politics Trump

Trump On ‘Send Her Back’: I Didn’t Agree With It, But It Was Quite A Chant’

Reporter: "Why didn't you ask them to stop saying that?"

Reporter: "Why didn't you ask them to stop saying that?"
This content has been archived. Log in or Subscribe for full access to thousands of archived articles.

5 comments on “Trump On ‘Send Her Back’: I Didn’t Agree With It, But It Was Quite A Chant’

  1. Stochastic Terrorism.

  2. Instead of coming across as a doctrinaire ultra liberal Democrat, I suggest that you read the remarks by the 4 black Congresswomen this year and tell me that these remarks are not racist,antisemitic and do not encourage anarchy and violence. The Democratic Party is coming apart at its seams,with a number of the mainstream Democrats appalled at the discord spread by these four.The actions by the Democratic Congress yesterday while they were voting was one of the most embarrassing political events in history.
    Combining the agreement by the Dems in the recent presidential debates and yesterday’s vote to back the 4 Congresswomen,
    it is easy to conclude that the Dems stand for open immigration, anti- Israel and pro -Palestine, pro Antifa, free tuition , free Medicare for all , much higher taxes and
    an even increasing smaller share of the economic pie for the middle class.
    I can’t wait to see how the Dems are going to handle the inevitable discussion on reparations

    • Harvey Cotton

      Palestinians are also a Semitic people. Criticizing the actions of Israel’s right-wing government, and its perpetual occupation of and humiliations of Palestinians, is not anti-Semitism. You know what is anti-Semitic? Neo-Nazis. The KKK. Right-wing extremists who shoot Jews in their temples, surround them and terrorize them with racist tropes. In other words, Trump’s base.

      Be a little bit skeptical, and source the accusations you are making. Do not read Breitbart or listen to talk radio. Actually watch a fifteen minute speech and listen to what these women have said, in their own words, and in full context. These women, all of whom are the victims of death threats, all of whom are operating within the system to affect change, are the furthest things from people seeking anarchy and violence. That is a slanderous lie. The people seeking violence are the Trump supporters going around committing mass shootings. The people seeking anarchy are the immigration goon squads randomly ripping apart immigrant communities and locking children in squalid kennels.

      The Democratic Party is coming apart at the seems. So is the Republican Party. So are the mainstream center-left and center-right parties in Europe, Canada, India, Brazil, The Philippines, etc. The current system is not working for enough people, and people are expressing increased frustration, often manifested in ethnic nationalism. This is a global phenomenon, replicated in places as disparate as Ethiopia and Hungary. To conflate this anger with people trying in a political fashion to address popular needs with (gasp!) education opportunities and healthcare is a smoke bomb hiding your true affinities.

    • We have printed the verbatim comments on too many occasions to count. And, no, they are not racist, antisemitic and do not encourage anarchy and violence. the person who is openly and explicitly racist and encouraging anarchy and violence is the president. You seem to be in a state of denial about the current situation and who is on the right side of history. Also, you seem to not be well apprised of the current political climate. the reparations discussion already happened. how you missed that last month and this month is anyone’s guess.

    • “an even increasing smaller share of the economic pie for the middle class”


      Where do most of the middle class work? For large corporations. Since the dawn of the ordained era of “trickle-down” economics with Reagan republicans, middle class wages have barely kept up with inflation, while the share of the pie that goes to the top 1% has gone parabolic. And I put trickle down in quotes, because when paired with the rise of anti-unionism, and corporate and wealthy influence on the political class since Reagan, pretty much any hole that would allow trickle down has been plugged. Go figure.

      Meanwhile, corporations say workers should be happy with low wages because the corporations pay for the ludicrous protection costs of the healthcare racket on behalf of the workers. How much of this money that could have been higher wages goes to the shareholders of price-gouging pharma and insurance companies, instead of to the basic costs of providing medical care and incentivizing healthcare providers? How much economic mobility does this stifle when workers are unwilling to leave their job because they are shackled to the desk by their healthcare plan?

      Now let’s think about the Trump Tax cuts (a perfect vessel for the trickle down ideology): a tax cut for corporations that does not in any way incentivize paying workers more. This is empirically true, just look at the amount of corporate buybacks since the tax cut passed. I am pretty neutral on the economic good of buybacks. Nevertheless, how in the world can one conclude that this was done to help the middle working class? Pair that with eliminating access to affordable healthcare, destroying our air and drinking water, fighting unions, fighting the minimum wage, fighting student-debtor protection, fighting infrastructure spending, fighting public transportation spending, fighting childcare support, etc. and I can’t see how you can imply that Trump and the republicans have the backs of the middle class.

Leave a Reply to MoreEqual Cancel reply

Skip to toolbar