There was in fact a coup. Trump has essentially admitted to collaborating with hackers who were working for Putin. The Russians released their "dirt" on her and spread anti-Hillary propaganda (most of which was easily debunked by anyone literate). Trump also collaborated with Comey to to re-open the investigation the week of the election, thus reminding the public of the whole emails "scandal," only to then admit that there was nothing there. All of this was intentional to lead the sheep who have been hearing Hillary slandered for so long that they don't question it anymore into voting for the most unfit candidate of all time.
I'm going to agree with Calmus that this was not a coup by definition. Your point is that the FBI was involved. I get that, but I would counter that by pointing out that she had been under investigation by the FBI well before she decided to run for president. Her email problems go back to the Benghazi incident. Was it fair for the FBI to get involved as they did? I don't know. I think the timing of that was unfortunate, but it she wasn't under criminal investigation in the first place, this would not have happened.
Muslim Ban Executive Order, Anti-gay, "religious freedom" executive order, Bannon (a KNOWN anti-semite) having anything to do with the presidency whatsoever, DeVos, an anti-education person in charge of education, a climate change denier in charge of the EPA, refusal to obey court orders declaring his executive orders unconstitutional, the prohibition of government scientists speaking out (seriously, follow the rogue nasa twitter)... The list goes on. The point is that Trump scapegoated Muslims and Latinos to gain favor. Because the "us vs them" mentality is simple and appeals to the simple-minded. Remember who else used it? If you don't think this constitutes fascism then you need to look the word up.
1. The countries in question were selected by Obama. They are countries that pose a significant risk to us. There are many other countries where 95 to 100 percent of the population is Muslim, so to argue that it was a ban against Muslims does not hold up well there. If it was a ban against muslims, you would see all Muslim countries blocked. I will however concede that we cannot know his personal intentions and there could certainly be some overlap in intentions.
2. Trump is not anti-gay or anti-lgbt. If you believe this is so, then please provide a citation of some sort. I can understand however, how being that he is a Republican and christian, people would assume that he is therefore anti-lgbt.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/34308524/trump-to-keep-obama-lgbt-workplace-protections/#page13. Religious freedom EO - I'll side with you on that, Ralas. I'm agnostic and truly detest religious folks exerting their ideology based moral superiority over others. However, I do find some common ground when it comes to protecting individual freedom. I don't want to sidetrack too much here.
4. Bannon - On the surface, he makes me cringe. I don't really know enough about to him to comment for or against. I don't read his website because it looks way too sensationalist for my taste. I am aware of his fallout with Steve Shapiro who's views and logic I respect, but have yet to deep dive into that controversy.
5. DeVos comes across as an idiot. I like the fact that Trump is pulling in successful people but I don't know if she's responsible for her own success or if she just spends her husband's money on shit. I'll refrain from commenting on her for now.
6. Regarding the EPA, I haven't followed this closely. In business, it's common to limit public communications to company officials who are vetted to speak on behalf of the company. I don't know if that's where he was going or not with this. If he was trying to silence those who disagreed with him, then I'll agree that that is bad.
[/quote]
The point is that Trump scapegoated Muslims and Latinos to gain favor. Because the "us vs them" mentality is simple and appeals to the simple-minded. Remember who else used it?
Hillary Clinton? Ie. "Basket of Deplorables", "uneducated white people"
Bernie Sanders? ie. "The One Percent"
If you don't think this constitutes fascism then you need to look the word up.
I have a different point of view on this. Yes, Hitler scapegoated the Jews, Romanians, and other minorities at a time when a lot of people were impoverished and that was indeed a part of what made his movement fascist, but there's more to fascism than just that. Do you think Hitler would have made traction if it wasn't for the circumstances that lead up to that point?
If we didn't have a problem with illegal Mexican immigration and with terrorists who come from a hand full of countries that happen to be Muslim, then his argument about strengthening our borders and clamping down on immigration would not have had any traction. He did not manufacture a false idea that we have these problems, we have had these problems for a long time, but they have not been addressed effectively.
Obama deported more illegal Mexican immigrants than any other president in US history. Does that make him a racist or an institutional racist? No. But if Trump did that, people would be screaming "racist". What is wrong about Obama's solution is that he failed to slow the flow of them into the country and in addition to that, whatever has been causing them to flee Mexico has not been fully addressed either*. If these two issues were properly addressed they we would not need to send so many illegal immigrants back home.
*recently, the flow of immigrants has slowed down due to us jobs moving to Mexico... but let's not run in circles here. We need those jobs back for fellow Americans.
(revised after spotting a fallacy on my part)Hitler didn't just scapegoat Jews. He deliberately demonized all of them by claiming that they were sub-human and thus not redeemable. As we know, this went far beyond name calling. This is not the same as limiting or blocking immigrants from enemy territory into the country. In the case of Mexico, we do allow immigrants in but they need to wait their turn, and they need to be properly vetted first. In the case of Syrian refugees, many cannot be vetted as a result of not having documentation through no fault of their own. Equating Trump with Hitler will certainly evoke an emotional response with torches, pitchforks, gas masks and rocks, but it's not a good comparison.
Have you been to Israel/Palestine?
No, I only know what I see on the news and when I read about online. I also struggle to understand what's going on over there.
As a Jew I have. I'm as pro-zionist as anyone but the only solution is a two-state solution. I saw barely clothed people on dirt settlements among ancient buildings behind giant barbed-wire fences. Palestine is not a country and thus you cannot call them Israel's worst enemy. It is unfair to let the worst of them (Hamas, the PA) speak for them. Yes, those two organizations are evil. But that wouldn't stop me from feeding emaciated children either.
I'll defer to you on that point. I was under the impression that Hamas and Hezbollah were terrorist organizations who were working with or funded by Palistine and that Jews and Palestinians hated each other with a passion. Given this, I would think that giving the Palestinians a ton of money would only fuel the conflict, but I could be wrong.
As for all the fake charity stuff--I would appreciate sources.
Fair enough. Let me see what I can find.
I've heard these claims quite a bit, but it grows tiresome having to google and debunk every piece of anti-Hillary propaganda the Russians produced.
Can you give some example of propaganda that the Russians produced? There's a difference between propaganda and truth. If they pointed out some wrong doing of hers, that's not the same as trying to defame her with lies.
So far nothing has held up to a simple googling, but i'm gonna give you a bit more credit and assume you have a credible source, of which I would appreciate a link. It hardly matters now anyway.
The majority of the information about her charity comes from the Clinton and Podesta emails that were leaked by Wikileaks. I'll try to dig up what i can without relying too much on Wikileaks. I believe some of her email was released by the FBi in redacted form. I really don't want to spend hours and hours on this....
One of the problems with all of this is that unlike science, we have to work with both facts and information of lesser value. We need to look at what is likely and unlikely and we cannot always come out with a conclusion that is absolute or testable. I hate that about politics.
