Donald Trump A Growing Threat As He Denies White Nationalism Terrorism, And Promotes False Belief On Muslim Threat

President Donald Trump has become a “clear and present danger”, with his refusal to acknowledge white nationalist terrorism in America and around the globe, and exaggerates the role of Muslim terrorism in America. He refuses to see the New Zealand and other foreign white nationalist terrorism as a rising threat worldwide, and sets up a horrifying alternative promoting more of this.

The facts are that the vast majority of terrorist attacks are inspired by white nationalists who are motivated by the words of Donald Trump, who has spent his whole life promoting racism, nativism, Islamophobia, and consorts with antisemites despite his having some Jewish advisers and aides who work with him.

He wants a border wall when there is little to no danger from the primarily women and children escaping Central America, looking for a better life than that of poverty, crime, abuse, civil war in their homelands, encouraged by US policy going back to the Ronald Reagan era of the 1980s in that area, creating disarray and turmoil as America pursued advocacy of conflict in our nearest neighbors south of Mexico.

In the midst of everyone who has a brain seeing all of the white nationalist and National Rifle Association inspired terrorism, in the name of profit and fear of a changing and darkening America, our President lives in his own dream world of reality, and he inspires these criminals who commit mass terrorism and claim to be Trump supporters.

David Duke, Richard Spencer and their ilk are applauding Donald Trump for his lack of a moral base on the issue of gun violence and mass terrorism, and in so doing, is encouraging a civil war, when he tells us that the police, the military, and his supporters will defend him at all costs.

That assertion alone should lead to his removal from office as a threat to the nation and civil order!

41 comments on “Donald Trump A Growing Threat As He Denies White Nationalism Terrorism, And Promotes False Belief On Muslim Threat

  1. D March 17, 2019 1:32 pm

    • FLASHBACK • Donald Trump, in 2007

    I was thinking of a memorable interview a then-future U.S. president Donald Trump had with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. The video I found on YouTube came from two separate interviews. This first video is from March 2007.

  2. D March 17, 2019 1:34 pm

    • FLASHBACK • Donald Trump, in 2007

    This second video is from September 2007.

  3. Princess Leia March 17, 2019 5:19 pm

    Exactly Professor! This alone is reason enough for why Trump does not deserve to be “president”!

  4. Former Republican March 17, 2019 5:20 pm

    Trump is attacking McCain again for his “thumbs down” moment. Can’t even let the man rest in peace.

  5. D March 17, 2019 5:35 pm

    Thank you, Ronald!

    Part of what of those 2007 videos shows us is that Donald Trump, however much one agrees with what he said, is plenty lucid and knows what he is doing. He is not incompetent. (No—that is not a compliment.)

  6. Former Republican March 17, 2019 6:53 pm

    Trump has shown time again throughout his “presidency” that he’s NOT lucid, NOT competent, does NOT know what he’s doing.

  7. Pragmatic Progressive March 18, 2019 12:12 pm

    As Rachel Maddow tells her viewers, look at what Trump’s administration does, not what they say.

  8. Former Republican March 18, 2019 12:19 pm

    Exactly, Pragmatic. Trump and his administration lie so much you can’t trust what they say.

  9. Southern Liberal March 19, 2019 12:25 pm

    Kellyanne Conway’s husband Tweeted that Trump has the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder.

    “Don’t assume that the things he says and does are part of a rational plan or strategy, because they seldom are,” George Conway tweeted. “Consider them as a product of his pathologies, and they make perfect sense.”

  10. Princess Leia March 19, 2019 12:27 pm

    I’ve heard a lot of mental health professionals mention that Trump is clearly psychologically unwell. Narcissism is one of the things they mention.

  11. Princess Leia March 21, 2019 8:51 am

    Agreed. This is a bad decision by Bernie.

  12. D March 21, 2019 11:12 am

    Princess Leia,

    A bad decision, from hiring someone for a presidential campaign, is with a person who is incompetent and/or destructive.

    We do not know this with Bernie Sanders hiring David Sirota for the United States presidential election of 2020. But, Sirota is a very good journalist. When Establishment hacks try to discredit his reports, because they are in bed with the establishment of the Democratic Party, says a lot about them.

    Examples of bad decisions, from the hiring of someone for a presidential campaign who proves to be incompetent and/or destructive, was Hillary Clinton going with Robby Mook and David Brock in 2016.

  13. Pragmatic Progressive March 21, 2019 12:15 pm

    First – They aren’t “hacks”.
    Second – They aren’t “discrediting” his reports.

  14. Rustbelt Democrat March 21, 2019 1:39 pm

    The one who is the hack is the current occupier of the White House and anyone who supports him and talks in favor of him.

  15. D March 21, 2019 4:58 pm

    Pragmatic Progressives writes,

    “First – They aren’t ‘hacks’.”

    “Hacks” is a polite word for them. They are corrupt.

    When a person is supposed to be a journalist, but instead reports and/or or writes opinion columns which are false and subservient to the establishment of a major political party, that person is not credible. That is also a reflection on whoever it is who employs such person.

    ”Second – They aren’t ‘discrediting’ his reports.”

    They want to discredit David Sirota. They cannot discredit his reports. Those reports are actual journalism.

    They want to destroy Sirota’s career in case that may possibly boost theirs.

    Those people are not trustworthy.

  16. Princess Leia March 21, 2019 8:11 pm

    Anyone not named Bernie gets attacked by his supporters. I don’t consider that as being unbiased.

  17. Princess Leia March 21, 2019 8:18 pm

    Seconded, Former Republican. If Bernie loses again, whoever Bernie loses to is our only defense against re-electing Trump. That’s why the Left needs to be united, not divided, as we were in 2016.

  18. Rational Lefty March 21, 2019 8:21 pm

    2018 mid-terms showed that there is a hunger in the electorate for women and people of color in power. Enough electing old white men!

  19. Princess Leia March 21, 2019 8:29 pm

    I feel the same way, Rational Lefty. I’m intrigued by a Harris/Castro ticket. Or, say, a Warren/Castro ticket even.

  20. Southern Liberal March 21, 2019 8:34 pm

    I heard on Rachel Maddow’s show last night that Trump is playing trade wars with cars now and that’s going to hurt the automobile industry. If he continues to be “president”, he’s going to put us into a recession or, worse, even a depression.

  21. Southern Liberal March 21, 2019 8:39 pm

    New Zealand has banned assault weapons after the attack. Too bad America can’t do the same.

  22. D March 21, 2019 10:30 pm

    Rational Lefty writes, “…Enough electing old white men!”

    Rational Lefty—you expressed a viewpoint which is prejudiced.

    Why you would do that on a website in which one of the words in its title is “Progressive”?

  23. Rational Lefty March 22, 2019 9:06 am

    D – The base of the parry has changed since the days of FDR. Because of various social changes, women and people of color are the base. They want to see a party that more represents them demographically. They want more diversity represented at the top of the ticket.

  24. Princess Leia March 22, 2019 9:24 am

    Obama and Hillary represented change in our government’s demographics. Trump represents a backlash to that. Women and people of color do not want 4 more years of Trump and his racist and sexist attacks.

  25. D March 22, 2019 12:05 pm

    Rational Lefty,

    In a given election in which the Republican is a Hispanic woman who is 45 years old vs. a Democrat who is a white male who is 75 years old, which one of the two would you vote for?

  26. Rational Lefty March 22, 2019 12:21 pm

    A Hispanic woman being the Republican nominee is unlikely to happen anytime soon because their party is not diverse.

  27. Rational Lefty March 22, 2019 12:31 pm

    Another thing, it depends on their stances on issues. If the Hispanic woman has liberal views and the 75 year-old-man has conservative views, I’ll swing over and vote for the Hispanic woman.

  28. Rational Lefty March 22, 2019 12:41 pm

    As I had mentioned earlier, right now, I’m leaning towards Elizabeth Warren. I was very impressed with her CNN Town Hall performance. She gives you policy details about how she plans to do things.

  29. D March 22, 2019 12:48 pm

    Rational Lefty,

    I didn’t write, in that scenario, that the Republican nominee, who is a Hispanic and a woman age 45, is liberal.

    Is your answer the same?

  30. Princess Leia March 22, 2019 4:54 pm

    D – We vote for candidates who closely match our views. Of the two parties, that would be Democrats. Of the Democratic choices, we, again, vote for candidates who more closely match our views. Our views have been shaped by our families and friends and we tend to be middle of the road people, so we choose candidates who aren’t too far left.

  31. Pragmatic Progressive March 22, 2019 10:05 pm

    The Volatility of the Electability Argument

    The writers at New York Magazine’s Intelligencer page had an interesting discussion about whether Democrats are too nervous to nominate a woman in the 2020 primary. Early on in the conversation, Jonathan Chait extended the question to race as well.

    My initial reaction to the question was to wonder if any of them had paid attention to what happened in the 2018 midterm elections when a blue wave, fueled primarily by women and people of color, elected the most diverse House Democratic caucus in the country’s history. But Irin Carmon shared some quotes from voters that seemed to reinforce the assumptions behind their discussion.

    Irin: Anecdata: I just had breakfast with a bunch of Democrats in Trump-won coastal NC, supporters of Planned Parenthood who I spoke to about my book last night, and every single one was either Biden or Beto because “we have to be pragmatic.” Fear is driving this…

    Irin: One (white) woman was like, “Everyone is asking whether we should focus on the South or the Midwest. Well, I’ve lived in the South my whole life, and my answer is the Midwest.”

    The pragmatic nature of the argument zeros in on electability—which puts the focus on two of the white men in the race.

    Peter Beinart takes on the whole electability argument and compares it to an attempt to predict someone’s future from their zodiac sign. I found the subhead of his piece to be interesting: “When pundits anoint Biden—or Sanders or O’Rourke—as the likeliest to beat Trump, they’re making lots of dubious assumptions.” Other than running in the Democratic primary, one of the only things those three candidates have in common is that they are white males.

    So both the pundits, as well as the voters Carmon talked to, are making an electability argument based primarily on a candidate’s race and gender.

    One of the points Beinart addresses goes directly to the concerns discussed by the Intelligencer staff.

    [E]ven if Biden did prove better able to win back working-class whites than his competitors, could he rouse the Democratic Party’s African American and female base? The fact that his advisers are reportedly considering asking Stacey Abrams to be his running mate suggests that they themselves have doubts.

    If Biden needs an African American woman on the ticket in order to be electable, what does that say about the electorate and their concerns about women and people of color?

    In making his argument against a focus on electability, Beinart reminds us of how we’ve all been wrong in the past.

    In 2016, very few political writers, myself emphatically included, thought Donald Trump would win the Republican nomination, let alone the presidency. Very few thought Bernie Sanders would win 23 states and 13 million votes in his Democratic-primary battle with Hillary Clinton.

    The voters were lousy prognosticators too. Although polls generally suggested that Sanders would fare better against Trump, voters overwhelmingly believed Hillary Clinton had a better chance of winning the general election. And in the closing weeks of the 2016 campaign, they overwhelmingly predicted that Clinton, not Trump, would triumph.

    All of this takes me back even farther in history to what transpired in the 2008 Democratic primary. At this point in that race, Hillary Clinton was the front-runner and most people assumed that the only real challenge to her nomination came from John Edwards, who eventually dropped out due to scandals. Almost no one was paying any real attention to that guy with the funny name—Barack Obama. After all, he is African American and would therefore not be electable.

    On January 3, 2008, something happened that altered the course of the primary: Barack Obama won the Iowa caucus, beating both Edwards and Clinton by almost nine points. For many Democrats—especially African Americans—that changed their calculation about electability. If the black man with a strange name could win in a primarily white state like Iowa, maybe he had a chance. A few months later, Nate Silver put together a chart tracking Clinton’s support among African American voters, which demonstrated the dramatic shift.

    Here is what that meant for the race.

    Overall, Clinton lost 100 points of support among black voters in about 120 days: a truly remarkable achievement. Since black voters make up about 20 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, a 100-point swing among black voters translates to a 20-point swing among all voters. And that, essentially, was how the primary was lost.

    I wouldn’t suggest that is predictive for 2020 because it happened twelve years ago and a lot has changed since then. But to the extent that Democratic voters are currently nervous about nominating a woman or a person of color, it wouldn’t be the first time that happened. What we saw in 2008 is that a strong candidate with an effective ground game was able to overcome those concerns. We’ll have to wait and see if there is a candidate like that in the 2020 field.

  32. Rational Lefty March 23, 2019 11:42 am

    Thanks for that. It points out what I was saying. The media – both mainstream, as well as alternative – keeps saying that we have to elect a white man to beat Trump, but this shows they did not pay attention to 2018.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.