Re: Yesterday Trump Called Latinos "Animals"
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 5:52 pm
Buddhist forum about the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
18 May 20181,920
Glenn Beck, the staunch Never-Trump radio host and founder of The Blaze, announced on Friday that he is supporting President Donald Trump’s 2020 re-election bid.
.@glennbeck has heard ENOUGH from the mainstream media.
It's time to acknowledge everything @realDonaldTrump has done for America.
Beck said his decision to finally support the President came after watching the “dishonest and corrupt” media mischaracterized Trump’s comments, in which he described MS-13 gang members as “animals,” on Thursday.
“Media, if you can get me, Glenn Beck, to do this,” he said, “If you can drive me to the point to where I say, ‘You know what, I’ve had enough; I’ll vote for him in 2020’– you’re making a gigantic mistake.”
During this monologue, Beck put a red “Make America Great Again” hat on his head and announced the symbolic act to his radio listeners.
Beck added he believes Trump will re-take the White House in 2020 in a “landslide.”
His comments came after years of staunch opposition to Trump, starting with the 2016 Republican primary. Beck made his first-ever primary endorsement during that race, backing Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and speaking at several Cruz rallies. He appeared on CNN and labeled Trump a “dangerous man,” contributed to National Review‘s “Against Trump” special issue, and infamously stuck his face in a bowl of crushed Cheetos before Trump ultimately won the Republican nomination
I didn't carelessly miss out I deliberately cut out what seemed irrelevant to the question and didn't seem to make much sense, to me.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 5:52 pmYou've carelessly missed out a bit of my response. When asked "So do you think The President should be calling gang members...animals?" my response was a succinct but definite "No".
If the gang members are human, then what they do cannot be "inhuman brutality". Then whatever they do is simply what humans do.
The real problem is that people mostly have only vague, emotionally based ideas of morality that are rationally indefensible. Which is how people are generally impotent in the face of those they find immoral/amoral, and are able to oppose them with only more vague, emotionally based ideas of morality that are rationally indefensible, eventually leading to an eye-for-an-eye mentality in all involved.
Runner up has to be from the Washington PostScreen Shot Ana Navarro (CNN: April 30, 2018)
Regular CNN commentator Ana Navarro joined the crowd attacking President Donald Trump for referring to MS-13 gang members as “animals,” apparently forgetting that she had used the same terminology to attack Trump during the 2016 campaign.
Just after the release of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, Navarro tweeted her disgust with then candidate Trump.
“Should Donald Trump drop out of the race? Yes,” she tweeted Oct. 10, 2016. “He should drop out of the human race. He is an animal. Apologies to animals.
”Jennifer Rubin, the self-described “conservative blogger” at the Washington Post, called President Trump’s comments “disgusting.”
But in August of 2017, Rubin also compared the president to an “animal” in an opinion piece that appeared in the Chicago Tribune.
“Only 24 hours after he read a serious speech off a teleprompter committing to send more young men and women to fight in Afghanistan, President Donald Trump reverted to form, delivering a rambling, rage-filled, 77-minute harangue that was alternately defensive, angry, accusatory and just plain weird. Like a trapped animal, he lashed out in every direction, trying unsuccessfully to draw blood.
Trump's not smart enough to know that homo sapiens that engage in wanton violence like he does are also animals, he didn't learn much in Dhamma school!! Trump is part of a "gang".
Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak.
And what is the diversity in fermentations? There are fermentations that lead to hell, those that lead to the animal womb, those that lead to the realm of the hungry shades, those that lead to the human world, those that lead to the world of the devas. This is called the diversity in fermentations.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
I just don't understand the confusion that seems to reign in America regarding illegal immigration.pulga wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 12:46 pmI don't know how much of it is from President Trump and how much of it is from Jeff Sessions who seems to have a zeal against all illegal immigration, but the Trump administration does seem to be too hard on undocumented immigrants these days. Trump the candidate vowed that he would target only violent illegal immigrants, while Sessions the Attorney General is going after all illegal immigrants.
The sheer size of the problem and the proposed solutions are daunting. In 1986 an amnesty was signed into law by Ronald Reagan, giving two to three million illegal immigrants citizenship. Though with chain migration the impact on the U.S. population was much greater. Some estimate that if amnesty were given again today the impact would be an additional 60 million foreign Hispanics moving to the U.S., many with little or no education or money. Many Democrats want such a demographic shift because most of them would vote for their party. President Trump is tying his DACA proposal -- which is a sort of limited amnesty -- to an end of chain migration which in some respects is more important than the building of the wall.
Had the DACA dilemma been resolved it would have been a huge political win for the President, something seemingly intolerable to the Democrats these days. Hopefully their cynicism didn't go unnoticed to many of the Hispanics who would have benefited from what President Trump had to offer.