Posted on 03/07/2016 6:25:43 AM PST by MarvinStinson
Edited on 03/07/2016 6:54:43 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
The “Trump is a racist” campaign is out in full force, even from across the ocean.
By his own actions and rhetoric, Obama has been the most racially divisive president in the modern era.
Martin Luther King he ain’t.
To blame this all on a candidate that has been running for the past 6 months is downright pathetic.
It is fine talking about descent into abysses from a country whose truly styoo-pid leadership contributed to a great deal of 20th century death and destruction. Boor War, trench warfare - oh it will be over in a few seeks, to the treaties that lead to the rise of the Nazis and then Chamberlain’s extemporizing capitulation.
bmp
By his own actions and rhetoric, Obama has been the most racially divisive president in the modern era.
That’s needs to be repeated
Scribblers for the FT Leftist rag will become unacceptable in a Muslim Britain unless they conform to Islam. With his lofty anti-racial beliefs, he won’t mind that his wife will be required to wear a burka and his children will be well-instructed in Islam. For PC cowards such as this, thousands of better Brits gave their lives in two World Wars. What a shame.
Have the British ever apologized to the Irish?
“That was then. Today America’s first non-white president is winding down at the nation’s tensest moment of racial polarisation in decades. Thanks to Donald Trump, the Ku Klux Klan is back in the headlines. “
No, thanks to Obama, the Ku Klux Klan is back in the headlines.
I don’t think they really want to get into a discussion about patterns.
These anti-Trump articles and comments spring up like dandelions. America has suffered under extremely bad administrations making either deliberate or just plain stupid errors, but the twice elected Obama wins the prize for being the worst president in our nation’s history and certainly one of the worst in the history of civilization.
American voters are, unfortunately, extremely stupid. Who would have thought that two Marxist loons like Sanders and Clinton would appear on a ticket excepting one to hell?
Racial polarization existed before Obama was elected and it will exist after he is out of office. People don’t change just because of who is elected president.
Edward Luce is the son of Richard Luce, who was was Lord Chamberlain to HM The Queen from 2000 to 2006, and has been Governor of Gibraltar, a Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) and Government Minister.
1. You are not smarter, more sophisticated, more socially aware, or more caring and tolerant than the average American. Not even close.
2. In many, many cases it is the children and grandchildren of those who bailed out your country by putting their lives on the line in WWII who you are dismissing as stupid, unsophisticated, and even racist Americans. To do so, especially with the incredibly limited amount of knowledge and understanding that you have, is vulgar, ungrateful, and put in the nicest way possible - uninformed.
3. The United States is one of the most tolerant and accepting nations on Earth, and it will take a lot of effort for England to get to this level. British society is one of the most hierarchical one can find in the West. It is also quite sexist. Your divisions are not socioeconomic as much as they are class based - and you have so many ways of defining ones class in British society (family background, where you went to secondary school and what university you attended, if you are ‘pure’ British, what one’s diction is -and whether or not you have the wrong kind of accent, etc.). In America we have much, much more class mobility than you have in Britain, and this is why you reflexively attack as ‘uneducated’ and unsophisticated those who you don't agree with over here. It is because this is the way you divide your society. You should remember that you can be ‘proper’ and still be quite wrong. Lord Chamberlain was clearly not as intemperate or ‘vulgar’ as Churchill, but Churchill was right and he was wrong.
4. Racism has been a problem around the globe, and anyone who follows European football/soccer knows this. Incidents of racism aren't generally seen in American sports, but they are unfortunately not uncommon enough in Europe. Take the plank out of your own eye. Obama could not have won the Presidency without whites in America voting for him. Voting for the party of Abraham Lincoln (Republicans) is not an act of racism, but writing articles in which you assign the worst intentions and characterizations of ‘whites’ as a group is beyond the pale and racist, in addition to being entirely incorrect and frankly unintellectual. Just like antisemitism has again become tolerated in Europe, making egregious statements about ‘whites’ is also socially acceptable these days. Disgusting, misguided, and hurtful. Again, take the plank out of your own eye. We are working to get beyond color, not using it as a political tool.
This could go on and on, and each one of your ‘points’ is easily discardable. You should think a bit more before you write.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-foreign-idUSMTZSAPEC37O1O8W3
Officials from Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia have complained in recent private conversations, mostly about the xenophobic nature of Trump's statements,
said three U.S. officials, who all declined to be identified.
.................
Japan's embassy declined to comment.
The Indian and South Korean embassies did not respond to requests for comment.
A spokesperson for the Mexican government would not confirm any private complaints The foreign officials have been particularly disturbed by the anti-Muslim themes that the billionaire real estate mogul has pushed, according to the U.S. officials.
“European diplomats are constantly asking about Trump's rise with disbelief and, now, growing panic," said a senior NATO official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"The responses have ranged from amusement to befuddlement to curiosity," the official said. "In some cases, we've heard expressions of alarm, but those have been more in response to the anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiment as well as the general sense of xenophobia.”
Asked whether China was concerned about Trump's proposal to place high tariffs on Chinese goods, Hua Chunyin, China's foreign ministry spokeswoman.declined to comment on specific candidates.
Representatives of other countries publicly attacked by Trump, including Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam either had no comment or did not respond to requests for comments.
This article was funded in part by SAP. It was independently created by the Reuters editorial staff. SAP had no editorial involvement in its creation or production.
“Have the British ever apologized to the Irish?”
They’ve killed enough of my ancestors...and if it wasn’t for America, they’d be speaking German, if they weren’t all dead.
Figures. The UK is run by cowards.P.C., left unchecked, will take it down.
“Just like antisemitism has again become tolerated in Europe, making egregious statements about ‘whites’ is also socially acceptable these days. Disgusting, misguided, and hurtful. Again, take the plank out of your own eye. We are working to get beyond color, not using it as a political tool.”
Worth repeating over and over again ! !
Here the same “author” sells Obama’s Iran treason:
Obama reads Iran better than his critics
Edward Luce July 19, 2015
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/14590158-2c94-11e5-8613-e7aedbb7bdb7.html#axzz42E46Y6xq
Critics of Barack Obama’s Iran deal have been giving a good impression of having lost the plot. An Israeli cabinet minister described it as “one of the darkest days in world history”. Republicans liken Mr Obama to Neville Chamberlain. All agree that a deal that removes about two-thirds of Iran’s nuclear capability and freezes the rest will somehow hasten the day it has the bomb. In the next two months, before Capitol Hill votes on it, we will hear a lot more such bombast. It comes down to whether Congress believes Iran is capable of acting rationally or whether it is a uniquely malevolent country that has outfoxed America and its partners in the negotiating chamber.
The chances are that Mr Obama’s deal will prevail. He needs the veto-proof support of just a third of each chamber — 34 senators and 145 in the House of Representatives. Even then, however, it is no sure bet. In the next 60 days it will face the onslaught of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and every Republican presidential hopeful. In addition to viewing Iran in an apocalyptic light, each has further motives for wishing to sink the deal.
•
• In the case of Saudi Arabia, the logic is simple. Iran is Saudi Arabia’s chief competitor that claims to speak for the region’s Shia minority, a large chunk of which lives in Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich east. In a sectarian zero-sum game, anything that boosts Iran is bad.
•
Israel’s opposition is also straightforward. As the region’s only nuclear weapons state — albeit an undeclared one — it wants to keep its monopoly. The fact that the deal would set back Iran’s breakout capacity from two months to a year is false comfort, say the Israelis. By bringing a pariah state in from the cold, it will perversely raise the chances Iran eventually goes nuclear.
Finally, Republicans see Mr Obama as a feckless president who is jeopardising US power simply by talking to a terrorist state. The quality of the deal is irrelevant. Nothing short of regime change will do. Some of these motives overlap. For example, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, shares the Republican party’s personal animus towards Mr Obama. What unites them is a refusal to see Iran as capable of change.
Mr Obama has taken the opposite tack. A realistic negotiator puts himself into his adversary’s shoes. The starting point on Iran is that its desire to go nuclear is entirely rational. US-led coalitions have invaded two of Iran’s direct neighbours, Iraq and Afghanistan in the past 15 years. American troops are still there. As a rule, the US does not invade countries that have nuclear weapons. Moreover, the US labelled Iran part of the “axis of evil” in 2002, at a time when Tehran wanted to help the US in Afghanistan, where they shared enmity with the Taliban (as they still do). Mohammad Khatami, the moderate cleric who was then Iran’s president, had also signalled a nuclear deal was possible. Had President George W Bush responded, a far better one would have been available. Instead, he branded Iran evil. Unsurprisingly, Tehran stepped up its clandestine efforts.
Second, Iran’s decision to mothball its nuclear ambitions in exchange for economic relief is also rational. It is unlikely to give up on it lightly. It followed a decade’s worth of US-led sanctions that has brought the country’s economy to its knees. The regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, supreme leader, clearly thinks it will help its chances of survival.
It is possible, as Mr Obama’s critics predict, that Iran will spend much of the estimated $100bn in unfrozen assets on regional proxies — Hizbollah at the forefront. So what? Compared to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) and its mimics, Hizbollah is a restrained actor. Its theology is absolutist and it has carried out terrorist attacks. But it is not a death cult. In a world of bad choices, boosting Hizbollah’s clout is an acceptable price to pay for a deal that delays — and possibly dispels — the spectre of a Middle East nuclear arms race.
In depth
None of this cuts much ice with Mr Obama’s critics. Yet his detractors offer no realistic alternatives. Many Republican candidates are promising to rescind the Iran deal on “day one” of their presidency. Diplomatic norms prevent Mr Obama from pointing out that Iran is a more promising candidate for peaceful change than Saudi Arabia. Unlike that country, Iran has a quasi-democracy. About half of its university graduates are female. There are competing power centres within Iran’s theological regime. Prospects for further relaxation are easy to imagine. By contrast, the House of Saud rests on brittle foundations. Who dares guess what would come after it? Iran is a natural counterbalance to Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi theocracy. As a non-Arab country, it is incapable of dominating the Middle East. There is also the small matter of how to defeat Isis. Without Iran’s help, the US would be in far worse straits.
There are moments when US presidents take risks that alter the world as we know it. Ronald Reagan’s friendship with Mikhail Gorbachev is one instance. Richard Nixon’s opening to China is another. Mr Obama’s deal with Iran is almost as breathtaking in its scope.
It is quite possible that it will fail. But if it unravels it should be because of Iran, not Congress. It would be a self-inflicted defeat for the US to torpedo its most significant act of diplomacy in a generation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.