I wanted to like this article's conclusion, but the trip there was full of potholes ; p Democrats call Trump a "threat to democracy" because of his conduct around the 2020 election and Jan 6, period, which has continued to infect the GOP since, with a large percentage of Republican officeholders at least cynically playing along with "sto…
I wanted to like this article's conclusion, but the trip there was full of potholes ; p Democrats call Trump a "threat to democracy" because of his conduct around the 2020 election and Jan 6, period, which has continued to infect the GOP since, with a large percentage of Republican officeholders at least cynically playing along with "stolen election" rhetoric as a vehicle to attempt to disenfranchise large numbers of voters (presumed to be voting Democratic) and to give powers to county elections boards run by True Believers to toss out results without any standards of proof of fraud, or to otherwise gum up the works to create chaos and doubt around results that will be close and determinative. You can agree or disagree that "stolen election" is a Big Lie, but you can't disagree that this is the viewpoint of the vast majority of Democrats and their voters. It's entirely rationale, therefore, for Democrats to clearly state that Trump is a threat to democracy on that basis and oppose him on that basis, and not "extreme rhetoric" that just demonizes Trump because they dislike his "policies" (he needs to have some to dislike).
On the other hand, Trump and his supporters regularly state that Democratic leaders, any Trump opposition (including Republicans and former Republicans), the entire media that is not explicitly right wing friendly, all institutions coded as "left", and by extension the 50% or so of Democratic voters are "evil", "enemies within", "destroying the country", "hate America", "hate YOU (Trump supporters)", "if I (Trump) don't win you won't have a country anymore", are "communists", "Marxists", "pedophiles", they will "steal your sacred elections (if there's any result that Trump doesn't win)", and I'm probably just reciting the top phrases from Trump's Truth Social posts in the last 24 hours. His rallies are filled with the same rhetoric, and it's these lines that really get the crowd going and cheering, Harris was right, however that they get bored when he goes on 10 minute long discursive rambles about sharks, electric boats and Hannibal Lecter - but talk about "locking up" various Democrats (which started back in 2016 with of course "Lock Her Up" led chants about HRC) and taking "revenge" on "his" enemies (which are of course "yours" too!) and all the supposed "predations" of the left gets the crowds going.
Has anyone considered that the recent shooter (the first one I believe was shown not to have an anti-Trump fixation at all but just wanted to go out on a Big Historical Note of assassinating an Important Person, who was equally open to shooting Biden or Trump, and Trump “won” just because he happened to holding an even in the area) was motivated not by Democratic “rhetoric” about Trump, but about Trump’s own words? How is it not as likely that Trump calling an entire political party and its voters and associating it with every cultural trend they dislike “evil” and “destroying America” is not inciting folks against him directly? I don’t need to watch “MSNBC” or hear Trump’s words sane-washed by NY times or have Kamala Harris tell me what he is saying is bad - anyone can hear it straight from Trump himself, so I’m surprised there’s not even a tiny bit of introspection here that Trump may be the one inciting the crazies himself - both the ones for him as well as the ones against him.
Blaming the "victim"? Maybe, or just calling it like I see it. You can't really believe that anyone who is upset about Trump's rhetoric is only upset because Democrats are telling them Trump's a bad guy, that they can't see, read and hear Trump's rhetoric themselves, and ask yourself if there's any reason whatsoever for a certain type of mindset to find any of that threatening on its own, regardless of what Democrats do or do not say about it. Trump has made his entire political career about being deliberately polarizing, belligerent and over the top rhetorically. His supporters have reveled in this. Unfortunately that comes with risk in a nation awash in high powered guns easily accessible by pretty much anyone including very unstable and dangerous individuals - blaming "the Democrats" for people reacting to stuff they can see and hear plainly coming from him, if at that is the case, is not going to alter the risk - even if Harris only talks about Trump's ridiculous tariff "policy" Trump's still out there talking about the "enemies" he wants to punish if he gets back into power, and of course the 2020 election fallout of Trump's "Stolen Election" lies and Jan 6 is hardly that far back in the rearview for anyone to put that together and conclude for themselves that "Trump is a threat to democracy". I'm not justifying attempts on his life btw, the only way to beat him is once again at the ballot box and this time be ready for the tantruming, at least he won't be running the federal government for over 2 months after the fact - but if we're looking around for reasons as to why someone with access to guns and planning would want to take out Trump because of "rhetoric", consider what the "rhetoric" might be and where it's coming from that they're responding to.
Or…people’s political expressions shouldn’t be cause for violence and we should stop rationalizing criminal behavior because it’s committed against the other side.
Maybe? If that's how you want to interpret it. Look, 99% of the responses are outraged that Eli Lake concluded with the shooters not being motivated by DNC or MNSBC "extremist rhetoric" - of course they want to blame "Democrats" and "the media". I first disagree that the vast majority of what is said about Trump in those spaces is "extremist" in the first place, but then second in response to the overwhelming belief within the commentariat this could only have been caused by Democratic "rhetoric", what makes you so sure? Do you think Trump is only filtered to people outside of his base through the Democratic Party and MSNBC? That if the possibility exists that Shooter #2 at least was motivated by a personal animus to Trump that was formed by consuming anti-Trump rhetoric, then it's equally as possible that they were reacting directly to the things Trump says and has done and promises to do - himself. I'm pretty sure someone who is already predisposed to say, support Ukraine's and oppose Putin has a pretty clear vision of where Trump and a Trump Administration would stand on this issue if elected (if we're to understand this issue was at least partially motivating to the shooter) just by listening to Trump and observing his record regarding, they are probably not getting that view provided to them by Democratic campaign talk, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, etc. They probably *agree* with that more or less consensus view, but they most likely formed it directly as a result of hearing Trump and not Biden or Harris describing Trump's position.
Again, everyone here is behaving as though Trump is not able to be heard and interpreted on his own, and that the very invective sort of rhetoric that Trump regularly engages in could not be as inciteful to violence from those who oppose him as much as it could be inciteful to those who support him, in different ways. If you're blaming "rhetoric", Trump's rhetoric cannot be excluded from it.
Does that mean he should tone it down too, as many want to demand of the Democrats and "media"? That Democrats should basically abandon any sort of negative campaigning on Trump on any aspect of his fitness for Office, maybe just drop out the race and let him win by default, hey why not lol - that seems to be the jist here. Bad things happened to Trump, we blame Democrats, they should basically just let Trump win or we'll continue to blame them if more bad things happen. Well that's not gonna happen :) So Trump is going to continue to Trump, Democrats will continue to prosecute the case against him on mostly the grounds of his fitness for Office, followed by some terrible policies that he has at least partially articulated, and in a nation with access to millions of guns and lots of unstable people and an election season that is going to be very likely contentious and fraught - in big part due to how Trump is already framing any potential loss of his - well, shit's gonna happen regardless, so Trump just better beef his security if he wants to continue to campaign in belligerent and threat mode. But let's not pretend that is not contributing to the kind of environment that produces assassination attempts, even if it gets directed back at him, or at his opponents.
And look - if Harris had an assassination attempt on her by someone who claimed they did it because they got upset about her talking about clamping down on social media disinformation, they view that as a dangerous attack on the First Amendment. They also think that is a backhanded attack on conservative viewpoints. Now they might have been incited by hearing only Republican and Trump and Fox News rhetoric about this policy - where they also disagree with Harris's policy and basically concur with the shooter regarding its implications. Or they may have heard her comments regarding in a campaign speech, debate or wherever and formed that opinion directly. Is Harris "at fault" for inciting the shooter? No, but her statements are out there as being potentially divisive, and yet so are the statements of Republicans and Trump claiming she wants to jail conservatives and end free speech and is a threat to the Constitution. The shooter believes those things too, but maybe as an individual highly motivated around issues of the First Amendment and highly engaged in right wing social media conspiracy theory corners they are very sensitive to that sort of "threat" and also happen to be very unstable and have access to a gun. They probably would have taken the shot even if Trump limited his criticism to this policy of "government overreach" and left out the "threat to the Constitution" and "hates conservatives" stuff. Not the best example but hopefully you can see the distinction. And I certainly don't mean to compare something Harris has said about online disinformation as really belonging in the same category as Trump's regular outbursts about Harris being an "America hating Democrat that will destroy this country" as his general frame of attack against her, which is why it's a poor example - Harris has simply not engaged at the same level of eliminationist sort of rhetoric of which is what makes the Trump situation so unique.
Of the stew of ingredients that produced the Summer 2020 riots, yes Donald Trump was *one* of the many matches tossed into the fire, at least in part due to his failure at leadership and crisis management - and the long simmering cracks he helped widen in differences and relations, particularly racial. Sorry for the mixed metaphor though!
If it makes you feel better, I do hold local and state officials accountable as well that allowed disorder to continue for far too long, and minimized their responsibility for public safety and order.
I remember "mostly peaceful protests", students in London screaming to police "Don't shoot" (in London!), red vaginas. Of course, Trump ignited them. He was elected by Putin, who also created Cambridge Analytica and Brexit.
You know what's most interesting. Progressives never admit their own mistakes. Never! On the contrary, the more stupid mistake they make, the more efforts they make to go in the wrong direction, following Hegel's maxim "if facts contradict theory, then so much the worse for the facts."
NetZero to 2030 is a classical example of this arrogance of educated idiots.
I wanted to like this article's conclusion, but the trip there was full of potholes ; p Democrats call Trump a "threat to democracy" because of his conduct around the 2020 election and Jan 6, period, which has continued to infect the GOP since, with a large percentage of Republican officeholders at least cynically playing along with "stolen election" rhetoric as a vehicle to attempt to disenfranchise large numbers of voters (presumed to be voting Democratic) and to give powers to county elections boards run by True Believers to toss out results without any standards of proof of fraud, or to otherwise gum up the works to create chaos and doubt around results that will be close and determinative. You can agree or disagree that "stolen election" is a Big Lie, but you can't disagree that this is the viewpoint of the vast majority of Democrats and their voters. It's entirely rationale, therefore, for Democrats to clearly state that Trump is a threat to democracy on that basis and oppose him on that basis, and not "extreme rhetoric" that just demonizes Trump because they dislike his "policies" (he needs to have some to dislike).
On the other hand, Trump and his supporters regularly state that Democratic leaders, any Trump opposition (including Republicans and former Republicans), the entire media that is not explicitly right wing friendly, all institutions coded as "left", and by extension the 50% or so of Democratic voters are "evil", "enemies within", "destroying the country", "hate America", "hate YOU (Trump supporters)", "if I (Trump) don't win you won't have a country anymore", are "communists", "Marxists", "pedophiles", they will "steal your sacred elections (if there's any result that Trump doesn't win)", and I'm probably just reciting the top phrases from Trump's Truth Social posts in the last 24 hours. His rallies are filled with the same rhetoric, and it's these lines that really get the crowd going and cheering, Harris was right, however that they get bored when he goes on 10 minute long discursive rambles about sharks, electric boats and Hannibal Lecter - but talk about "locking up" various Democrats (which started back in 2016 with of course "Lock Her Up" led chants about HRC) and taking "revenge" on "his" enemies (which are of course "yours" too!) and all the supposed "predations" of the left gets the crowds going.
Has anyone considered that the recent shooter (the first one I believe was shown not to have an anti-Trump fixation at all but just wanted to go out on a Big Historical Note of assassinating an Important Person, who was equally open to shooting Biden or Trump, and Trump “won” just because he happened to holding an even in the area) was motivated not by Democratic “rhetoric” about Trump, but about Trump’s own words? How is it not as likely that Trump calling an entire political party and its voters and associating it with every cultural trend they dislike “evil” and “destroying America” is not inciting folks against him directly? I don’t need to watch “MSNBC” or hear Trump’s words sane-washed by NY times or have Kamala Harris tell me what he is saying is bad - anyone can hear it straight from Trump himself, so I’m surprised there’s not even a tiny bit of introspection here that Trump may be the one inciting the crazies himself - both the ones for him as well as the ones against him.
Blaming the "victim"? Maybe, or just calling it like I see it. You can't really believe that anyone who is upset about Trump's rhetoric is only upset because Democrats are telling them Trump's a bad guy, that they can't see, read and hear Trump's rhetoric themselves, and ask yourself if there's any reason whatsoever for a certain type of mindset to find any of that threatening on its own, regardless of what Democrats do or do not say about it. Trump has made his entire political career about being deliberately polarizing, belligerent and over the top rhetorically. His supporters have reveled in this. Unfortunately that comes with risk in a nation awash in high powered guns easily accessible by pretty much anyone including very unstable and dangerous individuals - blaming "the Democrats" for people reacting to stuff they can see and hear plainly coming from him, if at that is the case, is not going to alter the risk - even if Harris only talks about Trump's ridiculous tariff "policy" Trump's still out there talking about the "enemies" he wants to punish if he gets back into power, and of course the 2020 election fallout of Trump's "Stolen Election" lies and Jan 6 is hardly that far back in the rearview for anyone to put that together and conclude for themselves that "Trump is a threat to democracy". I'm not justifying attempts on his life btw, the only way to beat him is once again at the ballot box and this time be ready for the tantruming, at least he won't be running the federal government for over 2 months after the fact - but if we're looking around for reasons as to why someone with access to guns and planning would want to take out Trump because of "rhetoric", consider what the "rhetoric" might be and where it's coming from that they're responding to.
Or…people’s political expressions shouldn’t be cause for violence and we should stop rationalizing criminal behavior because it’s committed against the other side.
You're not nearly as smart as you obviously think you are.
ah well ;p
Summarized…trump started it.
Maybe? If that's how you want to interpret it. Look, 99% of the responses are outraged that Eli Lake concluded with the shooters not being motivated by DNC or MNSBC "extremist rhetoric" - of course they want to blame "Democrats" and "the media". I first disagree that the vast majority of what is said about Trump in those spaces is "extremist" in the first place, but then second in response to the overwhelming belief within the commentariat this could only have been caused by Democratic "rhetoric", what makes you so sure? Do you think Trump is only filtered to people outside of his base through the Democratic Party and MSNBC? That if the possibility exists that Shooter #2 at least was motivated by a personal animus to Trump that was formed by consuming anti-Trump rhetoric, then it's equally as possible that they were reacting directly to the things Trump says and has done and promises to do - himself. I'm pretty sure someone who is already predisposed to say, support Ukraine's and oppose Putin has a pretty clear vision of where Trump and a Trump Administration would stand on this issue if elected (if we're to understand this issue was at least partially motivating to the shooter) just by listening to Trump and observing his record regarding, they are probably not getting that view provided to them by Democratic campaign talk, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, etc. They probably *agree* with that more or less consensus view, but they most likely formed it directly as a result of hearing Trump and not Biden or Harris describing Trump's position.
Again, everyone here is behaving as though Trump is not able to be heard and interpreted on his own, and that the very invective sort of rhetoric that Trump regularly engages in could not be as inciteful to violence from those who oppose him as much as it could be inciteful to those who support him, in different ways. If you're blaming "rhetoric", Trump's rhetoric cannot be excluded from it.
Does that mean he should tone it down too, as many want to demand of the Democrats and "media"? That Democrats should basically abandon any sort of negative campaigning on Trump on any aspect of his fitness for Office, maybe just drop out the race and let him win by default, hey why not lol - that seems to be the jist here. Bad things happened to Trump, we blame Democrats, they should basically just let Trump win or we'll continue to blame them if more bad things happen. Well that's not gonna happen :) So Trump is going to continue to Trump, Democrats will continue to prosecute the case against him on mostly the grounds of his fitness for Office, followed by some terrible policies that he has at least partially articulated, and in a nation with access to millions of guns and lots of unstable people and an election season that is going to be very likely contentious and fraught - in big part due to how Trump is already framing any potential loss of his - well, shit's gonna happen regardless, so Trump just better beef his security if he wants to continue to campaign in belligerent and threat mode. But let's not pretend that is not contributing to the kind of environment that produces assassination attempts, even if it gets directed back at him, or at his opponents.
And look - if Harris had an assassination attempt on her by someone who claimed they did it because they got upset about her talking about clamping down on social media disinformation, they view that as a dangerous attack on the First Amendment. They also think that is a backhanded attack on conservative viewpoints. Now they might have been incited by hearing only Republican and Trump and Fox News rhetoric about this policy - where they also disagree with Harris's policy and basically concur with the shooter regarding its implications. Or they may have heard her comments regarding in a campaign speech, debate or wherever and formed that opinion directly. Is Harris "at fault" for inciting the shooter? No, but her statements are out there as being potentially divisive, and yet so are the statements of Republicans and Trump claiming she wants to jail conservatives and end free speech and is a threat to the Constitution. The shooter believes those things too, but maybe as an individual highly motivated around issues of the First Amendment and highly engaged in right wing social media conspiracy theory corners they are very sensitive to that sort of "threat" and also happen to be very unstable and have access to a gun. They probably would have taken the shot even if Trump limited his criticism to this policy of "government overreach" and left out the "threat to the Constitution" and "hates conservatives" stuff. Not the best example but hopefully you can see the distinction. And I certainly don't mean to compare something Harris has said about online disinformation as really belonging in the same category as Trump's regular outbursts about Harris being an "America hating Democrat that will destroy this country" as his general frame of attack against her, which is why it's a poor example - Harris has simply not engaged at the same level of eliminationist sort of rhetoric of which is what makes the Trump situation so unique.
So following your line of thinking, the lady who goes out to a bar in the short skirt and low cut top can expect to be raped? Asking for a friend.
If I understand you correctly, it is Trump's rhetoric that is the reason for the BLM riots in Democrat-run cities.
Thank you for opening my eyes!
Of the stew of ingredients that produced the Summer 2020 riots, yes Donald Trump was *one* of the many matches tossed into the fire, at least in part due to his failure at leadership and crisis management - and the long simmering cracks he helped widen in differences and relations, particularly racial. Sorry for the mixed metaphor though!
If it makes you feel better, I do hold local and state officials accountable as well that allowed disorder to continue for far too long, and minimized their responsibility for public safety and order.
"If it makes you feel better" - No, it doesn't.
I remember "mostly peaceful protests", students in London screaming to police "Don't shoot" (in London!), red vaginas. Of course, Trump ignited them. He was elected by Putin, who also created Cambridge Analytica and Brexit.
You know what's most interesting. Progressives never admit their own mistakes. Never! On the contrary, the more stupid mistake they make, the more efforts they make to go in the wrong direction, following Hegel's maxim "if facts contradict theory, then so much the worse for the facts."
NetZero to 2030 is a classical example of this arrogance of educated idiots.