LTS: Mục “Diễn Đàn” được tạo ra để tạo một cầu nối giữa độc giả với nhau và với ban biên tập tuần báo Saigon Nhỏ. Chúng tôi hy vọng đây là nơi chúng ta chia sẻ, thảo luận và trao đổi quan điểm về những vấn đề cộng đồng người Việt tị nạn khắp nơi cùng quan tâm.
Saigon Nhỏ duy trì Diễn Đàn trong khuôn khổ những thảo luận có tính cách xây dựng và tôn trọng mọi ý kiến khác biệt. Vì vậy chúng tôi sẽ sàng lọc những nội dung không phù hợp.
Rất mong sự hưởng ứng nồng nhiệt của quý vị. Mọi ý kiến xin gửi về:
Liệu ông Donald Trump có thành tổng thống Mỹ?
Saigon Nhỏ nói về ứng cử viên Donald Trump
Độc giả Saigon Nhỏ nói về ứng cử viên Donald Trump
Trong tuần qua, độc giả của Saigon Nhỏ đã gửi thư về tòa soạn đưa ý kiến về hiện tượng ứng cử viên Donald Trump được ủng hộ khắp nơi, và vai trò của ông trong đảng Cộng Hòa
Độc giả …. tên…có ý kiến về vấn đề này và cũng đưa ra quan điểm của ông về …
Saigon Nhỏ xin giới thiệu cùng quý vị cái nhìn của ông về… :
GOP leaders, you must do everything in your power to stop Trump, Washington Post
THE UNTHINKABLE is starting to look like the inevitable: Absent an extraordinary effort from people who understand the menace he represents, Donald Trump is likely to be the presidential nominee of the Republican Party. At this stage, even an extraordinary effort might fall short. But history will not look kindly on GOP leaders who fail to do everything in their power to prevent a bullying demagogue from becoming their standard-bearer.
Không thể tưởng tượng được bắt đầu trông giống như không thể tránh khỏi: Vắng mặt một nỗ lực phi thường từ những người hiểu được mối đe dọa ông đại diện, Donald Trump có thể sẽ trở thành ứng viên tổng thống của đảng Cộng hòa. Ở giai đoạn này, ngay cả một nỗ lực phi thường có thể rơi ngắn. Nhưng lịch sử sẽ không nhìn vui lòng các nhà lãnh đạo đảng Cộng hòa đã không làm mọi thứ trong quyền lực của mình để ngăn chặn một kẻ mị dân bắt nạt trở thành tiêu chuẩn ghi tên của họ.
Now it is faced with a front-runner who, in the interval between the two Priebus comments cited above, said of a protester, “I’d like to punch him in the face.” This is a front-runner with no credible agenda and no suitable experience. He wants the United States to commit war crimes, including torture and the murder of innocent relatives of suspected terrorists. He admires Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and sees no difference between Mr. Putin’s victims and people killed in the defense of the United States. He would round up and deport 11 million people, a forced movement on a scale not attempted since Stalin or perhaps Pol Pot. He has, during the course of his campaign, denigrated women, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, people with disabilities and many more. He routinely trades in wild falsehoods and doubles down when his lies are exposed.
Certainly there are Republican leaders who understand all this: people such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.); former president George W. Bush and former presidential nominees Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney; and governors, senators and community leaders across the country. Some have spoken up over the course of Mr. Trump’s campaign, and then stepped back; others have been silent. The silence may reflect an absence of courage and also an element of calculation: There was an assumption that Mr. Trump would fade, and that confronting him would only make him stronger.
The calculations have proved wrong. If Mr. Trump is to be stopped, now is the time for leaders of conscience to say they will not and cannot support him and to do what they can to stop him. We understand that Mr. Trump would seek to use this to his benefit, and that he might succeed. But what is the choice? Is the Republican Party truly not going to resist its own debasement?
Trump’s candidacy is already damaging America
This country has seen a rise in white supremacy groups since 2000, as the Southern Poverty Law Center has documented. This is the first election in which their organizational power has propelled a candidate to durable prominence, even if that candidate has now also attracted lots of other kinds of supporters. Even after Obama released his long-form birth certificate in 2011, about 23 percent of Republicans continued to hold the view that he was born overseas. In September, 61 percent of Trump’s voters were “birthers.” Exit polling from the South Carolina primary last weekend showed that70 percent of Trump’s voters in that state wish that the Confederate battle flag still flew over their statehouse. Although Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) comes close, no other candidate draws at this level from this constituency.
My conclusion, then, was that I would have to concede that I had been wrong about Trump if under a Trump presidency: 1) the rising tide of white supremacy turned; 2) the country secured its capacity to protect the rights of Muslim Americans; 3) the immigration issue were handled with reasonable compromises and without mass deportations (I can’t believe I even have to write that); and 4) constitutional rights, including freedom of expression and association, were concertedly and consistently protected for everyone. (Since many of my correspondents have questioned whether my commitment to equal rights includes white people, let me say affirmatively that I mean “everyone” in its standard usage, which, yes, does indeed include white people.)
his is what makes Trump truly dangerous. Having established a rock-solid relationship with an aggressively ethno-nationalist base, he is ready to pile on the charm to bring everyone else on board, while also seeking to intimidatethose who disagree with him. But note, the only people to whom he has made any kind of consistent commitment, through repeated signaling, are those birthers and nativists with whom he began his journey. The decision about voting for Trump is a choice about whether to give that base its most significant electoral victory in a very long time.
Trump is the GOP’s Frankenstein monster. Now he’s strong enough to destroy the party.
Let’s be clear: Trump is no fluke. Nor is he hijacking the Republican Party or the conservative movement, if there is such a thing. He is, rather, the party’s creation, its Frankenstein monster, brought to life by the party, fed by the party and now made strong enough to destroy its maker. Was it not the party’s wild obstructionism — the repeated threats to shut down the government over policy and legislative disagreements; the persistent call for nullification of Supreme Court decisions; the insistence that compromise was betrayal; the internal coups against party leaders who refused to join the general demolition — that taught Republican voters that government, institutions, political traditions, party leadership and even parties themselves were things to be overthrown, evaded, ignored, insulted, laughed at? Was it not Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), among many others, who set this tone and thereby cleared the way for someone even more irreverent, so that now, in a most unenjoyable irony, Cruz along with the rest of the party must fall to the purer version of himself, a less ideologically encumbered anarcho-revolutionary? This would not be the first revolution that devoured itself.
Then there was the party’s accommodation to and exploitation of the bigotry in its ranks. No, the majority of Republicans are not bigots. But they have certainly been enablers. Who began the attack on immigrants — legal and illegal — long before Trump arrived on the scene and made it his premier issue? Who was it who frightened Mitt Romney into selling his soul in 2012, talking of “self-deportation” to get himself right with the party’s anti-immigrant forces? Who was it who opposed any plausible means of dealing with the genuine problem of illegal immigration, forcing Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to cower, abandon his principles — and his own immigration legislation — lest he be driven from the presidential race before it had even begun? It was not Trump. It was not even party yahoos. It was Republican Party pundits and intellectuals, trying to harness populist passions and perhaps deal a blow to any legislation for which President Obama might possibly claim even partial credit. What did Trump do but pick up where they left off, tapping the well-primed gusher of popular anger, xenophobia and, yes, bigotry that the party had already unleashed?
Then there was the Obama hatred, a racially tinged derangement syndrome that made any charge plausible and any opposition justified. Has the president done a poor job in many respects? Have his foreign policies, in particular, contributed to the fraying of the liberal world order that the United States created after World War II? Yes, and for these failures he has deserved criticism and principled opposition. But Republican and conservative criticism has taken an unusually dark and paranoid form. Instead of recommending plausible alternative strategies for the crisis in the Middle East, many Republicans have fallen back on a mindless Islamophobia, with suspicious intimations about the president’s personal allegiances.
Thus Obama is not only wrong but also anti-American, un-American, non-American, and his policies — though barely distinguishable from those of previous liberal Democrats such as Michael Dukakis or Mario Cuomo — somehow representative of something subversive. How surprising was it that a man who began his recent political career by questioning Obama’s eligibility for office could leap to the front of the pack, willing and able to communicate with his followers by means of the dog-whistle disdain for “political correctness”?
We are supposed to believe that Trump’s legion of “angry” people are angry about wage stagnation. No, they are angry about all the things Republicans have told them to be angry about these past seven-and-a-half years, and it has been Trump’s good fortune to be the guy to sweep them up and become their standard-bearer. He is the Napoleon who has harvested the fruit of the Revolution.
There has been much second-guessing lately. Why didn’t party leaders stand up and try to stop Trump earlier, while there was still time? But how could they have? Trump was feeding off forces in the party they had helped nurture and which they hoped to ride into power. Some of those Republican leaders and pundits now calling for a counterrevolution against Trump not so long ago were welcoming his contribution to the debate. The politicians running against him and now facing oblivion were loath to attack him before because they feared alienating his supporters. Instead, they attacked one another, clawing at each other’s faces as they one by one slipped over the cliff. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie got his last deadly lick in just before he plummeted — at Trump? No, at Rubio. Jeb Bush spent millions upon millions in his hopeless race, but against whom? Not Trump.
So what to do now? The Republicans’ creation will soon be let loose on the land, leaving to others the job the party failed to carry out. For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be.