He, in fact, does have and offers pointed views on our immigration situation and on bringing in people from terrorist-prone countries. But, do these views amount to the declarations being made?
It would be most appreciated if those who wish to complain about - or even insult - a candidate would do so with policy concerns stated succinctly and factually. Name-calling such as noted above and even "Crooked Hillary" doesn't do much to further positive discussion.
As an aside, let me put the "Crooked Hillary" statement out of the way. In this country, still, we are innocent until proven guilty. We all have our opinions on Hillary Clinton's treatment of classified data, on her foundation's alleged corrupt transactions taking advantage of her position as Secretary of State, etc. However, until she is tried and convicted of crimes, "The Jury Is Out", so to speak.
But, if name-calling is what calls to you then, please, use accurate terms. Otherwise, you come across as ignorant. Your message, which may have been a good one, is lost on the listener because you reveal yourself as uninformed - that's about the nicest way I can put it. Not only that, but you run the risk of being liable for slander and/or libel.
Back to Trump's racism or not.
Those on whom he has been most vocal have been the illegal immigrants coming across our Southern border and those from the Middle East - mostly Muslims. And, never has he been negative on the entirety of either (or any) generalized group of people.
First, what is the definition of "RACIST"? It simply is: "a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another." That's it.
Second, being a Muslim is not a race. Muslims may be found in every color, nationality and race.
Finally, the illegals coming from (mainly) Mexico are mostly Hispanic. Yes, there are some Arabs mixed in as well; but mainly Hispanics from throughout Central and South America.
Neither being Muslims nor Hispanics nor Arabs constitutes a "race". Sorry, but that's true. Both of these groups of people's race is actually Caucasian - you know, WHITE!
As another aside, focusing on our differences is a dividing action. Recently, President Obama has put forth a measure that would "add" a race to the government's view of the world - a race designation outside the biological one. This is yet another action by progressives to induce a means by which we may treat peoples differently vs. bringing us together.
Trump has never uttered any word or words indicating a belief in the superiority or inferiority of any race. He has spoken of the actions of people; but never against or for a race.
So, by definition Trump is not racist.
Well, perhaps there's another word that more accurate conveys what people really mean when they say "racist". How about "bigot". But, does this word fit?
Well, let's see. The full definition of BIGOT is: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance."
The word bigot, on the surface, seems to more closely fit what people really mean when they call Trump a racist - is it not? In fact, it definitely is not.
Firstly, it would be hard to argue that Trump hasn't been rather "obstinate" in his views. His views on things really haven't changed since he entered the presidential race. I am not able to find one instance where he was "intolerant" of another's view. He may not agree with someone, he may respond to an attack in kind, but intolerant? No evidence of this.
Secondly, his main beef seems to be about people's actions - not about any group(s). The actions of individuals who do not follow our laws or who potentially threaten us as a people or as a nation appear to be his concern. Indeed he may be intolerant of such people's actions; but, hatred? No evidence of that either.
So, not a bigot either.
Let's try another word. This time it will be ISLAMOPHOBIC.
Here's its definition: "Fear of Islam"
This one gets a little tricky. If one believes that the radical element of Islam follows the Quran strictly, then in the Quran, 8-12, you find this gem: "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve." - meaning, of course, non-Muslims. Another "goodie" is the 4 stages of Islamic Conquest - the Muslim's guide to world domination. A NOTE: Islam is a geo-political system. The religion of Islam is but one component of a much larger entity. Don't lose track of this fact.
As yet another aside: for you, the reader, who may only know about Islam via the TV reports of terrorist activities and would like to know more, THIS may be of benefit.
To be fair here, in the Jewish Torah and in the Christian Bible (if one bothers to read either) you will find this perky little offering: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus 20:13
Now, as we are all aware, neither Christians nor Jews actually follow the above - even those who strictly follow. And, neither do the vast majority of Muslims actually do all the things written in the Quran.
HOWEVER, the radical Islamics do! And, there's the rub.
So, if one listens to what Trump truly has to say on Muslims, he does not fear Muslims nor Islam. He is offering common sense caution. For, if we can't discern the "normal" Muslims from the radical ones, we should be wary. And, in fact, right now the government has no means to properly discern the difference.
So, Islamophobic doesn't apply to Trump either.
How about XENOPHOBIA? This is "A person who fears or hates foreigners, strange customs, etc. A person who is fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or of people from different countries or cultures."
This is sort of a blending of Islamophobic & Bigot. Every statement Trump has made has been in reference to the actions of individuals or groups such as ISIS & Al Qaeda and NOT about whole races of people or whole religions. Do not be deluded by the sound bite or the political rant. Check what was actually said.
Now, the final name that could be applied to Trump is OPINIONATED: expressing strong beliefs or judgments about something and/or having or showing strong opinions.
On this one he appears to be guilty as sin. However, being opinionated can be a good thing or a bad thing. If one is opinionated based on facts, that is a good quality. Stand behind what you know to be true. If, however, one's positions are based on "hearsay", political sound bites, and the like, without factual evidence, this is a bad thing.
To date, having done significant research, I have found that Trump's stated positions are, indeed, based in fact. Should your research find differently, please let me know.
In the paragraph just before this last one I have underlined the words and the like. I did it for a reason.
In the third presidential debate Trump referred to Hillary Clinton as a "nasty woman". Perhaps a tad impolite, to say the least, but, that was his opinion - to which he is entitled.
Subsequently, Elizabeth Warren, in campaigning for Mrs. Clinton, intimated that Trump's statement had been directed at ALL women. Clearly this was (and is) a lie. His statement was directed solely at Mrs. Clinton. This is an example of where research would uncover that Warren was being dishonest to all that listen to her. And she, being a progressive, is promoting disharmony and a dividing of the American people.
Now, lets look at the word "Fascist".
Here is a fairly good definition of Fascist (from Webster's dictionery):
I can find no actions or sentiments from the Republican candidate that come close to fitting the definition of fascism. Violent protests against Trump and his policies are to be found almost daily. Do not these violent protests fall under the scope of forceable suppression of opposition?
Yet again, another word being used inappropriately and ignorantly. (2017 add-on:)Here's an example: Click Here.
In all of the above I have offered that the words we use do, in fact, matter and that we should be very particular to use words correctly.
And, as we know, the connotation of what a word means can change over time with heavy use of an alternate meaning. Silly Example: The word cool used to only mean less than warm, kind of thing. Over time it now is also used to connote something one enjoys or finds interesting.
I have pointed out in previous articles that the progressive political element in our country operates under the aegis of "divide and rule". One of the ways it accomplishes this is via political correctness, including the shifting of the meaning of words.
Here is but example:
Take the word "thug". Its definition is: a violent person, especially a criminal.
Progressives have offered to all that would listen that the word "thug" is a code word used by whites to describe blacks. Such is certainly untrue. All blacks are NOT thugs - in fact, very few are; just as some whites are thugs, not all are. But, it IS progressives of which I speak here. This concept was discussed on NPR - a major progressive media outlet.
Given enough time the association of the word "thug" with blacks could become commonplace - if we're not careful.
Why "if we're not careful"? If the general population associates "thug" with a violent criminal and also is led to believe that "thug" is a code word for blacks, then isn't the impression left that all blacks are criminals? Subtle, I agree. But insidious nonetheless. It's an application of Lenin's "A lie told often enough becomes the truth". And, more importantly, such would be turning the truth upside down.
Something this simple does little to homogenize the American people. But, it does promote "division" of our people - something the progressives need and desire to survive and prosper.
The above example is but one tiny reason why the correct use of words is important.
Let's be careful to be accurate in what we say.