Hey guys, I’m back from a sanity break. Not sure I achieved the goal, but I’m gonna give the West Mall a try again. I have been lurking from time to time and I’m not sure the discussion has gotten even a tiny bit better, but I feel refreshed enough to chime in occasionally. What brings me back is a growing compulsion to discuss a topic near and dear to me. As I’m sure many of you recall, I expressed concern early in Trump’s candidacy that there was a significant undercurrent of anti-Semitism amongst a subset of his supporters. That undercurrent was mostly from outside of the Trump campaign itself, but the occasional retweet of subtly anti-Semitic imagery was hard to ignore. For me at least. In the past few weeks, the issue has intensified dramatically, in two ways. First, the degree of anti-Semitism has gone from subtle to in-your-face obvious. When they start spreading sweeping theories about conspiracies between international bankers and media elites, it doesn’t take a genius to recognize who they are talking about. Second, Trump has moved from re-tweeting anti-Semitic stuff to tweeting it himself. He is originating the content. I see five scenarios that could conceivably explain what is happening: Trump himself is anti-Semitic. I think this scenario is so unlikely that it hardly merits consideration. To be clear, I do NOT think Trump is anti-Semitic, to even a small degree. Some of Trump’s senior advisors are anti-Semitic, and Trump begrudgingly goes along with it. They push Trump in the direction of statements that are more anti-Semitic than Trump is comfortable with, but his desire to be* president outweighs all of that. Whatever it takes to win, even if that means throwing the Jews under the bus. I think this scenario is plausible, but still pretty unlikely. Some of Trump’s senior advisors are anti-Semitic, and Trump has no clue what he is letting them get away with. They push Trump in the direction of statements that he doesn’t realize are anti-Semitic. The statements whip the “undercurrent” into a froth, Trump likes what he sees, and he doubles down. I think this is a likely scenario. None of Trump’s senior advisors are anti-Semitic, but they begrudgingly accept anti-Semitism as a vote-gathering strategy. This could have two sub-scenarios, one with Trump as a knowing participant and the other with Trump blissfully unaware. Either way, I think this is the most likely scenario. None of Trump’s senior advisors are anti-Semitic, and they don’t realize that they are steering Trump in an anti-Semitic direction. I think this is almost as unlikely as scenario 1. In sum, I’d rank the scenarios from most likely to least likely as 4, 3, 2, 5, 1. *As an aside, I want to comment on the idea that Trump wants to “be” president. I don’t think that is quite accurate. I think he wants to be chosen to be president, so that he can say that he was chosen to be president. And I think he wants to be able to say that he is president, and he wants the perks that come with being president (the best security detail, the most famous street address, a personal staff way yuger than even he can imagine, priority clearance for his private plane to take off and land, etc.). But I don’t think he wants to actually BE president. I digress. My Facebook feed is full of comments about anti-Semitism in the presidential election. But my Facebook feed is decidedly tilted towards people who pray on Saturdays, so I returned to the West Mall to see what has been said about this topic. Shockingly, I found nothing. Where is the outrage about the growing undercurrent? I was expecting something from the board’s reasonable-conservative wing, represented by Mr. Deez. Or the centrist wing, represented during my absence by Seattle Husker. Or the liberals, consisting pretty much exclusively of Crockett and Horns11. I even hoped against hope that some of the far-right block on the board would have begun to see how dangerous the Trump movement is. But alas, crickets. How very depressing.
If you think SH is centrist, there is part of your problem right there. You offer no specifics here, so I don't know what to tell you. The Dem party supports bringing in hundreds of thousands of "refugees" from countries that are openly hostile to Israel, and here you are trying to make comments about "international bankers and media elites" automatically be about Jews? I'm not feeling you.
First I have not seen any of this stuff. I'm not that internet savvy. However, I did read that some on the alt-right is trolling the media, and the best way to do that is to use Hitler and anti-Jew stuff. Finally, the only side that is actually doing Brownshirt stuff is the left (NC firebombing, etc.).
I as a gentile, I hadn't been aware of the anti-Semitism was widespread among Trump supporters except among Klan-type folks until I visited with my daughter, pretty much a Democratic activist and well connected with a diverse array of folks through her alumni association after going to school back east. I have to say it is discouraging that the rampant racists are feeling free to raise their voices. I honestly don't know what to say. Much of the evangelical Christian right is pretty much as loyal to Israel as they are to the United States. As a resident of southern Denton County, I haven't personally heard any anti-Semitic voices, but while I hang with a lot of conservatives and avid Trump supporters, I seldom encounter racists and rednecks.
Here is a link to a good story on the situation: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/anti-semitism-trump-supporters-twitter.html
For the record, I don't think it's exclusively an election problem or a Blue vs. Red problem. We see a lot of people interpreting Obama's statements as pro-Muslim, anti-Jewish rhetoric as well, so I don't think Trump has a monopoly on the anti-Semitic statements. Netanyahu would have everyone believe that liberals are the ones who want to eliminate Zionism and stop the spread of settlements in the West Bank, not the other party. I think the article you linked kind of hits home with one aspect of it: in the age of social media, it's a lot easier to hide behind a screen and post vitriol aimed at a group of people. I bet that there are anti-Semites who are voting for Clinton, too. But I think twitter and the like have made it "easier" to get that message out there.
I don't have time to catalog all of the examples I've heard and read about over the last 2-3 weeks, so 'll start and end with this tweet of a quote that Trump has been using repeatedly in recent speeches: As I said before, I doubt Trump himself intends this to be anti-Semitic. But he probably understands (and his senior advisers certainly understand) that the quote resonates with many Trumps supporters because they hear it as "the Jews are conspiring to destroy us". The fact that Team Trump is willing to use anti-Semitism to whip supporters into a frenzy scares me, even though Trump himself almost certainly isn't anti-Semitic. Keep your eyes open for names or phrases set off for no apparent reason in parentheses or triple parentheses, such as (Bernie Sanders) or (((Jon Stewart))). This is the conspiracy theorists' way of highlighting the fact that someone is Jewish. Many of the recent conspiracy theories are addressed to claims that (((international bankers))) have done this or that. Trump deletes the ((( and the ))), but otherwise echoes the same statements.
I don't agree with Clinton on this. Accidentally letting a few terrorists in would be a horrible mistake, no doubt. That said, I am much more concerned about home-grown Muslims committing acts of terror. We can't afford to go down a path that could result in 1% (much less 5% or 25%) of our existing Muslim population becoming terrorists. Hell, even a 0.1% conversion rate would create 3,000 terrorists. That's what I think we get if we veer down the "Muslims are terrorists and we are at war with them" path.
A mere mention of "international bankers and media elites" could be innocent. But accusing them of being part of a grand conspiracy to rule the world is a whole 'nuther ball of wax. That's neo-Nazi 101 stuff.
I have not seen it and the quote you gave does not seem anti Semitic. Maybe just more hyper safe zone talk?
Yeah I do not think anything to do with Jews when I read that. Me thinks thou doth protest too much. The Dems are the ones who want to throw Israel under the bus and support countries who openly want to destroy Israel. The rest is just talk, if it's even that. I think your worries are misplaced.
I've always assumed the "anti-semitism" is a minor subset who have glommed onto Trump's nationalist message. It seems to be minor though.
For the last 35-ish years, I have been a semi-voracious reader of neo-Nazi literature. I know what they tend to say and how they tend to say it. They have developed their own little language, with standardized word choice, mood, syntax, and symbols. With very few exceptions, this language has been kept in the private world of the neo-Nazis. Until now. Donald Trump's statements repeatedly echo the neo-Nazi language. He uses their words, and strings them together using their syntax and symbols to invoke their mood. The only difference is that he omits the word "Jewish". In all other particulars, Trump's statements read like they are quoted from a neo-Nazi website. (Some of them are, but that's a separate point). If you don't believe me, spend a day or two trolling around neo-Nazi websites, then come back and view Donald Trump's statements through that prism. You will be surprised what you see. It was subtle six months ago, but it isn't anymore. This isn't an accident. Someone is purposefully having Trump say things that will resonate with neo-Nazis. I can't say whether it is Trump himself or his advisers, but there is no credible basis to deny that it is happening.
This reflects an over-simplified vision of what it means to be pro-Israel. There are 15 political parties (some of which are clumped together, resulting in 10 official voting blocs) represented in the 120-seat Knesset, with no party or bloc holding more than 30 seats. Benjamin Netanyahu has been PM since 2009, but has presided over a very fractured and fluid ruling coalition (currently 61 members). One common thread of each of his coalitions has been a fairly hard-lined approach to Israeli-Arab relations. The US Republican party largely aligns with that position. Netanyahu's coalition is opposed by a coalition of 49 Knesset members who support a less hard-line relationship with Arab nations and a two-state solution within Israel's current borders. The US Democratic party largely aligns with this coalition, as does a majority of American Jews. It is unreasonable to say that this is "throwing Israel under the bus." It is just a difference of opinion on what is best for Israel. (For those who are concerned that the math doesn't add up, that is because 9 members represent pro-Arab interests. Among the 111 members representing Jewish interests, the split is currently 62-49.
Quite the contrary. Jews are known as some of the most open supporters of free speech in the United States. Instead of trying to insulate people from hate speech, Jewish groups republish it widely. Debate is always good, and so-called safe zones are inherently dangerous places. Everyone should be forced to confront their biggest fears, over and over and over again.
I believe Trump was referring to a South American bank based on Wikileaks email of one of Hillary's speeches. Also, the parenthesis thing I read was started by trolls.
I read another article (too lazy to find) that says NYT is being trolled by teenagers in a basement over this issue.
I agree that anti-Semitism is a minor subset of Trump's support. But I don't think it is accurate to say that anti-Semites have "glommed onto" Trump's nationalist message. It is more fair to say that Trump has reformulated his nationalist message to appeal to anti-Semites.
There are over 500,000 Jews in South America. The neo-Nazis will tell you that those Jews control the banks and media in South America, and conspire with the Jews who control the banks and media elsewhere in the world.
Trump is no troll. He's a major-party nominee for President of the United States. The fact that he is purposefully echoing neo-Nazi language concerns me. Call me crazy.
Honestly, not sure why you read so much about it and none of my business. However, seems like you have psychologically convinced yourself of finding things that are likely not there. Of all things the HRC crowd promotes, this one has no founding in my opinion.
Analysis shows there could be as few as 1,600 sources for the activity... that's more than a few kids in basements. Certainly not all Trump supporters are deplorables, but certainly some Trump supporters are what I'd consider deplorable ... Klanners, anti-Semites and the like and Trump has gone out of his way not to offend said deplorables.
You people are just making up shiite to be upset about, now. HRC sells out our country, slandered and shamed women that her husband raped, conspired with others to cause violence at Trump rallies, and on and on, but Trump is an anti-Semite because he said "international banking". Please get a grip.
You could just as easily say this about Breitbart's coverage of Hillary saying "borderless" and "impossible to vet." Context Context Context. I don't think it's a massive leap to say that the international banking community is synonymous with anti-Jewish rhetoric, although like I said earlier, I don't think the GOP has a monopoly on this style of harmful leaps and bounds. Same thing when someone criticizes Hollywood or mass media... we all know that there are lots of Jewish insiders in those industries, so it's natural for a crazy to take it and run with the critiques. Does that make people who feel like it IS anti-Semitic to call it out wrong? Maybe. But not to the point of "making up shiite," as you say.
NJ, Sorry if I've missed anything big on this, but a lot of this seems to come from Twitter, which I thoroughly detest. I have a Twitter account, but I never use it. I don't even have the Twitter app on my phone. It's just not worth the space or the annoying notifications. It looks like the New York Times has raised the antisemitism issue with Trump, but once they announced that they were basically going to set aside the normal standards of journalistic integrity to screw with Trump, they lost my respect. They were baldly partisan already, but this just put them on the propaganda level for me. As far as I'm concerned, they're the Daily Kos now at least when covering this election, so I've largely stopped taking them seriously. It's sad, because it weakens their credibility. There are plenty of overtly idiotic things Trump has said and proposed that are ruining his candidacy. Supposedly legitimate news organizations don't have to be unfair, hypocritical, or dishonest to deny him the White House. I know little about neo-Nazi code, and I can't troll their websites, because Die Polizei will stop following a terror suspect to arrest me and seize my computers. I'll take your word for it that Trump's posts might be appealing to neo-Nazis in the U.S. Having said that, I think that after reading a little bit about Clinton basically admitting privately that she's going to ***** for the banking industry and taking their money, I think criticizing her for that is fair game and certainly not per se antisemitic. In fact, I think it is worrisome. Will some of those bankers whose nuts will be in Hillary's mouth be Jews? I don't care. I do care that they'll all be sleazy like every other business interest that buys off politicians. Either way, I was nauseated enough by both candidates to cast my ballot for neither and dropped it in the mail yesterday. Screw 'em both.
Should I take that as an insult? In case you didn't know, Austin lawyers mostly consider Houston lawyers to be jackasses and a little dishonest.
