Political Cartoons

Yes because being worried about getting run over by a truck or killed at church by a follower of the religion of peace makes one a racist these days. Yup......

From:

And the number of Islamic terrorists who have struck the mainland USA in the past few years is....

Whereas the number of School shootings is....

If I were an American child I'd be more scared of my classmates than Muslim terrorists.

From:

Apples and oranges

From:

Being worried about something that's not going to happen, and has happened tremendously infrequently since 9-11, and not being worried about something that is happening all the time in the US.

Yes. Apples and oranges really sums it up.

It doesn't make folk racist, but it does bring into question their judgement, and their ability to evaluate risk.

From:

I am sure those people in France will agree with you. Living under a state of emergency since November must be real fun.

From:

Which part of America is France in?

And how do they vote for Trump?

The French people have a legitimate worry. As do the Germans, the Belgians, and even the Brits. The Americans, less so especially as they aren't really concerned about violent gun deaths that much.... well, not enough to do something about it, anyway.

From:

Why do you keep talking about gun deaths? Guns had nothing to do with what I first posted. I am not sure what you want me to respond too?

Apples and oranges

From:

For the same reason you conflate terrorist attacks in Europe with Trump's rhetoric about America.

From:

That does not make any sense. Trump is making these statements because of what we are seeing in France. You are talking about gun deaths....because I do not know why.

Also I like your comment on what part of America is France in. I looked at your profile. You live in the UK, but feel the need to comment on US politics? Amusing.

From:

OK, let me put it like this, you're scared of what is happening in France because folk are being killed by terrorists? Correct?
Yet you're not scared by dying from any other means? Automobile accidents? Gun deaths? Yet there are many more of either than terrorist deaths in the US. The rhetoric which inflames folk against the bomb-carrying crazed-assassination-seeking aliens is very specifically targeted, and amplifies unjustified fears (given the statistical likelihood of terrorist attack) and furthermore does so without pointing out an overall background context of violent deaths in America.

It is, very specifically, rhetoric designed for a purpose.

As is, I have been following, commenting upon, and discussing US politics for almost thirty years, and have had extended stays in New England, where I have a number of relatives. And when we over here ignore US politics we end up with a GWB/Tony Blair situation, which has benefitted neither nation. But to continue, the world has an opinion about US politics because the US exports its politics to the world. Feedback is one of the problems of exporting politics, as the Brits found out almost a century ago.

From:

moonshaz.livejournal.com

Want to know something REALLY ironic? When I read "killed at church by a follower of the religion of peace," the first thing that popped into my head was Dr. George Tiller being SHOT TO DEATH in church by a so-called Christian. The next thing I thought of was the people in Charleston being SHOT TO DEATH at a Bible study (held in a church) by a white supremacist who I assume also claimed to be a Christian.

Then I read further, and realized that's not what was meant. But for me, being killed in church has EVERYTHING to do with gun deaths!

From:

yes-justice.livejournal.com

Your skillz at objectively assessing threats may need tuning. You've more to fear from your diet choices. But its okay, the RNC hate and fear fest really worried you.

From:

Did you miss Orlando or San Bernardino?

From:

His point was that the number of school shootings is much, much higher. You cited two examples of foreign terrorist attacks in the US (or at least ones that were credited as such). Meanwhile, in 2016 alone, there have been nine school shootings so far, quadruple the number of terrorist attacks. Since 2013, there have been 142 school shootings in the US.

From:

moonshaz.livejournal.com

And don't forget that Orlando was the act of a self-hating homophobe who was trying to get himself into heaven by killing "evil" gayz and then making a "martyr" of himself.

San Bernardino was definitely terrorism. But the relationship to actual terrorism in Orlando was tangential at best.

Edited Date: 2016-07-31 12:01 am (UTC)

From:

oslo.livejournal.com

Actually, this statement helps to show what's so problematic about Trump's worldview.

Simply lumping all of the recent terrorist attacks under a single term - the Republican favorite: Radical Islamic Terrorism - and connecting them all, however tenuously, to the leading terrorist threat of the day - ISIS - risks flattening our understanding of what's motivating the attacks, which in turn will only undermine our attempts to stop them before they happen. No Republican, and certainly not Trump, has proposed any policy that would have successfully stopped the Nice attacker from doing what he did. The driver in Nice (as well as many of the other recent "lone wolf" attackers) didn't have a particularly obvious link to ISIS or a longstanding commitment to radical Islamic belief or "jihad" against the West. But as long as it's cast as "Radical Islamic Terrorism" and "inspired by ISIS," Trump and his ilk can pretend that harsh policies on Muslim immigrants and immigrants from "terrorism-compromised" countries would protect us.

The truth about many of the random attacks we now face is that they occur in societies and regions where brown-skinned and Islamic immigrants and citizens face widespread social ostracization that makes it difficult or impossible for them to get jobs, raise families, and assimilate. That's especially true in France; it's true in southern Germany; it's true really throughout much of Europe. They simply don't have the tradition of freedom of religion and immigrant assimilation that we in the U.S. do. For that reason, the attacks have come less frequently here than they have in Europe.

So when you look at the kind of campaign that Trump is running, and the kind of political movement he is inspiring, you have to recognize that he poses a great threat to our security. To the extent that he is successful, his policies will only serve to make American Muslims feel unwelcome in the U.S.; they will inspire widespread attacks and discrimination against Muslims, real and perceived, immigrant or otherwise. And those ostracized Muslims, if driven to desperation and anger by a country that has roundly rejected them, will react much as the "lone-wolf" terrorists in Europe have.

Edited Date: 2016-07-27 09:44 am (UTC)

From:

You articulate very well. After reading it for a second time I realize that it boils down to the same argument as before.

Racism against brown skinned Muslims.

How much more must be done before the race card cannot be thrown out for every little thing these days? Germany has let in so many refugees and yet still they have not done enough and still have a racist mentality?

Enough is enough man. Sadly this is no different than the boy who cried wolf. People are tired of EVERYTHING being blamed on racism these days.

From:

dexeron.livejournal.com

"Sadly this is no different than the boy who cried wolf."

Well, exactly, considering that less than 10% of all terrorist attacks committed in Europe are carried out by Muslims. The same goes for the U.S. So despite the finger pointing at borders and the fear-mongering of folks like Trump who keep crying "wolf," Islam isn't the big threat here (especially considering that there are 1.2 billion Muslims, and maybe 50,000 members of Muslim terrorist organizations worldwide (rounding, of course.) Yet despite other actors carrying out more attacks more frequently, we're meant to tremble in fear at Islam, and of course bow down to whatever draconian policy someone like Trump enacts to deal with this dire threat?

You may not like race being brought into it, but that doesn't change the basic facts. If we're concerned about terrorism (all terrorism, not just Muslims) then we need to deal with what causes radicalization in the first place. If you want to focus on Muslims, then let's do that: Oslo already said, above, that it's been happening when " Islamic immigrants and citizens face widespread social ostracization that makes it difficult or impossible for them to get jobs, raise families, and assimilate." That rings true across demographic groups, across races, across religions. It even rings true among, say, poor white males who feel that they have been disenfranchised (and who make up a significant number of terrorists we've seen in the U.S.)

Obviously we still need to deal with those who spread the radical ideology in the first place (and that can include strong, sometimes military, action.) But if we really want to make a dent in the problem of terrorism, and not just do "something" for the sake of doing something without regard to whether it's actually effective, than building a wall or restricting immigration isn't the answer. We need to address problems like education and poverty, but those aren't things we can solve overnight with a Twitter sound-byte like "Let's build a wall!" so the real, long-term, difficult solutions don't get the crowds all riled up and out to vote. But the aforementioned "harsh policies on Muslim immigrants and immigrants from 'terrorism-compromised' countries" proposed by Trump are not going to do one thing to save us from anything, because they don't address the ongoing problems that spawn recruits for the terrorist cause in the first place.

From:

I can agree with that. How many years would it take? I mean the civil rights movement was what over 50 years ago now right? And seeing how the BLM movement has shaped up recently shooting cops I am guessing maybe another 50 years would suffice? So how many 80 year old priests will need to die, women be raped in Europe which is due to completely due to racism against people of color before the people are educated enough to not be racists?

I feel sad of being a minority myself and being more offended that white liberals want to play the race card here. Why don't you let our people take responsibilites for our actions?

From:

This goes beyond the terrorism of the past 15 years. Trump, in particular was showing his racist inclinations well before then. Krisof of the Times lined up a lot of it in a recent column, here (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-racist.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0). The civil rights movement never fully took ground with everybody.

To say that there is racism is not to deny culpability on the part of terrorists. Even if there were no terrorism, racism would still exist. The terrorism, I believe, is only fueling the racism. It is making racism more acceptable, and it is mocking tolerance with the slur of "political correctness".

From:

Kristof, not Krisof. Sorry, just trying to be smart pants, like oslo.

From:

Aren't you watching the convention? Obama is going to speak soon!

From:

No, I missed it. I turned TV off, because was very upset with Kaine for not pandering to French and Germans. So, I am not voting for Hillary. Plus, I am confused, maybe you can explain how this works. Hillary is changing the change, is she going to cancel the previous change?

From:

She's going to keep making things better!

At this point it will be enough if she keeps us from being pushed off the cliff, which means she needs to keep Trump in private life where he can be more entertaining than scary.

Besides, I think you will make more money under Hillary. Trump only cares about his own bottom line.

Edited Date: 2016-07-28 05:06 am (UTC)

From:

She's going to keep making things better!

That isn't change. That is status quo evolving.
Trump was a businessman and his job was to watch his bottom line. On the other side, crooked Hillary was a public servant and supposed to watch public's bottom line. She made millions selling something, I wonder what, to Wall Street.
I make more money regardless, the only question is how much they'll steal from me to pay for free college for dummies who wants to study dummy things.
Come on, admit she is corrupt.

From:

I doubt there is anyone with money & power who is not corrupt to some extent, but I do believe she is less corrupt than Trump and is more public oriented.

Hillary will probably have you pay more taxes, but you are more likely to be making more money under Hillary so that you still come out further ahead than if Trump were president. Hillary is good for stability, which is good for making money. Who knows what chaos an amateur wannabe-tough-guy like Trump will cause!

Edited Date: 2016-07-28 03:40 pm (UTC)

From:

Trump can't be corrupt-he never held any public office. He could be criminal, but then why Obama isn't prosecuting him?

be making more money under Hillary
What basis you have to claim that? Besides, money isn't everything, at least for me. I might give my child all the money I have in the bank to spend and have fun, or pay the house she will inherit. Which option would you prefer? In case of current administration people might get little extra money, but drawn in debt.

Hillary is good for stability
Do you realize that we might be on the brink of WWWIII? The world is in chaos, what stability? I totally disagree.
But I agree that we don't know what Trump will do, I am cautiously optimistic. But we pretty sure what Hillary/Bill will do, and it's not going to be pretty. I thought you guys are against wall street cronyism.

From:

Trump can't be corrupt-he never held any public office.

Are you arguing that only politicians can be corrupt? Because...that's simply not true.

Do you realize that we might be on the brink of WWWIII?

Sadly, yes. And Trump will most assuredly push us towards it with haste.

From:

Of course, hard drives and files could be corrupt too.
The definition of corruption we are talking about:
Corruption is a form of dishonest or unethical conduct by a person entrusted with a position of authority, often to acquire personal benefit.

From:

Of course, hard drives and files could be corrupt too.

Fair point! :-)

But arguably, a "position of authority" isn't exclusive to politicians. Anyone in such a position could be. And Trump, as the head of a global brand, is certainly in such a position.

From:

For example, if Hillary appoints her brother with no qualification as an assistant of secretary of state, that's corruption, if Trump appoints his son, even with no qualifications, as CEO of his company - no corruption there. The position of authority is borrowed by politicians to use for public good, if they use it for their own good - that's corruption. Private people have no obligation to act to benefit public, they only obligated to act according the law; if the don't - then it's a crime.

From:

Both instances you've described are excellent examples of nepotism, but I'm not sure they illustrate corruption. All members of the cabinet are appointed by the President, who can chose anyone for any reason. However, they must also then be submitted to the Senate for confirmation or rejection. So, if Hilary appoints her brother and the Senate approves him, then nepotism exists, but not corruption.

On the flip side, officers of a publicly traded company cannot be appointed without board/shareholder approval. The Trump Organization, being a privately held company owned 100% by the Donald himself, does not have to abide by these rules. So in this instance, there is a far greater chance of corruption, as there are no checks and balances, only the whims of Donald Trump.

From:

Like I said, in a first case it's a illegal, in second case-it's legal.

From:

...except, again, it's not illegal in either case.

From:

Except, some politicians went to prison for that, in my opinion not nearly enough.

From: