You should listen more carefully.
I actually try NOT to listen. Political speeches are long and designed to manipulate emotion. I prefer to read transcripts of speeches, then compare those back with what (during the campaign) was written about what his initiatives. This is how I come to the conclusions I do, and have.
It’s my observation that many individuals listen but don’t read. This is a relatively dangerous way of assessing politicians, because good public speakers can manipulate emotions, leading people both pro and con to absolutely positively think they heard “X” stated clearly, but then when you read the speech transcripts, you realize that “X” was either not clearly stated or was qualified later by something that was said when you were walking the dog.
Trump hasn’t made distinctions for which Muslims should be feared, unless you consider that Trump thinks the Muslims we should not fear are the ones that live in the countries where Trump has financial assets. Trump paints people with a broad brush, Muslims, Mexicans, and blacks especially.
I’ll have to disagree, not that he paints with a broad brush, but that he paints as broadly as you infer. That nonwithstanding, I WOULD agree with you if you were to argue that because of his imprecision, we both have to take a wait and see attitude about what he REALLY does.
I can’t really help that Trump and the Republican party have given us so much to take stand against. From Trump’s support of Vladimir Putin, Trump’s disparaging NATO, Mexico, and Australia, Trump’s denial of climate science and opposition to the EPA, the Republicans opposition to the ACA, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, public education, financial regulation, equality, and voter rights.
So much there, so little time. :-)
I think calling Trump’s view on Putin to be “support” is hyperbole; certainly the appointment of Mattis, Pompeo, and Coates takes the “Trump loves Putin” meme off the table.
I think criticism of NATO’s funding (where we pay most of the bills and Europe gets most of the benefit) is valid; Trump is hardly the first one to question if the cold-war design of NATO is appropriate for the 21st century.
Trump’s outright denial of climate change is distressing; his criticism of EPA for regulatory overreach is not.
The data clearly shows that the ACA is not the right approach to care coverage. No Democrat supports the ACA without substantial reform.
As for the rest, the Republicans do not OPPOSE any of that list. That statements is so far beyond the pale that it does not merit a response. GOP views on all of them is that they can be (and in come cases MUST BE) improved, and the data supports those views.
So, what you “oppose” is a mashup of things that are (a) not what you think them to be, (b) things you ignore the nuance of, and © legitimate issues which unfortunately Democrats have decided to pretend don’t exist. With the exception of the climate change denial matter, of course.
Oppose if you like, but understand why you’re opposing, and what exactly you’re opposing.
Are you suggesting we sit around and wait for Trump and the Republicans to do their worst before we speak out?
Not at all. My point continues to be that everyone should approach the matter honestly and with integrity. If Trump and the GOP propose an idea that has merit, then let’s discuss, find common ground, and move forward with it. Infrastructure, corporate tax reform, ACA reform or replacement, certain parts of Dodd Frank which are generally viewed to be unhelpful…all fall into that category. If Trump and the GOP propose something that lacks merit, then oppose it vigorously.
All I am pointing out that “resist everything” will not result in an improvement in the condition of our nation, not during the Trump Administration, and not into the forseeable future, either.