[1439205948]

Are you a Trump supporter who isn't xenophobic? How do you reconcile his "build a wall" rhetoric, his comments about Gonzalo Curiel, his call to ban immigration of Muslims, and his recent isolationist-flavored comments in the New York Times about refusing to honor NATO? It seems like xenophobia is a core tenet of his campaign.

[bionsuba]

I never said anything about Trump. We're talking about his supporters.

You cannot make blanket statements about the intentions of tens of millions of people.

[sremani]

How would you reconcile that with the fact that his wife is Slovenian? Things are complex and you can simplify to fit your label of the day.

NATO commitments are a joke, when outside of Britan and few Eastern European countries, Germany, Netherlands, France are not spending to their commitments so why should Americans subsidize their mega-welfare states?

Here is a fact, Germany has about 330 or so battle ready tanks and most of them are made before 1980. That is some abysmal commitment to NATO.

[cronin101]

Do you really believe that the world would be a safer place if Germany had a greater number of "battle ready tanks"?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-end-of-t...

[NhanH]

Do you really believe that the world would be a better place if the US has more commitment to NATO?

[thatfrenchguy]

"France are not spending to their commitments"

You seem to have forgotten that France is one of the countries with the highest military spending in the world (not that it pleases me).

[sremani]

Based on http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

France 2.1% of GDP. The consensus number is more of less 3%.

edit: I was wrong, 2% is the right number.

[drzaiusapelord]

Actually its 2%. Only the UK, Poland, Greece, and Estonia reached those levels in 2015.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/15/news/nato-spending-countries...

You are right, the German military is at best a target for the Russians to calibrate their weapons and to draw the US in.

[achamayou]

Whose consensus? Only five countries in the world spend more than 3%, and at 2.1% France is the largest spender in NATO behind the US.

Russia spends less than France and Italy combined in dollars. In % of GDP, China is at 1.9%. Just below France and the UK.

[ultrasandwich]

> How would you reconcile that with the fact that his wife is Slovenian?

What is there to reconcile here? Sexual interest never got in the way of xenophobia. Never stopped slave owners from sexually assaulting their "property".

[ChemicalWarfare]

I'm no fan of Mr. Trump but the very reason he is able to exploit the weak border control issue is due to the fact that it has been ignored far too long.

Unless of course you're equating "enforcing existing immigration policies" with "xenophobia" which would render most of the world's countries "xenophobic".

[JoeAltmaier]

Nah, its the part about painting our neighbors as rapists and thieves. Classic xenophobic rants.

[ChemicalWarfare]

I was referring to the "build the wall" reference in the comment I replied to. And yes, he tends to run his mouth without fact-checking which is one of the reasons I don't like him.

That said though - the core issue he is exploiting is an undeniable failure of the federal government to address the illegal immigration problem. It's a huge issue that has been swept under the rug and is there to be exploited by a politician like Trump who positions himself as a "non mainstream politician".

Violent[ish] protests staged by the left waving mexican flags and burning american flags only helps his agenda.

[Chathamization]

More Mexicans have left the U.S. then came to the U.S. during Obama's presidency. I don't think the xenophobia comments are about enforcing existing immigration policies, but rather that Trump seems to be greatly exaggerating the problem in order to scapegoat a particular group of people.

There just isn't any evidence that this is a major problem in general, and constantly trying to whip up fear about it is xenophobic (and also causes serious problems for many people who are here legally).

[ChemicalWarfare]

Millions of illegal immigrants (~11 mil by DHS estimates) and porous border through which they come and go as they please is definitely a problem.

And no, pointing these out as important issues that need attention is not "xenophobic" even if some politicians (or ppl in general) are afraid of addressing these for fear of being labeled a "xenophobic hate monger" :)

[Chathamization]

> Millions of illegal immigrants (~11 mil by DHS estimates) and porous border through which they come and go as they please is definitely a problem.

That number is down 1 million from the DHS estimate of 12 million in 2007. That population has shrunk, yet the total U.S. population has grown by 20+ million during the same time period. It's hard to see how rational people would see this as a major problem (or in the case of many Trump supports, their number one issue).

[ChemicalWarfare]

are you telling me 11 million ppl being here illegally coming and going as they please is not a problem?

sure, the numbers fluctuate up and down driven by many factors - economy, laws etc that doesn't change the fact that we have a porous border and a huge number of illegals.

[SixSigma]

Illegal immigration reduction is not xenophobia. Or is immigration law xenophobic ?

Islam is not a race or an ethnicity it is an ideology. If Scientologists started killing people, what would happen ?

What if the security guards at HSBC started killing every 1,000,000 customer? Would HSBC get government attention ?

Participation in NATO is a financial issue. Spinning non participation in multi-country deals as being caused by not wanting to engage with foreigners because they are foreign is ridiculous.

[orf]

> If Scientologists started killing people, what would happen ?

Well...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_McPherson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elli_Perkins

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies

Not much, apparently.

[swampthinker]

Well, HSBC has already been laundering billions to the Mexican cartel. No one was arrested, just a $1.9Bn settlement.

[googletazer]

Upvoted you as youre right on all points.

[SixSigma]

You can't post Trump neutral without getting bashed round here

[dingo_bat]

>How do you reconcile his "build a wall" rhetoric

What is exactly wrong with having a physical wall which restricts illegal migration? I can think of cost, but little else.

>his comments about Gonzalo Curiel

Politicians often say ridiculous shit in order to create sensation and polarize. Trump is not unique in this. For example, Obama recently stated that buying a book or laptop is more difficult than buying a gun. Which is demonstrably false.

>his call to ban immigration of Muslims

He has taken a bit more nuanced stand recently. He says immigration of Muslims from countries known to be harboring terrorists should be restricted. I can't find a huge problem in this.

And so on and so forth. I am not an American, but it seems to me that people are needlessly hating on Trump.

[devty]

what in the world?

I'm especially appalled by your response to Trump's comments about Gonzalo Curiel. Non-uniqueness does not give pardon to his ridiculous, insensitive, and racist comment. Besides, Trump suggested Gonzalo Curiel's judgment was biased because he was Mexican - how can you claim that this is a rhetorical device akin to Obama's "demonstrably false" statement about purchasing a gun in America? What sensation did Mr. Trump raise other than bigotry and hatred of others? I don't find his comments acceptable especially because he's running for a president!

[dingo_bat]

Of course his comments are not acceptable. My only point is that all politicians show biases. This is Trump's. Just like Obama has his own bias against gun-ownership by the general public. It is the voter's job to evaluate everything and take a decision, not get reactionary just because of one or two stray comments.

As I said, I am not an American and as such I may not be very thoroughly informed on everything. Keeping that in mind, what Trump seems to say makes a lot of sense if you strip away the fluff and the style with which he says it.

[rawTruthHurts]

"What is exactly wrong with having a physical wall which restricts illegal migration?"

That's exactly what the Berlin wall was for. It wasn't ok for the western powers. For the USSR, on the other hand, it was rather fine. Didn't it?

"Politicians often say ridiculous shit in order to create sensation and polarize"

Still, editorializing is deemed as a bad thing, even here in Hacker News.

[dingo_bat]

>That's exactly what the Berlin wall was for

No. It was virtually impossible for people to cross that border legally. This is not the case with US-Mexico.

[rawTruthHurts]

"It was virtually impossible"

Nope. Not virtually, and definitely not impossible.

[MrMullen]

> He has taken a bit more nuanced stand recently. He says immigration of Muslims from countries known to be harboring terrorists should be restricted.

We already do that.