2016 Presidential Horse Race

2016 Presidential Horse Race


  • Total voters
    183

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Those aren't loopholes, they're just the rules. "Loophole" implies you're getting away with something dishonest. If people don't like the rules, then we can debate them on their merits. I just object to the term "loophole" because it's used as a trick to make regular folks who don't know any better hate the rich.

The VAST majority of Americans have no idea what a hedge fund is, let alone carried interest and how it should be taxed. Baiting them with one-liners and catch-phrases like "pay your fair share" and "loopholes for the 1%" are despicable and dishonest.

While "loopholes" may not be only for the rich, they are generally only accessible to the rich because the rich have funded politicians to write the "rules" in their favor. That's the problem with too much money in politics. And the beneficiaries of the "rules" are the folks who paid for such influence which has resulted in unprecedented income disparity between regular folks and the rich.

I understand your objection to the use of the word "loophole", but mine is with distraction from the real issue. The system is rigged and it got that way because of the despicable and dishonest practices of the rich (and the slavish influence they wield over our politicians.). So I'm not going to shed a tear if the rich or anyone else takes offense to the term that describes the mechanisms they purposefully built into the laws to keep the system working in their favor. They are "rules" gained to the detriment of people who do not have access to them ... and probably never will.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
While "loopholes" may not be only for the rich, they are generally only accessible to the rich because the rich have funded politicians to write the "rules" in their favor. That's the problem with too much money in politics. And the beneficiaries of the "rules" are the folks who paid for such influence which has resulted in unprecedented income disparity between regular folks and the rich.
I completely agree. "Capitalism" has been bastardized into "corporatism" and it needs to stop. The problem I have with the Left is that they rightfully denounce corrupt government but their proposed solutions inevitably involve more power in the hands of the government. That's completely backwards. As much as liberals think the rich and powerful are out to screw them over, you're screwed even harder every time the government grows because the rich and powerful use the government for their own purposes.
 
Last edited:

NDinL.A.

New member
Messages
8,121
Reaction score
1,734
Nobody is protesting Mexican-Americans. Trump supporters have no beef with Mexican-Americans. I can't answer your question of why people have a problem with Mexican-Americans because nobody does. I do have a problem with illegal immigrants and those who support illegal immigration, so I answered your question in that context.

That is simply not true. When someone with brown skin says they don’t support Trump, Trump supporters automatically go to “You must be illegal!!” I can’t tell you how many times that has happened to me. Shit, I see it online in pretty much every single comments section of a Trump article. Sorry dude, but that is bigotry, and it’s BS. I don’t know what bubble you are living in, but there is a faction of Trump supporters who not only are against illegal immigrants, but against Mexican-Americans as well. When a Trump supporter goes up to Hispanic, not knowing where they were born or if they are a citizen, and says, “We’re gonna build a wall and keep y’all out of our country!”…I mean, wtf is that?

And how about Trump continuing to bring up the judge’s family heritage whenever he mentions the judge. The dude was born in INDIANA, but Trump keeps bringing up Mexico. Do you NOT see how straight racist that is? If Trump himself has a problem with a Mexican-American, how do you think his minions feel?

It has nothing to do with physical characteristics. What are they protesting? They're protesting border security. On that fact alone, they're pro-illegal immigration since there's no other basis for opposing a secure border.

You have no idea what the protest is about then. It’s not about securing the border – I MYSELF am pro securing the border, and I was and will be a protester. It has everything to do with Trump lying and calling most of the undocumented workers “rapists” and “murderers” and saying Mexico is sending them here (LOL). Do you not see how offensive and ridiculous this is to someone who has come here and done things the right way, of which there are millions and millions? And it’s not like it was a slip of the tongue – he built his entire campaign (as well as his towers) on this myth, and many of his supporters have used it as a rallying cry against Hispanics, whether they are here legally or not.

How do think the HS kids in Iowa and Indiana felt when they were in an athletic competition and the opposing Anglo students started chanting “Build a Wall!!!” during their games? They were here legally, and yet the Trump supporters (with their Trump FatHeads in the stands) felt it was cool to profile them based on the color of their skin and the Spanish surnames in the programs. And that’s OK to you?

Whether they're illegal immigrants or simply pro-illegal immigration, I don't see much difference. I also don't give a shit what color they are. If I see a white guy with a Mexican flag saying "fuck Trump," I'll say the same thing to him.

Nope. We're to assume that people protesting border security support illegal immigration.

They’re not protesting border security. Nice try. You're way off.

ETA: Maybe you didn't notice they "brown pride" signs they're touting. They're the racists, not Trump.

Get the fuck outta here with that. Talk about a straw man. Holy crap. I can be proud of my heritage and not be a racist. I love everyone of every color. Just like one can be proud of his Irish roots and not be a racist.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
That is simply not true. When someone with brown skin says they don’t support Trump, Trump supporters automatically go to “You must be illegal!!” I can’t tell you how many times that has happened to me. Shit, I see it online in pretty much every single comments section of a Trump article. Sorry dude, but that is bigotry, and it’s BS. I don’t know what bubble you are living in, but there is a faction of Trump supporters who not only are against illegal immigrants, but against Mexican-Americans as well. When a Trump supporter goes up to Hispanic, not knowing where they were born or if they are a citizen, and says, “We’re gonna build a wall and keep y’all out of our country!”…I mean, wtf is that?

And how about Trump continuing to bring up the judge’s family heritage whenever he mentions the judge. The dude was born in INDIANA, but Trump keeps bringing up Mexico. Do you NOT see how straight racist that is? If Trump himself has a problem with a Mexican-American, how do you think his minions feel?

You have no idea what the protest is about then. It’s not about securing the border – I MYSELF am pro securing the border, and I was and will be a protester. It has everything to do with Trump lying and calling most of the undocumented workers “rapists” and “murderers” and saying Mexico is sending them here (LOL). Do you not see how offensive and ridiculous this is to someone who has come here and done things the right way, of which there are millions and millions? And it’s not like it was a slip of the tongue – he built his entire campaign (as well as his towers) on this myth, and many of his supporters have used it as a rallying cry against Hispanics, whether they are here legally or not.

How do think the HS kids in Iowa and Indiana felt when they were in an athletic competition and the opposing Anglo students started chanting “Build a Wall!!!” during their games? They were here legally, and yet the Trump supporters (with their Trump FatHeads in the stands) felt it was cool to profile them based on the color of their skin and the Spanish surnames in the programs. And that’s OK to you?

They’re not protesting border security. Nice try. You're way off.

Get the fuck outta here with that. Talk about a straw man. Holy crap. I can be proud of my heritage and not be a racist. I love everyone of every color. Just like one can be proud of his Irish roots and not be a racist.
Come on man. I didn't say YOU are a racist or that everyone who opposes Trump is against border security. I said THESE PEOPLE IN THIS VIDEO are racists and THESE PEOPLE IN THIS VIDEO oppose border security and THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S PLATFORM officially opposes border security.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-uRiExRJ5AI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
I completely agree. "Capitalism" has been bastardized into "corporatism" and it needs to stop. The problem I have with the Left is that they rightfully denounce corrupt government but their proposed solutions inevitably involved more power in the hands of the government. That's completely backwards. As much as liberals think the rich and powerful are out to screw them over, you're screwed even harder every time the government grows because the rich and powerful use the government for their own purposes.

Good post. I'm glad we can at least agree on the problem, even if our conclusions and approach differ. My view is that if solutions are not government led, we are letting them be handled by the very people who rigged the game to begin with -- or not handled at all. Either way the results are not good for the poor and middle class. I do not share the common contempt many have for the government. I think it can and often has been a force for good. Is it too inefficient? Absolutely. Does it waste money? Sure it does. Does it get things wrong sometimes? Yep. I think government should be fixed so that it operates more efficiently and effectively. That's less of a lift, IMO, than convincing rich people to start treating poor people without empathy and understanding. The first step in doing that is to get the money out of politics, and therefore the pressure on politicians to rig the game. The second is to to change the rules that allow elections to be rigged by those same politicians who want to hold onto power, such as gerrymandering and bogus voter laws that are designed to reduce voter turnout. We citizens have allowed ourselves to become pawns for the rich and powerful, expendable commodities in an ugly game that has huge consequences in peoples' lives that don't seem to matter much to those writing the rules.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Good post. I'm glad we can at least agree on the problem, even if our conclusions and approach differ. My view is that if solutions are not government led, we are letting them be handled by the very people who rigged the game to begin with -- or not handled at all. Either way the results are not good for the poor and middle class. I do not share the common contempt many have for the government. I think it can and often has been a force for good. Is it too inefficient? Absolutely. Does it waste money? Sure it does. Does it get things wrong sometimes? Yep. I think government should be fixed so that it operates more efficiently and effectively.
That's circular. The government rigged the game so the government needs to lead in the un-rigging of the game that they rigged in the first place?

That's less of a lift, IMO, than convincing rich people to start treating poor people without empathy and understanding.
I'm sorry that your view of humanity is so pessimistic. I don't think I've ever met a rich person who treats poor people "without empathy and understanding." If your position is that people are, in general, shit, then I can see why you don't trust them to govern themselves.

That said, even when rich people behave in their own self-interest, they help the poor by accident in a way that government can't. Capitalism creates employment, and reduces the cost of goods and services. The government produces nothing. At best, they redistribute wealth. At worst, they destroy it.

The left has a very bleak view of capitalism. They see it as a dog-eat-dog Darwinian world in which only the strong survey and the weak are devoured. On the contrary, cooperation is a much bigger feature of capitalism than competition. Ask any businessman what percentage of his work week he spends cooperating and what percentage of his workweek he spends competing and I think the answer will surprise you.
 
Last edited:

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
A flat tax is already progressive. If you take 10% of everyone's money, the guy making $200K is going to pay $20K in taxes and the guy making $50K is going to pay $5K in taxes.


The irony of those six principles is that the one thing that accomplishes all six is eliminating the corporate tax entirely.

If yo take 10% of a poor family's money, the result could be catastrophic. If you take 60% of Donald Trump's money, nothing changes for his family. A flat tax would make poor people poorer, middle class people poor, and bring in less money to fund the programs that help all of these people -- all so that the people who are least affected by taxes can stockpile more cash.
 

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
15,102
Reaction score
12,935
Come on man. I didn't say YOU are a racist or that everyone who opposes Trump is against border security. I said THESE PEOPLE IN THIS VIDEO are racists and THESE PEOPLE IN THIS VIDEO oppose border security and THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S PLATFORM officially opposes border security.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-uRiExRJ5AI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Careful putting all those words in CAPITALS, apparently that's one of Wooly's pet peeves.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
If yo take 10% of a poor family's money, the result could be catastrophic. If you take 60% of Donald Trump's money, nothing changes for his family. A flat tax would make poor people poorer, middle class people poor, and bring in less money to fund the programs that help all of these people -- all so that the people who are least affected by taxes can stockpile more cash.
Stockpile cash? Give me a break. ECON 101 says "don't stockpile cash." Cash leads to investment and investment means growth and growth means jobs.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
That's circular. The government rigged the game so the government needs to lead in the un-rigging of the game that they rigged in the first place?


I'm sorry that your view of humanity is so pessimistic. I don't think I've ever met a rich person who treats poor people "without empathy and understanding." If your position is that people are, in general, shit, then I can see why you don't trust them to govern themselves.

That said, even when rich people behave in their own self-interest, they help the poor by accident in a way that government can't. Capitalism creates employment, and reduces the cost of goods and services. The government produces nothing. At best, they redistribute wealth. At worst, they destroy it.

The left has a very bleak view of capitalism. They see it as a dog-eat-dog Darwinian world in which only the strong survey and the weak are devoured. On the contrary, cooperation is a much bigger feature of capitalism than competition. Ask any businessman what percentage of his work week he spends cooperating and what percentage of his workweek he spends competing and I think the answer will surprise you.

I think you are missing my point. Government is corrupted by money. That money is acquired in a transaction that buys influence. I'm saying look at the source of the corruption, not the middleman politicians. That is where the problem lies, IMO.

I don't think people are shit. I think money is a corrupting influence. Many (not all) who have it, invest in politics so they can continue winning the game. Those behaviors are shit.

When a company shuts its factory doors and puts Americans out of work to increase its bottom line, you can choose to see that as "acting in their best interest." I see it as screwing workers. At best it is indifference, the evil cousin of destain, toward workers. When it buys political influence to further profit for putting people out of work, that is not a demonstration of compassion for those who will be affected by underfunded programs to help the poor. Nor is lobbying to keep the minimum wage artificially low, a practice that clearly suggests a lack of empathy in favor of the rich getting richer. Lowering taxes on the rich has the same result.

You said in a previous post that you agreed corporatism was a problem that must be fixed, yet now you appear to be suggesting it is the tide that raises all boats. I'm not disparaging capitalism so much as what it has become, fueled by greed it has corrupted into a force that is hurting a lot of people. I'm all for competition, but the rules can't favor the rich over everyone else. Our middle class is shrinking while our wealthiest citizens prosper. If there is more cooperation than competition, that is because competition is because there is less competition. Corporate mergers and aquisitions have made feeder and fewer and larger and larger companies. Those companies wield more and more political power -- largely because of the bribes they pay our politicians to keep it that way.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Stockpile cash? Give me a break. ECON 101 says "don't stockpile cash." Cash leads to investment and investment means growth and growth means jobs.

Tell that to the banks in the Bahamas that have made a whole industry of hiding huge stashes of money for wealthy clients. Econ 101 does not deal with corruption and greed. This is the fallacy of the trickle down economic policies that we've had since Reagan held office. If his theory was fact, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Businesses would be raking in profits, expanding and hiring people to continue the cycle. We'd all be doing great because the economy would be humming along like gangbusters. Instead we see shuddered factories and the employees who made them profitable working at Wendy's because all that profit companies are making is not being reinvested. It's being stashed. Human nature and corruption begin where economic theory stops.
 
Last edited:

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
I think you are missing my point. Government is corrupted by money. That money is acquired in a transaction that buys influence. I'm saying look at the source of the corruption, not the middleman politicians. That is where the problem lies, IMO.

I don't think people are shit. I think money is a corrupting influence. Many (not all) who have it, invest in politics so they can continue winning the game. Those behaviors are shit.

I completely disagree. The absolute worst example of government corruption/abused of power in human history have absolutely nothing to do with money. It is power that corrupts. Greed can have a corrupting influence too, that's absolutely undeniable, and in that sense money is a problem.

But with or without money in politics, you will always have government corruption.
 

NDinL.A.

New member
Messages
8,121
Reaction score
1,734
Come on man. I didn't say YOU are a racist or that everyone who opposes Trump is against border security. I said THESE PEOPLE IN THIS VIDEO are racists and THESE PEOPLE IN THIS VIDEO oppose border security and THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S PLATFORM officially opposes border security.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-uRiExRJ5AI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In the post I quoted from you, there was no mention of the video. Obviously I must have come in at the wrong point of a different conversation. My apologies if I got things twisted.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I completely disagree. The absolute worst example of government corruption/abused of power in human history have absolutely nothing to do with money. It is power that corrupts. Greed can have a corrupting influence too, that's absolutely undeniable, and in that sense money is a problem.

But with or without money in politics, you will always have government corruption.

Put another way, money and power are two sides of the same coin. Those with power want money, and will use their influence to get it. Those with wealth want influence, and will use their money to get it. So when a Progressive starts with, "If we could just get money out of politics...", you're instantly in fantasy land. Might as well wish for incorruptible saints to lead us. Human nature doesn't work that way.

From Federalist 51:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

The only way to reliably reduce corruption is to disperse power as widely as possible among a virtuous and engaged citizenry.
 
Last edited:

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
I think you are missing my point. Government is corrupted by money. That money is acquired in a transaction that buys influence. I'm saying look at the source of the corruption, not the middleman politicians. That is where the problem lies, IMO.

I don't think people are shit. I think money is a corrupting influence. Many (not all) who have it, invest in politics so they can continue winning the game. Those behaviors are shit.

When a company shuts its factory doors and puts Americans out of work to increase its bottom line, you can choose to see that as "acting in their best interest." I see it as screwing workers. At best it is indifference, the evil cousin of destain, toward workers. When it buys political influence to further profit for putting people out of work, that is not a demonstration of compassion for those who will be affected by underfunded programs to help the poor. Nor is lobbying to keep the minimum wage artificially low, a practice that clearly suggests a lack of empathy in favor of the rich getting richer. Lowering taxes on the rich has the same result.

You said in a previous post that you agreed corporatism was a problem that must be fixed, yet now you appear to be suggesting it is the tide that raises all boats. I'm not disparaging capitalism so much as what it has become, fueled by greed it has corrupted into a force that is hurting a lot of people. I'm all for competition, but the rules can't favor the rich over everyone else. Our middle class is shrinking while our wealthiest citizens prosper. If there is more cooperation than competition, that is because competition is because there is less competition. Corporate mergers and aquisitions have made feeder and fewer and larger and larger companies. Those companies wield more and more political power -- largely because of the bribes they pay our politicians to keep it that way.

A couple points.

1. Some people are shit. Don't blame money. I know plenty of people who have turned down money, or more money because they prefer to be honest, or prioritize something more than money. It's all a choice my friend. Stop taking away individual responsibility as it correlates to free will.

2. Businesses don't go into business (typically) to make their employees rich, or to create employment. If either are an output of creating, or running a business, that's great. Business owners owe nothing more than safe working environment and market driven wage. I run a division of a company, and I love the fact that I have higher than average retention rate, and great employee sat numbers. I couldn't do those things if I weren't making money. I'd prefer not to, but I will offshore or outsource if it becomes a question of business survival or remaining competitive.

3. In terms of capitalism, see point 1

4. To your point about keeping the wage artificially low. Personally I'd prefer a higher min wage. But, if the gov raises it, isn't that artificial??? The market is the only natural variable... Any government mandated change is forced and artificial (logically, theoretically).
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
I completely disagree. The absolute worst example of government corruption/abused of power in human history have absolutely nothing to do with money. It is power that corrupts. Greed can have a corrupting influence too, that's absolutely undeniable, and in that sense money is a problem.

But with or without money in politics, you will always have government corruption.

Perhaps corruption is a permanent fixture of government, but the results of this particular brand of money fueled corruption are difficult to ignore because they affect everyone. The big argument from the right about raising taxes on the rich used to be "wealth redistribution" is inherently unfair. I don't hear that argument so much anymore from them now that most of the wealth in this country has been redistributed upward. But more to your point, power and money have been so intertwined that it is difficult to distinguish one from the other anymore. The rich and the powerful have joined forces and they are screwing the middle class and the poor. That, IMO, is fueling the anger on the right (Trump) and the left (Bernie) ... two sides of the same coin.
 

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
15,102
Reaction score
12,935
Perhaps corruption is a permanent fixture of government, but the results of this particular brand of money fueled corruption are difficult to ignore because they affect everyone. The big argument from the right about raising taxes on the rich used to be "wealth redistribution" is inherently unfair. I don't hear that argument so much anymore from them now that most of the wealth in this country has been redistributed upward. But more to your point, power and money have been so intertwined that it is difficult to distinguish one from the other anymore. The rich and the powerful have joined forces and they are screwing the middle class and the poor. That, IMO, is fueling the anger on the right (Trump) and the left (Bernie) ... two sides of the same coin.

giphy.gif
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
I will concede that Jewish-Americans could be called Israeli-Americans, but the main point remains. They lobby heavily for pro-Israeli causes. Does that make them un-American?

I really fucking hope you were joking with this?

There's no such thing as a Jewish-American. Jewish is a RELIGION, not a nationality. And not every Jew has ties to Israel. Are all Catholics in America Italian-Americans?
 
Last edited:

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
1. Illegal immigrants are not Mexican-Americans. They're Mexicans.

2. They have zero loyalty to the United States and show no interest in assimilating to our culture. They want to transform America, not become a part of it as it exists.

3. "Jewish" is a religion, not a nationality.

4. Pro-Israeli policies are not a product of anti-American sentiments. Pro-Israeli policies are called supporting our only democratic ally in the most messed up part of the world.

5. Irish-Americans celebrate their heritage by wearing green shirts and having a few beers once a year. These people are kicking cars, intimidating dissenters, and yelling "fuck America."

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-uRiExRJ5AI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I know he's only a kid, but that's hilarious: he's wearing a Jordan (multi billionaire) t shirt with a Bernie sticker. It's like GoIrish41 applauding Obama for doing whatever he wants without Congress, but if Trump were in the White House he would need Congress and the country to go along with his plans. lol
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
Because that's a goddamn strawman! Nobody is protesting Mexican-Americans. Trump supporters have no beef with Mexican-Americans. I can't answer your question of why people have a problem with Mexican-Americans because nobody does. I do have a problem with illegal immigrants and those who support illegal immigration, so I answered your question in that context.


It has nothing to do with physical characteristics. What are they protesting? They're protesting border security. On that fact alone, they're pro-illegal immigration since there's no other basis for opposing a secure border.


Get the fuck out of here with that.


Whether they're illegal immigrants or simply pro-illegal immigration, I don't see much difference. I also don't give a shit what color they are. If I see a white guy with a Mexican flag saying "fuck Trump," I'll say the same thing to him.


Nope. We're to assume that people protesting border security support illegal immigration.

ETA: Maybe you didn't notice they "brown pride" signs they're touting. They're the racists, not Trump.

It's pretty simple. If they're not illegal immigrants, they are either here legally or they are US citizens. The constitution guarantees those with citizenship free speech, even the right to speech with which you may disagree. While I don't condone the violence, they have every right to protest the **** Trump has been saying.

And you showed your cards when you included white guys with a Mexican flag saying "**** Trump" in your condemnation. If you think the protests are over the single issue of immigration, you are sadly mistaken. The protests are over the multiple racist, derogatory, and insulting statements which Trump has used to court the Republican base and the insane statements he's made regarding how to conduct foreign affairs.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
What Trump's Proposed Ban On Muslims Really Threatens (from Task and Purpose)

Spreading fear and bigotry over the American way of life is not a path to keeping our nation safe.

This week, I sat at a bar with an Afghan-American translator who served alongside special operations soldiers on some of the most dangerous and sensitive combat missions in the Afghan War back in 2011. She had been injured in an improvised explosive device explosion during a night raid that year and was working to put her life back together and recover ever since. As we sat and talked about Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq, the television occupying the bar’s airspace displayed a graphic about Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States.

I asked her what she thought about the coverage the ban was receiving and how seriously the idea of banning Muslims from America was being discussed.

“It’s a circus,” she said. “The whole thing. I don’t think Trump believes it, but what about how many people cheer when he says it?”

That moment of disconnect between an American who served, and nearly died, for her country at war and an America that was having a serious discussion about banning all members of her religion showed how personal and how preposterous this national policy conversation has become. Because while Trump may have proposed the ban, we as a nation have not immediately rejected it as unbecoming of everything for which we and our country stand. And that is a mistake. Because it is not about Trump or about politics, it is about national patriotism, our founding principles, and an America now in its sixteenth year of post-9/11 wars that is better than this.

“Only in the United States is there such a rich mixture of races, creeds, and nationalities — only in our melting pot,” former president Ronald Reagan said in the summer of 1984 as he accepted the Republican presidential nomination. “Every promise, every opportunity is still golden in this land. And through that golden door our children can walk into tomorrow with the knowledge that no one can be denied the promise that is America.”

That is who we are. We are not a nation that bans one religion from our borders. Nor are we a country that sees those who follow one faith as our collective enemy. Our words and our ways pay tribute to the notion of a melting pot, not hardened fears and hatreds.

This is part of what has kept us safer than others, including those in Europe, who are more vulnerable to their youth turning to extremism. When we live up to the American ideal that there is only an “us,” that there is no “them,” that we all have a chance to live up to the “promise that is America,” as Reagan described, it is harder to feel disaffected, to be aggrieved, to feel that extremism is the only club that will have you and then the one to which you most want to belong.

The truth is we are a nation that has forgotten it is at war, one in which less than half a percent of the country has fought 100% of its wars for more than a decade, and that most of those years were spent working with and serving alongside Muslims.

Spreading fear and bigotry over the American way of life is not a path to keeping our nation safe. Quite the opposite. And we can and must do better.

At the heart of America is a “golden door” that leads us all forward, not a metal gate closed to all members of any one faith.

from link above at "Task and Purpose"
Who We Are
Task & Purpose is a news and culture site geared toward the next great generation of American veterans. We offer an outlet for well-written analysis and commentary on veterans and greater military affairs.
 
Last edited:
Top