Trump Paranoia Official?

[Brickjectivity]

Any conversation that becomes unbearable can be turned into an argument about US presidents. It is a part of their function in society to bring disparate parties together.

--definitely not Mark Twain

 

[Revoltingest]

Any conversation that becomes unbearable can be turned into an argument about US presidents. It is a part of their function in society to bring disparate parties together.

--definitely not Mark Twain

Any conversation can be turned into one about cheese.
- Some jerk

 

[Brickjectivity]

Any conversation can be turned into one about cheese.
- Some jerk

Any cheese with holes can be called holy. It doesn't make the cheese taste any better.
--Cheddar Devotee

 

[Revoltingest]

Any cheese with holes can be called holy. It doesn't make the cheese taste any better.
--Cheddar Devotee

I just tried a hybrid Swiss/Parmesan.
Pretty darned good for the price!
Only $7/#

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm not trying to change the subject, but privacy is a two way street. If the govt. and security service has privacy then so should citizens. Since that isn't the case, then the govt. should expose all of its actions and decisions. Otherwise the govt. is not representative for much longer, so...no their actions are not necessarily secret any more. They are now necessarily public despite the danger to the public. Their argument is that if we have nothing to hide, then we don't need privacy. Well, then the same is true of the security services. Since they know everything they don't need secrecy and can just tell us who is guilty. Give the public back its privacy and then you will be right. Then secrecy is justified..., but right now security services should not do anything in secret or be allowed privacy.

By definition a secret service is secret.
What a private person does is also secret, until he attracts the attention of the security services.
This is the way it should be.
We have a representative government not a delegated one.
They act as they judge necessary, they do not act under our orders.
We select the government of our choice at each general election.

That presumes too much. What better way to study suspects than to grant them a visa, so that we can put them at ease? Then we can see what they do and whom they speak with right up to the moment we refuse to let them onto the plane? Its not incompetence if it helps to save lives.

You have no Idea why the Americans acted as they did. They do not have agents in the UK checking up on visa applicants, that would be an impossible and illegal operation. However they certainly follow data and paper trails before issuing visas. And they certainly consult authorities here and the USA for any known facts. They also make judgments at airports as to the "suspicious" nature of passengers based, by some countries, on type casting.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Let's consider who is ultimately behind whatever policies (both secret & obvious) of Homeland Security.
From....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Homeland_Security
....we see that the Secretary of Homeland Security is in the President's Cabinet.
And from.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States
....we see that the prez can fire them at will.
So nothing happens without Obama's tacit or overt approval.

I don't know whether excluding this Muslim family is something worthwhile or security theater.
Such is the nature of secret operations.
But once again, Obama is more responsible (or culpable) than Trump.

It is certain that Obama and Cameron are largely responsible for the implementation of security policy in their respective countries.
However The atmosphere in which the Services work is less clear, and can be strongly influenced by opinion and fear, in this case stoked by Trump and his supporters.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is certain that Obama and Cameron are largely responsible for the implementation of security policy in their respective countries.
However The atmosphere in which the Services work is less clear, and can be strongly influenced by opinion and fear, in this case stoked by Trump and his supporters.

The blame placed on Trump though is just too glib.
Trump is more of a symptom than a cause because he can only exploit what is already there.
But when we look at action taken, Obama is the "decider".
This is important to point out in a thread about Trump.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The blame placed on Trump though is just too glib.
Trump is more of a symptom than a cause because he can only exploit what is already there.
But when we look at action taken, Obama is the "decider".
This is important to point out in a thread about Trump.

I don't deny that Trump represents the point of view of a percentage of our citizens, but he makes inflammatory statements on purpose. Still his presence in the race suggests that the party is not in complete control of who runs, which is a good thing.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The blame placed on Trump though is just too glib.
Trump is more of a symptom than a cause because he can only exploit what is already there.
But when we look at action taken, Obama is the "decider".
This is important to point out in a thread about Trump.

The electorate is in a state of interregnum.
What Obama does now is largely irrelevant to the coming election.
All politicians are looking to influence the outcome of that election.
In this Trump is choosing the ground and setting the agenda.
He seems to be aiming a very low uneducated white common denominator. Who always react better to bribes, fear and self interest, than reason.
It will now be hard for anyone to change that battle ground.
His opponents either have the choice of attempting to debunk both him as a person or what he is saying.
Or accepting what he says as a done deal, and building on it still further.
The first option will only reinforce Trump by giving him and his Ideas credibility, but is unlikely to gain him the presidency as that cohort is limited and less than an electoral majority.
The second could succeed, but at extreme cost to the USA.
Other options are of course open, but hardly legal.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The blame placed on Trump though is just too glib.
Trump is more of a symptom than a cause because he can only exploit what is already there.

And, in doing so, he can enable and exacerbate "what is there" and thereby create a new, more cancerous reality.

 

[gsa]

I wonder to what extent the media are hyping anti-Muslim sentiment because it's a profitable bandwagon.
It also serves political agendas to exacerbate Trump's boogeyman status.
Where I live, I've seen no increase in problems.....& problems are far & few between.
(And SE MI is chock full of Muslims & Chaldeans....more so than anywhere else.)
It was noticeably worse right after 9/11.
But if things are worse, it wouldn't be any current or would-be politician causing the trouble.
It would be the recent mass attacks in France & California.

I haven't seen any increase in Southeastern Michigan either, although I did notice when shopping that women wearing the hijab seemed more paranoid and concerned than usual. And I do not blame them. On the other hand, when I was at a market there was also a woman in the niqab happily chatting about America's terrorism paranoia with a couple of (presumably bewildered) non-Muslim hipsters.

And I agree with your assessment that the paranoia and animosity was much worse after 9/11, noticeable even in Michigan, which is probably the state with the greatest comfort level around Arabs and Muslims. And while I suspect that the atmosphere was much worse outside of our state on 9/11 and immediately after, I do think that the stories coming in from a bunch of different places suggest that there is increased paranoia among a certain segment of the population. This stuff has an ebb and flow to it, though; just over 5 years ago Time magazine was asking if America had a problem with Muslims after the "Ground Zero mosque" controversy and other opposition campaigns sparked by mosque construction.

The bottom line though is that I think Trump is irresponsible for calling for something so clearly against American values like ("temporary") religious tests for immigration. He is suggesting that suspicion of Muslims generally is appropriate. I can hardly be considered an apologist for Islam, and I think that is going overboard.

 

[gsa]

And, in doing so, he can enable and exacerbate "what is there" and thereby create a new, more cancerous reality.

I agree with this. Like I said back in the day when the more racist and conspiratorial overtones in the nascent "Tea Party" movement were bubbling to the surface, exploiting nativism, xenophobia and paranoia is playing with fire. Whether they wanted to do it or not, they're rousing the sleeping giant of white nationalism and it will come back to bite them. Unfortunately, it also bites people outside of the Republican Party.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think that these customers who have been turned away should not be surprised. They should be reimbursed for their tickets, however. I would be angry about that, too.

And we all, as Americans, should hang our heads in shame because we have always loved tooting our own horns about how "civilized and modern" we are, yet we still allow for primitive and illogical xenophobia to dictate our lives. We should be better than that, we should know that radical Muslims are only a minority of Muslims, but rather we blame the entire population for what a few have done. Really, it's no different than lingering prejudices against Germans because of the what the Nazis did.

 

[Brickjectivity]

And we all, as Americans, should hang our heads in shame because we have always loved tooting our own horns about how "civilized and modern" we are, yet we still allow for primitive and illogical xenophobia to dictate our lives. We should be better than that, we should know that radical Muslims are only a minority of Muslims, but rather we blame the entire population for what a few have done. Really, it's no different than lingering prejudices against Germans because of the what the Nazis did.

It isn't just that we're afraid of radical Muslims. Its also that we are not approving of Islam. Many US citizens don't think that Islam is compatible with our country, because it has a political component. We have Muslims here already. We have always allowed immigration, but we have always been concerned about the immigrants, too. Muslims here aren't simply leaving their political system for ours, and that scares people. It scares people that Islam shapes the environment, builds noisy prayer towers and presses for special legal status. The fear, justified or not, is that Islam will take over. We don't like that, and that is what gives Trump the ability to get away with what he is saying.

 

[Godobeyer]

I wonder to what extent the media are hyping anti-Muslim sentiment because it's a profitable bandwagon.
It also serves political agendas to exacerbate Trump's boogeyman status.
Where I live, I've seen no increase in problems.....& problems are far & few between.
(And SE MI is chock full of Muslims & Chaldeans....more so than anywhere else.)
It was noticeably worse right after 9/11.
But if things are worse, it wouldn't be any current or would-be politician causing the trouble.
It would be the recent mass attacks in France & California.

it's seems the extremists are whom will take control in USA.

I guess this will hurt USA economy, it's start with tourism.

 

[Draka]

Trump does stoke the fire. He does make things worse both within and without our country. In we have those who rally behind him, having someone so high profile to validate and fuel their bigotry even more, and outside the country, their media filled with his rhetoric, he makes us, as a country, appear as hateful and bigoted as him.

I think the reason some here don't think the prejudice against Muslims here in the States is as bad as it is, or getting worse, is that they aren't Muslims. It's different to watch things from the outside of a situation. To ignore or miss the things that are happening. It is a different thing entirely to live it. To those living with it it is appearing to get worse. I read something written by a non-Muslim woman who was participating in a college thing where they were supposed to dress up as and present a speech about someone whom they admired. She dressed as Malala Yousafzai. She went on to detail her day and just getting to the campus and driving and pretty much going anywhere and the vitriol that came her way. Explained how she had no idea how bad this was, how often it did occur, until she presented herself as Muslim. It was just something she never truly saw the extent of until she walked in those shoes.

This is the stuff Trump fuels. This is why they love him. He's "one of them" and he validates their hatred.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't deny that Trump represents the point of view of a percentage of our citizens, but he makes inflammatory statements on purpose. Still his presence in the race suggests that the party is not in complete control of who runs, which is a good thing.

Interesting perspective.

 

[Revoltingest]

The electorate is in a state of interregnum.
What Obama does now is largely irrelevant to the coming election.

I don't disagree, but he still drives the bus.

All politicians are looking to influence the outcome of that election.
In this Trump is choosing the ground and setting the agenda.
He seems to be aiming a very low uneducated white common denominator. Who always react better to bribes, fear and self interest, than reason.

This is true of all.
Promises of higher taxes to fund more largess for the poor & working class does the same thing.
But let's not dis uneducated or white folk.
After all, we aren't elitist or racist.

His opponents either have the choice of attempting to debunk both him as a person or what he is saying.

Aye, ad hominem is a standard tool in campaigning.

 

[Revoltingest]

And, in doing so, he can enable and exacerbate "what is there" and thereby create a new, more cancerous reality.

This could be.
But he pales in comparison to what the media do.
Is he their tool or vice versa?
And the over-reaction claimed in the OP is directly from Obama, not Trump.
(Once again, I don't know whether this reaction was "over" or appropriate. There is no info.)

 

[Revoltingest]

it's seems the extremists are whom will take control in USA.
I guess this will hurt USA economy, it's start with tourism.

This is indeed a risk.
As I see it, we've had a parade of extremists already, what with Bush & Obama waging these foreign wars.
I prefer a different extremism.....one more peaceful & isolationist.
My preference is a losing one though.