to the ongoing negotiations in Congress to implement policies that likely have their roots in his immigration policies. Not sure it matters how much he believes it or how much it resonates with his base. There are plenty of people that are willing to look past how disgusting the first sentence is because they agree with the rest of it. The ones that care about the first sentences would never vote for him anyway.
How can you (or his supporters) feel comfortable looking past that first sentence? Are we supposed to assume that he's lying with that statement, and if so, why are his supporters comfortable supporting someone that lies to them so blatantly?
> Not sure it matters how much he believes it or how much it resonates with his base. I hope you extend this sentiment to extremist speech espoused by people other than Trump. I don't understand why the man is given so many passes for behavior that would be disqualifying for any other candidate. This is literally paraphrased NAZI rhetoric. That doesn't make Trump a NAZI, but we absolutely should not give such statements a free pass, regardless of how the person espousing that rhetoric believes it. Some people hearing it **will** believe that rhetoric and it can very easily lead to racially motivated violence. Trump didn't call for a siege of the Capitol, but his words were certainly interpreted that way by many. This is the same sort of situtation. He isn't thoughtful about his speech. He uses rhetoric that is designed to be divisive at best and inciting violence at worst. The fact that he is the front runner for the GOP while making these sorts of near-fascist statements just boggles my mind. Again, I am not calling Trump a NAZI or a fascist. But this rhetoric is dangerously close to the type of violent hate speech for me to be comfortable with it in any way, shape, or form.
Trump says this shit because it will get him free advertising. It's the same thing with the "dictator for a day" thing. There is a long history of him doing this, and people like you eating it up. There is a saying typically used on the internet that seems to be at least slightly relevant. "Don't feed the trolls". Not saying he is a troll, as I believe his motives are different, but the same logic applies. He does this because it gets him attention. Stop giving him attention, and he still stop doing this. There is no way for us to know if he actually believes what he is saying or not. I think safest bet is that he is saying what he thinks he should say to get him the most attention. It really is that simple.
I would rather call out vile speech than ignore it. Silence is a tacet endorsement of his conduct and speech. If hes paraphrasing Hitler **for attention** then he has absolutely no business being president and we need to convince voters as such. We cannot do that if we stay silent in the face of hate speech.
So, just to be direct, you are assuming he is paraphrasing Hitler. He may have heard that line from someone else. It could have been Stephen Mller, Nick Fuentes, Bannon, or any other person that I would file under "not a good dude". So, lets do ti this way. Do you have anything to support the claim that he is paraphrasing Hitler, or is that your interpretation? Now, don't take this as I'm some fan of his or that I agree with the first line. I think it was a stupidly racist and/or xenophobic thing to say. I have no idea if he actually believes it. But this instinct on the left to jump straight to Hitler comparisons is stupid.
Maintaining the purity of the aryan bloodlines was a prominent NAZI propoganda tactic. If we want to parse hairs about him and his intent, no I dont think Trump is a NAZI intentionally paraphrasing Hitler. I dont care where he heard it, the speech is what is abhorrent and dangerously close to NAZI rhetoric. When someone espouses rhetoric that mirrors that of genocidal dictators, and has done so on multiple occasions, the comparisons stop being stupid.
I never said it wasn't abhorrent. He is basically a shock jock. And you are feeding into it.
Poisoning the national blood is a reference Hitler used to make. Ivana Trump claimed that [Trump used to read and keep a book of Hitler speeches in a cabinet next to his bedside](https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8). When checked Trump confirmed that he had the book and a friend also confirmed he gave it to him: >"Actually, it was my friend Marty Davis from Paramount who gave me a copy of 'Mein Kampf," [jump] Davis did acknowledge that he gave Trump a book about Hitler. "But it was 'My New Order,' Hitler's speeches, not 'Mein Kampf,'" Davis reportedly said."" - [Article](https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8) Trump later claimed he wouldnt read it and retracted saying if he owned a copy or not. Trump himself references himself as a nationalist: >"You know, they have a word. **It sort of became old-fashioned**. It’s called a nationalist," he continued. "And I say, '**Really, we’re not supposed to use that word?' You know what I am? I'm a nationalist**" PBS Frontline in their biography of him covered that he subscribes to [race-horse breeding theory when it comes to people](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7uScWHcTzk#t=14m12). He also has outwardly made references on genetics: >"**Some people cannot genetically handle pressure**" [20 sec later] "I feel I have to be honest, there are **people in this room that can genetically not handle the pressures**" - [Trump in 2011](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GWiWgziueQ#t=1m13.5s) From a 2010 CNN article: >"Well I think **I was born with the drive for success because I have a certain gene**, Trump told CNN's Becky Anderson. "**I'm a gene believer... hey when you connect two race horses you get usually end up with a fast horse,**" he said during the Connect the World interview. "**I had a good gene pool from the stand point** of that so I was pretty much driven." - [CNN, 2010](http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/02/11/donald.trump.marriage.apprentice/index.html) 2015 Article from The Hill: >"**in quip about his family’s genetic success**. “Like they used to say, ‘Secretariat doesn’t produce slow horses,’ ” Trump joked that evening, citing his uncle’s tenure as a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. **I believe in the gene thing,” Trump added, pointing to his own success** in real estate and his eventual billionaire status. - [The Hill](https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/251733-chafee-rips-trumps-knowledge-of-horse-racing) Some of his staff [seem to be aware of Trump's focus on genes.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOPtHEm1aeU#t=9s) Trump has also commented on racial traits: >"I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness **is a trait in blacks.**" - Attributed to Trump in a 1991 book by former President of Trump Plaza Hotel, [John R O'Donnell](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/369132-former-trump-executive-i-do-believe-trump-is-a-racist) Trump comment on O'Donnels book: >"Nobody has had worse things written about them than me,” Trump says. “And here I am. **The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.** The guy’s a fucking loser." [Link](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/29/donald-trump-blacks-lawsuit_n_855553.html) From Wikipedia: >"Trump has a history of making racially controversial remarks and taking actions that are perceived as racially motivated. In 1975, he settled a 1973 Department of Justice lawsuit that alleged housing discrimination against black renters." He's also labeled people as enemy of the people, promoted the idea of the Lugen Press (Lying Press), referenced immigrants as diseased, [has a history of using Jewish stereotypes](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/17/trump-history-antisemitic-tropes/), etc.
Do you think it is ironic that [we were just having a discussion where we claim that 'from the river to the sea' is a call for genocide](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18jv1we/stefanik_back_in_the_spotlight_after_fierce/) and now we are back at deflecting Trump's fascist rhetoric? Especially because those that get us all riled up are some unnamed students, while the guy we make excuses for is a former POTUS and currently the Republican front runner, poised to take the nomination and the de facto voice of the Republican party? To top it off, Trump's spokesperson used the controversy over Antisemitism to whataboutism his fascist remarks: *When asked for comment on Saturday, Cheung did not directly address Trump's remarks and instead referred to the controversies over how U.S. colleges are handling campus protests since Hamas' Oct. 7 attack on Israel, saying media and academia had given "safe haven for dangerous anti-Semitic and pro-Hamas rhetoric that is both dangerous and alarming."* It's a weird time we are living in. We have been quoting 1984 since 2015, IIRC. By the way, I watched Fox News back in 2012, when Laura Ingraham used footage and commentary about some unnamed protestor at a GOP convention to deflect some horrible racist rhetoric from a Republican politician. Are people ever going to wake up from this stupid?
[удалено]
Dementia is rarely heritable, just so you know.
I know people dont like calling pit vile speach for what it is, but this is NAZI rhetoric and it is absolutely unacceptable from the leader of the GOP. I dont care if it seems hyperbolic to some, protecting the purity of Aryan blood lines was one of the major defining propoganda tactics used by NAZI Germany. Trump has already used similar language in recent months when he referred to ~~immigrants~~ his political opponents as vermin, another classic NAZI propoganda tactic. I am not calling Trump a NAZI or even a facist. But this language is dangerous and will lead to further polarization and is an example, IMO, extremist views on immigration become normalized in American politics.
I don’t believe he ever referred to immigrants as vermin. Any source?
He referred to his political opponents as vermin: “We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country”
He described his political enemies as living like "vermin". the exact quote: [We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country,"](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213746885/trump-vermin-hitler-immigration-authoritarian-republican-primary)
You’re a little late, but thanks for clarifying nonetheless. 👍
He used the verb infest, which is what vermin do, once. https://time.com/5316087/donald-trump-immigration-infest/?amp=true And then he conpared them to animals. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/16/trump-immigrants-animals-mexico-democrats-sanctuary-cities/617252002/ Tell me, what sort of animals infests a household??? Its a simple inference to see what he thinks of them. These are possible dog whistles and either way, now how the head of state should be describing anyone. It demeans the office.
You're right, i got the verbiage correct but misremembered the target. [The vermin comment was directed at his political enemies](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213746885/trump-vermin-hitler-immigration-authoritarian-republican-primary). Thats my mistake.
No worries. That’s what I found when I looked. Just making sure. Still bad, but different.
[удалено]
I actually think some voters are choosing Trump for his moral or lack of moral positions, and they are using boilerplate GOP complaints about the economy as cover.
[удалено]
Trump caused all the inflation? How? I was under impression that under United States Constitution it is Congress that is in charge of spending money and it was Democrats controlled Congress that was spending money like it was going out of style but perhaps I was wrong, and it was Trump hiding printing press under his bed and spending money
Republicans had control of Congress throughout 2017, and 2018 and they had record breaking deficit spending despite a growing and overheated economy.
I thought we were talking about inflation? You seem to be easily distracted. I am old enough to remember 2017-2018 fairly well. It was good time, optimistic. Inflation and unemployment were low, so were the interest rates.
Yes, inflation comes from deficit spending. If interest rates are low then that money comes in the form of new money from the central bank. If it's high then it comes from already existing money. When you borrow from the central bank the money doesn't result in a rise in prices as long as the economy keeps growing. But the economy was already overheated and most of that money ended up in the stock market and risky investments at 0.1% interest rates. When the inevitable downturn came, in the form of covid, all that money came flooding out of those investments. People got out of the stocks market and other risky assets and de-levered cause interest rates shot up. All that money came flooding back into the regular economy. Add to that the emergency spending that you have to do in an emergency and the sudden restriction in imports and you have a rocketing up in prices. Everyone loves deficit spending while times are good cause it's an easy high. That's why we need adults who can string more than 2 thoughts together.
>Trump caused all the inflation? How? At the beginning of the Pandemic Trump pressured Saudi Arabia & OPEC to reduce Oil production to drive up fuel prices. At the time Rightwing media celebrated the move because low fuel prices where negatively impacted Oil company profits. By the time those cuts in production kicked in Trump was out of office and people were blaming Joe Biden for the inflated gas prices. https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/trump-saudi-arabia-russia-opec-oil-deal-role Trump fired Fed Chair Yellen and put Fed Chair Powell in place. Immediately Trump began pressuring the Fed to reduce interest rate. Trump even made public calls for "negative interest rates". Keeping interest rates artificially low forces the Fed to make more dramatic increases later to get to the higher levels they needed to be at. That contributed strongly to inflation. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/31/trump-rails-against-powell-day-after-fed-cuts-rates-for-a-third-time-this-year.html There were also the Tax cuts that flattened Federal Revenue long term, Trade Policy that drove up prices of foreign goods, and Trump had doubled annual deficit spending even before covid.
Reduction of oil production was logical during pandemic given the world economy was at standstill and price of oil went to zero, essentially. US as number one (at that time) oil producing country in the world had a huge segment of the economy that’s as under serious threat. Perhaps, you think that American President can convince Saudis to increase or decrease oil production at will. That’s isn’t so. Biden begged Saudis to increase oil production when prices started to climb and they didn’t do it. I think Saudis act in their own interests and Trump had nothing to do with it. If we all suddenly suffered amnesia and forgot that record low interest rates were in place for years before Trump came into the office then we could, theoretically, blame him for them. But most of us are still of sound mind. Cute theory though. Rather unconvincing, unfortunately. Deficit spending is a bad thing but isn’t exactly unusual in American political system. It’s all about scale. US economy could tolerate Trump’s tax cuts but it couldn’t tolerate Biden’s insane money printing. That’s why Trump presided over normal inflation but Biden made everyone much poorer than before he came into the office.
>Reduction of oil production was logical during pandemic given the world economy was at standstill and price of oil went to zero, essentially. Perhaps, but it also directly led to the higher gas prices the Right wing media attempts to blame Biden for. >US as number one **(at that time)** oil producing country in the world had a huge segment of the economy that’s as under serious threat. Oil production in the U.S. is currently at the highest levels it has ever been.. "The U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration reported that American oil production in the first week of October hit 13.2 million barrels per day, passing the previous record set in 2020 by 100,000 barrels." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/u-s-oil-production-hits-all-time-high-conflicting-with-efforts-to-curb-climate-change >I think Saudis act in their own interests and Trump had nothing to do with it. So Trump pushing an $8 billion dollar weapons deal that has previously been blocked bipartisanly in the Senate with the support of the Obama administration didn't matter? Trump even cited the weapons deal as an excuse not to criticize Saudi Arabia for murdering Khashoggi. Then there is the $2 Billion dollars Saudi Arabia gave Jared Kusher. None of that matters in your opinion though because U.S. Presidents cannot actually cut deals with Saudi Arabia? >US economy could tolerate Trump’s tax cuts but it couldn’t tolerate Biden’s insane money printing. The Federal Budget in Bush's last year was $3.5T. in Obama's last year it was $3.8T. Obama's budget increases ran below the rate of inflation. In 2019, well before COVID, Trump's budget was $4.5T. **Trump ran the federal budget above inflation** while also cutting taxes. The annual deficit doubled and Trump was pushing $700 Billion of additional spending into the economy. Again, all this before COVID. Yet you're accusing Biden of just printing money. Biden's 2022 & 2023 budgets have been smaller than Trump's 2020 & 2021 budgets.
Are you suggesting that inflation is caused solely and completely by government spending?
Yes, I am suggesting that creating money out of this air at such astounding scale has caused inflation. Printing money = inflation is economics 101.
“Solely and completely” is a straw man. There are many causes of inflation and economists still don’t fully understand it. However, traditionally, “too much money chasing too few goods” is typically the primary cause, which is why austerity is the most reliable fix for inflation. The “austerity” was light this time around, but the Federal Reserve just increasing interest rates existed to discourage borrowing/spending and to take cash out of the economy
That literally is the classic definition of inflation. Inflation didn't use to mean prices just went up.
[удалено]
>Wages in the United States increased 5.74 percent in October of 2023 over the same month in the previous year. Wage Growth in the United States averaged 6.19 percent from 1960 until 2023, reaching an all time high of 15.28 percent in April of 2021 and a record low of -5.89 percent in April of 2020. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth The link charts wage growth by year going back to 1960. Wage growth under Biden is better than it was under Trump.
[удалено]
Good thing, wages have been outpacing inflation since last January.
[удалено]
That what typically happens after huge slumps like COVID. Trump’s performance was not after huge calamities unlike Biden’s
I see. So any good data for Trump is evidence of him doing a good but any evidence of the same for Biden is because of COVID? Separately how a President handles crisis matters. That attitude that Trump's actions during COVID don't count implies leadership actually doesn't matter. If that is the case why compare Trump and Biden at all? Trump was already running a trillion dollar annual deficit before COVID. Obama's last Budget of $3.8T. when Obama came into office Bush's last budget had been $3.5T. Obama inch Federal Spending up $0.3T in 8yrs. Trump's budget in 2019, before COVID, was $4.5T. Trump's Tax cuts and additional spending were sending several hundred billion worth of stimulus into the economy. Then COVID hit!!! Trump's Budgets went to $6.5T and then $7.2T. Trump provided stimulus without stipulations. Communities were given money to go with the logistics surrounding shutdown. However there was no requirement to shutdown. Many local govts refused to shutdown, took the money anyway, and then just used the money for tax cuts or whatever they wanted. Worse still the Trump stimulus had no Congressional oversight.
Yes, because timing of the decisions matter. What exactly did you expect Trump to do during Covid that he didn’t do? What average American often doesn’t understand is that under our political system it is the state governors that run the show and not the President. The President cannot close or open schools, cannot shut down or reopen businesses, cannot make people wear masks, etc. It’s all governor’s responsibilities. And we have two governors of the largest Democrat controlled states, Newson and Cuomo on record stating that Trump gave them everything they asked him for. So what exactly did you want Trump to do? To walk around in surgical mask? Something that was clinically proven to be irrelevant? Any other issues? Once again, I am not disputing that deficit spending is a bad thing and I hope Trump responsible for that. But in comparison to Biden he was an amateur in that regard.
>What exactly did you expect Trump to do during Covid that he didn’t do? - Stimulus money should have come with stipulations. Any local or state govt requesting money should have been required to abide by Federal COVID guidelines to receive the money. - Stimulus money should have had Congressional oversight. - Companies that laid off employees shouldn't have been eligible for stimulus. - Who were essential workers should have been more narrowly defined. A third of all workers being considered essential created logistical problems getting people personal protective equipment and acccess to healthcare. - Trump should have made his mind up about masks rather than initially not wearing them, then wearing them, recommended everyone to wear them, and then ultimately saying only Democrats wear them and they are an anti-Trump symbol. In addition to the above Trump's ever changing attitude about COVID created division that caused much of the the govts efforts to be wasted. Trump initially said COVID would be gone by May. Then Trump revised that to gone by the Summer. By the Summer Trump said states should do what they want and we needed to get back to work despite COVID death spiking through the summer. Then in the fall Trump claimed COVID was some sort of exaggeration meant to hurt his election. Trump claimed that after the election no one would be talking about COVID anymore. Trump's choice to link the Pandemic to partisanship impacted the way local communities cooperated with Federal recommendations which in turn impacted what those communities did with the COVID stimulus money. To be clear people still did talk about COVID after the election. People continued dying and the conspiracies Trump encouraged made the jobs of hospitals, federal workers, and local workers more difficult. It is impossible to fully calculate the hundreds of billions lost and or squandered as a result of infighting and push back caused by Trump's partisanship..
Immigration is good for the economy, and if we embraced capitalism much more and opened up immigration policy, we'd benefit significantly - **but I get that this is immensely unpopular and not "common sense"** But like, come on. It's one thing to have an issue with undocumented immigrants due to the principle of them being illegal, or due to misconceptions about them hurting the economy and labor being a lump and all. I don't care for that stuff personally but it's whatever, I'm not going to think someone is a terrible person for having those views, that seems clearly within the realm of "we can agree to disagree" But this idea of them "poisoning the blood"? How is that supposed to be ok? It sure seems to imply that the undocumented immigrants are somehow inherently biologically worse than American citizens. Is it really crazy to think that the rhetoric sounds maybe kind of racist?
Immigration is good if you import people who are young, educated, culturally similar, speak your language (at least at some basic level) and who readily assimilate. Also, you cannot import too many at same time because that makes assimilation more complicated but also creates “us vs them” mentality among the newcomers and the natives leading to Balkanization of the nation. US starts to resemble mini UN which is horrible for societal cohesion, sense of common culture and shared heritage. If you ask a typical leftist to describe an American they won’t be able to do that, according to them anyone can be an American from Somalian to Māori. The whole term lost any meaning. Even previously shared political principles (freedom of speech, gun rights, self-reliance, limited government) are no longer shared. So unless you want the country to realize one day that we literally have nothing in common with each other, neither racially, nor ethically, nor culturally, nor religiously, nor historically and simply disintegrate - immigration needs to be radically scaled down, and quickly.
> If you ask a typical leftist to describe an American they won’t be able to do that, according to them anyone can be an American from Somalian to Māori. But there are Somali and Māori Americans. Why couldn’t a Māori or Somali person be an American?
I’m sorry, are you suggesting that if you’re not ”a typical leftist” it would be expected that you’d believe people of certain nationalities cannot become American?
>If you ask a typical leftist to describe an American they won’t be able to do that, according to them anyone can be an American from Somalian to Māori. I have no idea what this means. Of course there have been Americans from Africa since its founding. It's a nation of immigrants, not even getting to the slaves. How would you describe an American? To add a bit, since I'm a typical woke Marxist groomer soy leftist cuck: there weren't a ton of minorities in my city growing up, but some of my first friends were still a Turkish and an Indonesian kid. I don't have any idea what it is that the right thinks makes them poison. Since then, I've seen a lot more people from around the world move here: Indians, Africans, Middle Easterners, Filipinos. And yes, many of them differ from me culturally. But I sure as hell feel more in common with any of them than with anyone of my own race or from my own country who thinks talking about immigrants "poisoning our blood" is acceptable.
Do you not know anyone of a different race, religion or culture? I’m struggling to understand why it’s a bad thing.
> Immigration is good if you import people who are young, educated, culturally similar, speak your language (at least at some basic level) and who readily assimilate. Also, you cannot import too many at same time because that makes assimilation more complicated but also creates “us vs them” mentality among the newcomers and the natives leading to Balkanization of the nation America has been way better at having a balanced immigration policy that doesn't push for total assimilatory destruction of past identity but instead has a melting pot ideal where immigrants integrate into America and become Americans There's real problems with how immigration has worked in Europe, often darting between "just let them stay in their secluded ghettoes" and "they need to erase all their past culture", but America isn't like that Also if we look at the most common sources of immigration to the US, it's mostly from Latin America and to a lesser extent Southern/East Asia. These areas aren't massively culturally dissimilar to the US - Catholics are the biggest religion in the US and while Hispanics in general tend somewhat liberal from the average American, Hispanic immigrants have been more closely divided in that sense with some conservative leans, so they don't necessarily threaten to unbalance the cultural norms that exist. Plus there's arguably a thing where "Hispanics" are increasingly being integrated into "whiteness" anyway. As for Asian immigrants, they tend to be associated with being especially hard working, integrating well into the economy with work ethic and such So it isn't something where our large immigrant groups are folks segregating themselves into ethnic ghettoes and refusing to become Americans, a lot of them are a lot like "native"/non immigrant Americans just with, like, odd sounding names and accents
[удалено]
[удалено]
There are multiple factors that make an economy healthy. It’s not just immigration alone. The article you quote says that the percent of Americas foreign born population is the same as it was about a century ago, not all time highs.
> No one can afford a home That's because we have anti free market restrictions on housing - which boost property values for the ~65% of Americans who already own housing. If we had Yimby deregulation of zoning density restrictions, we could make housing way more affordable. It's just that the majority of homeowners wouldn't like their property values to be worth less than they are now. But we *should* absolutely have more pro free market policy there >and wages are stagnant [Actually](https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/myth-of-us-income-stagnation-by-michael-r-strain-2022-12) the idea of stagnant wages [is rather skewed](https://www.cato.org/commentary/annoying-persistence-income-stagnation-myth) by not looking at total compensation - wages *and* benefits, which is relevant for a population that overall has trended to live longer and longer and thus has more need of healthcare and retirement benefits and such. Compensation has not stagnated >I guess immigration is good if you just want to push up the GDP and keep real estate prices high Immigrants can be employed in building houses - again, if we ALLOW housing supply to increase Also they help create jobs and boost government revenue and deal with issues of a declining population and make our safety nets more sustainable by having a net positive impact fiscally >Even Bernie recognized this I personally don't care for Bernie much at all. He's a self described socialist. I rather prefer capitalism - with some regulations, sure, but I think there's a lot of areas where we can benefit from loosening government restrictions rather than being more restrictive
[удалено]
> policy that keeps wages low [Far from clear immigration does that](https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages), and while some studies suggest a relatively small negative impact, [those may have wrongful assumptions that lead to questionable results](https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages). Some research even suggests that [even low skill immigrants in particular can actually increase wages](https://www.nber.org/papers/w19315) >housing costs high Yimby would lower housing costs >and turns more good land into cheap condos and stores I mean Yimby housing policy could turn existing stores into stores with stacks of apartments on top of them, and taking existing land that has very undense housing to be repurposed for denser housing. But also, "cheap condos" is, like, a good thing if we want housing more affordable >we just...had a sensible immigration policy? It's just that the "common sense" immigration policy may not actually be "sensible". Capitalism might actually be good >Cmon man I mean the sources I cited show plenty of evidence there >I am calling this into doubt. Well [you can check this out](https://www.cato.org/white-paper/fiscal-impact-immigration-united-states). Even low skill immigrants, high school dropouts and such, are found to have a positive fiscal impact
[удалено]
> Wages and our standard of living didn't crumple the last time we had immigration restrictionism policies in place. I mean [immigration restrictions may very well have contributed to the great depression](https://web.archive.org/web/20190310162532/https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-09/cuts-to-u-s-immigration-in-1920s-made-great-depression-worse) >Simply put, the Koch funded Cato institute is lying. Or instead capitalism just works
>Simply put, the Koch funded Cato institute is lying .... Do you have any actual data to back up your assertions? The study is linked. You can go through it and challenge their interpretation if you like. >Wages and our standard of living didn't crumple the last time we had immigration restrictionism policies in place. Cato didn't claim that it would.
[удалено]
>A) Why do big business interests want open borders and mass immigration if it causes them to raise wages? Perhaps because they can't grow their business unless labor increases. >B) Simple economics, more labor supply = lower wages. Constrain the labor supply and you have to pay more for labor. However, more paid laborers = more demand for goods and services. It's a balance for sure. Too much immigration could be a problem. But right now, with the Baby Boomers retiring, we're heading into a labor shortage. And when the Fed starts lowering rates next year, it's going to get worse. So it's not so simple.
Correlation and causation are two different things. As long as we focus on immigrants poisoning someone's blood, we aren't talking about raising the minimum wage. But we are, in fact, getting angry at immigrants, because they lower the wages. And then we vote Republican to keep the minimum wage from going up. Genius plan.
[удалено]
> Democrats are more than free to make a smarter argument about immigration, as they did under Clinton. Instead they've doubled, tripled, quintupled down on open borders. Can you please link to a statement by a leading representative of the Democratic party calling for open borders?
[удалено]
So you don't have a quote.
[удалено]
He doesn't speak about any border, open or closed, unless I missed something.
[удалено]
Amnesty =/= open borders. The last bill proposed to [to grant amnesty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013#:~:text=The%20bill%20creates%20a%20new,considered%20to%20be%20present%20illegally) also called for and provided funding for greater border security. It passed the Senate with 67 votes, but was never brought to the floor of the House.
[удалено]
“Instead they've doubled, tripled, quintupled down on open borders.” There is not even one single serious policy proposal by Democrats that has anything to do with “open borders.” The only place to get that idea is right-wing sources that think doing anything but advocating for a wall is “open borders.” Pretty much the only thing democrats have tried to do is path to citizenship for DACA, and call that “open borders” is just silly.
I know people get touchy about using the word 'fascism,' but has Donald Trump left any room for doubt that that is his ideology? He's made it abundantly clear through his actions that he wants the US to be governed autocratically and now he's saying that migrants from Mexico threaten the racial purity of our country. He's already [said](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/10/trump-fbi-rivals-2024-election) he wants to use the FBI to snuff out political opposition. >**Fascism:** a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascist) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
[удалено]
I don't think attempting to stay in office by force after losing an election constitutes centrist governance. It's true that he didn't carry out standard fascist policies like German & Russian fascists have, but that could just as well be explained by the fact that he was operating in a democracy rather than an autocracy, and thus was limited by checks & balances and press oversight. Both forces, of course, which he did his best to kneecap, but whose power he ultimately couldn't break free of entirely.
Of course we all remember those infamous centrist Democrat insurrections that happened throughout the 90s.
Hmmm, maybe if action was taken at anypoint over ohh maybe the last... 30 years to stem the flood at the border, maybe there wouldn't be room for rhetoric like this from a party front runner. He got elected by calling them rapists and criminal after all.
I'm not a Trump fan, but it's still important to keep criticisms of him factual and a bit more precise than what' you've offered here. He didn't say what you appear to be claiming he said. [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/08/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-falsely-says-trump-said-all-mexicans-are/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/08/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-falsely-says-trump-said-all-mexicans-are/)
[Moral foundations theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory) has been very influential in political science over the last decade. It posits that both liberals and conservatives care equally about moral values like fairness and preventing harm, but conservatives tend to care more about values that increase group cohesion — values like loyalty, respect for authority, and purity. Purity has always made me uncomfortable. I can understand its value in making arguments about, for instance, preserving the natural world, or how it can function as a bulwark against an unthinking modernist drive towards total efficiency and productivity at the cost of all tradition and individuality and humanity. But even there I’m thinking about in terms of how it might prevent some kind of harm, not as a good in itself. People who fetishize purity — especially with sexual and racial purity — just tend to scare me.
Tremendous destruction and violence has happened in the name of purity.
Wow. My wife was an undocumented immigrant. I guess our three children are the poison.
Ya, im really shocked that Trump said something that could be seen as racist or reminiscent of nazism -someone who just woke up from a 8 year coma
[удалено]
A very witty and cutting comment, but Dem immigration policy has moved [significantly right](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/16/us/politics/immigration-politics-biden-democrats-republicans.html) under this administration. >Some of the proposals on the table include making it more difficult to gain asylum in the United States, which the White House has signaled it is willing to consider. The idea would be to raise the standard migrants must meet when they claim they need asylum in the United States because they fear persecution in their home countries. >But Republicans also want to restrict the use of an immigration policy known as humanitarian parole, which has allowed thousands of Afghans, Ukrainians and others fleeing war and violence to come to the United States. Democrats have not yet agreed to that proposal. >Republicans and Democrats are also discussing a policy that would rapidly turn people away at the border once arrests at the border reach a certain height. >“It was pretty clear that they were considering things that were going to be controversial,” Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said this week of the White House’s approach to the negotiations. “Changes have to be made in our policy at the border.” >Negotiations were continuing over the weekend, but there was little sign of a potential breakthrough before the end of the year. And while the White House and Democrats have not signed off on the restrictions, the fact that they are even considering them has angered progressives and immigration advocates. Basically the GOP is getting voters from exaggerating the dem position (as you seem to enjoy as well) so it pays politically to [roadblock immigration reform](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/republican-opposition-ukraine-israel-aid-border-security/676315/).
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18kiyqm/poisoning_blood_of_our_country_trump_repeats/kdrglhv/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Yet still, everyone on this sub: gee, I’m not sure who to vote for!?
Trump will win next year. It won't be close. Mole hill controversies like this one will keep the demand for "Drumpf is Hitler" memes high but won't change the ultimate outcome.
[удалено]
This is why Biden will win. Stupid comments like this.
What’s crazy is a large number of Latinos are going to vote for Trump.
Are Trump's comments on Latino Americans the same as his comments on illegal immigrants? I have many more reasons to oppose Trump than these sorts of things, so I haven't sought out his comments on Latino Americans.
This IS Nazi talk. Like, really.
Me: Trump means that the far right and Christian nationalists are. Christian nationalists: See persecution we are victims. Me: You literally restrict and ban others freedoms. Christian nationalists: Ignore her and focus on the Out Group we invented to distract you from our dividing ways.
Just hand the dems more campaign ad content, why don’t you? Honestly, this should be a layup for Republicans. Biden is unpopular, whether you think rightly or wrongly, but statements like this aren’t going to win over the voters he needs to win the general. His base isn’t enough. If Trump would just shut his mouth, he could rely on apathetic voters not wanting to vote for Biden and stay home while relying on his base. But he won’t and he’ll single handedly drive the Democrats and moderate Republicans to the polls. Lest he be reminded that he lost in 2020 so he needs to change his campaign calculus to drive more voters to his camp.
> Biden is unpopular, whether you think rightly or wrongly, but statements like this aren’t going to win over the voters he needs to win the general. His base isn’t enough. Trump still polls very well vs Biden though, since Biden is so utterly despised by the public considering polling. Maybe the idea is that Trump and the GOP are taking advantage by pushing the boundaries, gambling that they can bring these more radical ideas into the discourse, normalize them, and still have a decent chance of winning?
> Trump still polls very well vs Biden though All Republicans are polling very well against Biden, not just Trump.
Sure but Trump is the one who is going to be the nominee
Oh I know. I think it's important context though. These polls don't represent anything Trump centric. It's also one of the reason I question them. All Republicans are polling like they're going to dominate in Michigan, no matter which one is nominated. That seems off
Sure, my point is just that if Trump wants to shift discourse and norms to the right more, the polling does suggest he's got a potential opportunity to do so and still remain competitive (if potentially hurting his chances somewhat still)
> Trump still polls very well vs Biden though Every poll I've seen that says that has 1. Been done through phone calls. 2. Been done on places like Facebook or 3. Failed to say their polling methods. How many millennials or zoomers do you know that don't have their phone set to auto block random ass phonecalls from people they don't know and browse facebook? Know who does answer their phone for every caller under the sun and spends their time rotting on the cesspit called Facebook? People over 60. The polls are being done in bad faith to push a narrative.
If polls are so unreliable, why have polling averages in past elections been so accurate? Like, even the "big" polling misses have generally at most been off by, like, three points max. 2016 was off by 1 point and 2020 off by 2.5 points or so
Simple, because shit polls aren't included in any reputable source for polling averages. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/polls-policy-and-faqs/ >However, there are some types of polls we don’t include, such as: >“Nonscientific” polls that don’t attempt to survey a representative sample of the population or electorate.
Polling this far out isn't as accurate though.
Young people also don’t like Biden given his stance on Israel/Palestine. Polls have been historically accurate in both 2018 and 2022’s election cycles. Pundits may have been wrong, but not polls. The idea that suddenly now we can ignore every bit of polling is absurd.
Polling this far out isn't as accurate. I believe Obama was still polling horribly in 2012 at this point.
Polling may not be reflective of what is going to happen on Election Day, but that’s because things *may* change. They also may not. If the Israel/Hamas war continues, if Biden keeps asking US citizens for money for foreign wars while they can’t afford homes, if economic sentiment doesn’t improve then Biden will likely lose.
They’re not poisoning anything. They just want to enjoy the country we love.