"Trump is apparently oblivious to the roles, especially regime changes, the United States has played in creating those migrants and refugees."
Rather an ironic charge, that one, as one of the reasons Trump is persona non grata with much of the Republican establishment is his shocking (to them) refusal to pretend that Bush II's catastrophic blunder and crime in Iraq was something other than what it was.
As a Brit, for me his likely decisive break from the bipartisan "invade the world, invite the world" US elite consensus is Trump's USP. There is no other US political figure with the remotest chance at winning a Republican or Democrat nomination (I assume here that Sanders has no realistic chance to beat Clinton) who is not firmly committed to either the aggressive "humanitarian" interventionism of the US left elite or the equally aggressive "US-uber-alles" interventionism of the right elite.
For many working class Americans, less concerned with foreign affairs, his appeal is more likely his equally dramatic likely break from the globalist/open borders/"free trade" dogma that benefits both the big business and liberal political elites.
"With attitudes like yours, mixed-race persons like myself wouldn’t even exist. With attitudes like yours in power, mixed-race persons like myself are stateless non-persons."
First of all, I've said nothing about my attitude towards mixed race marriages, except to indicate, as a peripheral matter to the main point, that people who prefer to live amongst their own kind are not necessarily motivated by all the nastiness that the left routinely attributes to them. Second, even if that were my attitude and even if as a result of that attitude having prevailed the situation would have been different in the past so that you wouldn't exist now, so what? Without intending any particular disrespect to you, no doubt the world would manage as well without you as it would without me if my parents hadn't ever met. Third, I've been discussing the problems of mass immigration, not in any sense advocating "statelessness" for mixed race children.
As is usual for those arguing against the advocates of controlling mass immigration, you attribute extreme positions to the latter, and then, shocked, declare them extremists.
Western media and politicians promote these "propaganda of the deed" videos because they serve the purposes of powerful media and political figures in the west (usually to help manufacture consent for military action, for various ulterior motives). Not as an oversight or through naivety.
"Trump is apparently oblivious to the roles, especially regime changes, the United States has played in creating those migrants and refugees."
Rather an ironic charge, that one, as one of the reasons Trump is persona non grata with much of the Republican establishment is his shocking (to them) refusal to pretend that Bush II's catastrophic blunder and crime in Iraq was something other than what it was.
As a Brit, for me his likely decisive break from the bipartisan "invade the world, invite the world" US elite consensus is Trump's USP. There is no other US political figure with the remotest chance at winning a Republican or Democrat nomination (I assume here that Sanders has no realistic chance to beat Clinton) who is not firmly committed to either the aggressive "humanitarian" interventionism of the US left elite or the equally aggressive "US-uber-alles" interventionism of the right elite.
For many working class Americans, less concerned with foreign affairs, his appeal is more likely his equally dramatic likely break from the globalist/open borders/"free trade" dogma that benefits both the big business and liberal political elites.
"With attitudes like yours, mixed-race persons like myself wouldn’t even exist. With attitudes like yours in power, mixed-race persons like myself are stateless non-persons."
First of all, I've said nothing about my attitude towards mixed race marriages, except to indicate, as a peripheral matter to the main point, that people who prefer to live amongst their own kind are not necessarily motivated by all the nastiness that the left routinely attributes to them. Second, even if that were my attitude and even if as a result of that attitude having prevailed the situation would have been different in the past so that you wouldn't exist now, so what? Without intending any particular disrespect to you, no doubt the world would manage as well without you as it would without me if my parents hadn't ever met. Third, I've been discussing the problems of mass immigration, not in any sense advocating "statelessness" for mixed race children.
As is usual for those arguing against the advocates of controlling mass immigration, you attribute extreme positions to the latter, and then, shocked, declare them extremists.
A little naive, surely?
Western media and politicians promote these "propaganda of the deed" videos because they serve the purposes of powerful media and political figures in the west (usually to help manufacture consent for military action, for various ulterior motives). Not as an oversight or through naivety.