Liberals' failure to talk honestly about Islam is responsible for the rise of Trump

"Only Trump has expressed moral clarity on this issue. He said that America must unite the whole civilised world in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Why can't Hillary Clinton or President Obama say that?

"Only Trump has expressed moral clarity on this issue. He said that America must unite the whole civilised world in the fight against Islamic terrorism.

No he hasn't.

Getting the whole civilised world to address the issue you want to address means addressing the issues that others want to tackle.

Why should say, Mexico be united under US leadership in the fight against Islamic terrorism if Trump wants to build a wall?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still regarded in the Middle East as the main destabilising effect on many of their governments. Yet Trump wishes to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

What about those European countries where environmental issues can dominate politics. How does Trump's attitudes to climate change help to get them onside?

Does Japan feel threatened by Islamists or China? Does Japan feel reassured that America under Trump will protect Japan?

Trump and those like him are stripping the art of diplomacy from government. What we are getting is government by toddler.

And this is what they look like now:





For the most part, they still do much the same things. Chechen nationalists still committed horrible atrocities.

This is a Dagestani militant islamist Aliaskhab Kebekov.

but the point still stands.

And the failure of the Republican party.

Look, Trump isn't going to win, Hilary Clinton is.

You can analyse the "rise of Trump" like you can analyse the "rise of Corbyn".

I agree with him in one aspect and that is rendering moderate people's concerns illegitimate pushes them towards whichever avenue will solve the problem to which they are opposed and the failure of any mainstream dialogue has spawned a general push and surge in the numbers of 'far right' and 'alt-right' supporters simply because they classify peoples concerns as important (albeit often alongside totally ridiculous beliefs). The complete shutdown in mainstream media and debate, the pointless and vapid moral signalling from everyone with a platform to do so and the commitment to the breakdown of borders for globalist purposes has left a lot of opposition in its wake and failure to engage has created a rather oxymoronic situation whereby before they blamed the 'hard right' as a boogeyman for nonconformist views and in doing so created the hard right as a significant voting block who are now saying things I cannot possibly agree with, yet these things are being widely supported. It's the same method by which the words 'racist' and 'sexist' have lost their power - so overused that to people hearing them they're immediately dismissed as pointless ad hominems. The left has cashed its political capital for identitarianism and the loss of that currency has surged the right into power as people stop caring about labels and start trying to take action about what matters to them.

I do not like UKIP, I do not like Trump, I do not like the loon alt-right advisers he now engages with. Their views are ridiculous and short sighted. But their victory was an inevitability in a society where the legitimate concerns of the everyday person is mocked and derided. Clinton's entire platform was 'I'm a woman and I'm not Trump' which thankfully was insufficient as she tried to cash the aforementioned capital too late. Similarly only uni educated people seem to believe in Corbyn. The vast majority see him as a head in the clouds madman and are impressed labour managed to find someone less electable than ed milliband (I mean Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Ed Milliband, Jeremy Corbyn, come on labour at least try to pretend (a) you represent the interest of the working class: and (b) you have a leader somewhere that isn't either useless or mad). All in all this fall from grace for institutions like the EU, with Le Pen chomping at the bit to get French independence and with large right wing risings in Germany and Italy to name but a couple, is an obvious consequence. On balance I'm pro-EU but it simply cannot exist in its current state. As a supreme legal authority that essentially is only bound to the treaties and passes down judgments like 'the definition of worker includes those looking for work' and that 'it is immaterial if people intentionally played the rules [to gain access to EU benefits]' what did people expect the outcome to be? Especially when it leans on countries (its vindictiveness towards the UK is well documented) and keeps making decisions against the will of the people of the union without consultation or debate with said people.

And the failure of the Republican party.

Look, Trump isn't going to win, Hilary Clinton is.

You can analyse the "rise of Trump" like you can analyse the "rise of Corbyn".

I am a liberal and I agree with everything said in the OP, although the rise of Trump, or more accurately, the fact that he actually won the presidency was the result of 'the establishment's' failure to tackle economic problems, which is why the swing states voted for him. Sure, there is a big amount of people who support Trump because they like that he names Islamic terrorism for what it is, but I wouldn't say it's the #1 reason why he is successful. He would've still won without the Islamic issue.

So in fact the OP wasn't right. Clinton (Bill not Hillary) was right. "It's the economy, stupid". It virtually always is.

Pretty much agree with everything Sam Harris has to say on politics. For those who don't know him, he's a neuroscientist and philosopher, but also speaks out on other things too. He's possibly the most clear/rational/critical thinker I've come across. FTR he doesn't like Trump or Hillary but she is the unfortunate lesser bad one of the two.

[video="youtube;hkdz_eGYlRA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkdz_eGYlRA[/video]

A few quotes...

"Only Trump has expressed moral clarity on this issue. He said that America must unite the whole civilised world in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Why can't Hillary Clinton or President Obama say that?

"And if only a right-wing demagogue will speak honestly about it, then we will elect right-wing demagogues in the west, more and more in response to it. And that will be the price of political correctness. That's when this cheque will finally get cashed. That will be the consequence of this persistent failure we see among liberals to speak and think and act with real moral clarity and courage on this issue. The root of this problem is that liberals consistently fail to defend liberal values as universal human values. Their political correctness, their multi-culturalism, their moral relativism, has led them rush to the defence of theocrats and to abandon the victims of theocracy, and to vilify anyone who calls out this hypocrisy for what it is as a bigot. And this transformation of our country is unfolding with each news cycle. The words we use matter here, because in place of conceptual clarity and moral courage, what we're getting from the left is just sanctimony and charges of bigotry against people who are not bigots, who are anything but bigots. And here I'm not talking about Trump, I'm talking about the millions of people who may yet be tempted to vote for him, because their common sense is being demonised and defied at every turn on this issue. And this leaves everyone who is appropriately worried about Jihadism and stealth theocracy - in a way which our freedom of speech is already being abridged by the quote religious sensitivity of a religious community, the world over - it leaves these people with nowhere to turn but the right, toward their own bullies, and even theocrats. This is happening across Europe, and it is happening in the US. And Trump's candidacy is a clear expression of this."

"This is the problem. Because liberals have seeded this ground based on political correctness, and based on this sinister meme of Islamophobia that just shuts down any conversation on this topic (and has been consciousness engineered to do so, by the way), the only people left to make sense are increasingly bigots and xenophobes, and people you generally would worry about having an alliance with. So the people who make similar noises to the ones I'm making now about Islam are people who are making those noises for the wrong reasons. These are people who are not especially worried about the maintenance of civil society and free speech and the rights of women. These are people who, in some cases, are theocrats (of the Christian sort), or like there are fascists in Europe who just hate the idea of immigrants coming into their countries at all. So, this abdication of intellectual honesty among liberals has left right-wing nut-jobs as the only people left to make sense on this topic."

Other video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC5dDfX30Zw

I agree with him in one aspect and that is rendering moderate people's concerns illegitimate pushes them towards whichever avenue will solve the problem to which they are opposed and the failure of any mainstream dialogue has spawned a general push and surge in the numbers of 'far right' and 'alt-right' supporters simply because they classify peoples concerns as important (albeit often alongside totally ridiculous beliefs). The complete shutdown in mainstream media and debate, the pointless and vapid moral signalling from everyone with a platform to do so and the commitment to the breakdown of borders for globalist purposes has left a lot of opposition in its wake and failure to engage has created a rather oxymoronic situation whereby before they blamed the 'hard right' as a boogeyman for nonconformist views and in doing so created the hard right as a significant voting block who are now saying things I cannot possibly agree with, yet these things are being widely supported. It's the same method by which the words 'racist' and 'sexist' have lost their power - so overused that to people hearing them they're immediately dismissed as pointless ad hominems. The left has cashed its political capital for identitarianism and the loss of that currency has surged the right into power as people stop caring about labels and start trying to take action about what matters to them.

I do not like UKIP, I do not like Trump, I do not like the loon alt-right advisers he now engages with. Their views are ridiculous and short sighted. But their victory was an inevitability in a society where the legitimate concerns of the everyday person is mocked and derided. Clinton's entire platform was 'I'm a woman and I'm not Trump' which thankfully was insufficient as she tried to cash the aforementioned capital too late. Similarly only uni educated people seem to believe in Corbyn. The vast majority see him as a head in the clouds madman and are impressed labour managed to find someone less electable than ed milliband (I mean Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Ed Milliband, Jeremy Corbyn, come on labour at least try to pretend (a) you represent the interest of the working class: and (b) you have a leader somewhere that isn't either useless or mad). All in all this fall from grace for institutions like the EU, with Le Pen chomping at the bit to get French independence and with large right wing risings in Germany and Italy to name but a couple, is an obvious consequence. On balance I'm pro-EU but it simply cannot exist in its current state. As a supreme legal authority that essentially is only bound to the treaties and passes down judgments like 'the definition of worker includes those looking for work' and that 'it is immaterial if people intentionally played the rules [to gain access to EU benefits]' what did people expect the outcome to be? Especially when it leans on countries (its vindictiveness towards the UK is well documented) and keeps making decisions against the will of the people of the union without consultation or debate with said people.