Now will MAGA lawmakers finally work with Dems to ban assault weapons? And will Trump finally stop inciting political violence? One of their own has been killed, and another two grievously wounded. Do they not care?
Some Dems have already applauded the shooting attempt on Trump's life and wished that it had succeeded - because they view him as a possible despot should he be elected. However, they want to ban the weaponry that might be used by future patriots against a dictatorial regime.
As Tom Jefferson said, "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Sad but true.)
I don’t applaud the shooting. And no public officials have either. I gather by “some Dems” you mean random individuals on social media. My quotes are from people in official positions.
You’re proving you are crazy, Frank. We’ve advocated for serious gun control measures for decades , mostly as the result of school children being executed in their classrooms … there’s a king list of Americans far more deserving of martyrdom than this one. If the L you speak of posting - do you know for sure they’re not the
Calling me "crazy" is - by definition - an ad hominem attack on my character and being. If you meant "wrong-headed," then why not say that instead of denigrating my sanity?
BTW, an old girlfriend was completing her doctorate in Psychology and I ended up being her guinea pig by taking dozens of psychological tests as she learned. The LONE area of abnormality in my profile was my "Paranoia Quotient." BUT, it was "normal for someone who grew up in New York City"!
If you want to rank-order victims of gun violence, be my guest. However, I would call that "wrong-headed." ALMOST every ;life is sacred, IMO.
Most people would agree that school children have a right to be safe at school, Frank . So let’s start there. Elderly people who are in houses of worship , too. LBGTQ folks dancing in a club, them too. IF a person has themselves espoused violence toward others in words and actions, we have to consider that that person did play a hand in their victimization. If that person has radicalized others to perpetrate violence - we kinda gotta take a look at the mitigating factors - as they say. The list of people targeted for violence by DJT is a very long one. He cared not about the young woman murdered in Charlottesville - there were “fine people” on “both sides”. So we have to consider in all DJTs words and actions if he holds life sacred - I would argue that he does not , at least not every American - some of us our “fair game” as they say.
Interesting that the folks most worried about tyranny are themselves following a would be tyrant. Don’t be too surprised when you find yourself on the wrong side of history.
I just don’t think we have a lot to agree on Frank - you sound like you wake up every day with possible tyranny on yer mind , and I’ve been a school nurse for over a decade - so you know what I wake up every day with - preparing to deal with the fallout of those who fear tyranny daily .
WHY should we "start there"- with the safety of school children?
Why not with the ENTIRE POPULATION having a right to be safe from tyranny, the whole point of the American Revolution?
Am I in favor of nutcases shooting up a schoolyard or classroom, churchgoers, or gays in a nightclub? Of course not.
Neither am I predisposed to allow "jackbooted government thugs" to arrest or kill rebels and innocent bystanders in some future dictatorship of the right, left, or center.
As for the misreporting of the "fine people on both sides" hoax, see Trump's EXACT quote below.
BTW, as I keep pointing out, I'm no Trumpist or right-wing troglodyte, no matter how many words or ideas anyone tries to put in my mouth.
1. Trump denounced the white supremacists in Charlottesville.
2. He was referring to the "good people on both sides" of the statue removal debate. You may think that anyone who wanted to keep the statue of Robt. E. Lee in the park is a racist, that's your right.
But it's not your right to misstate the FACTS. How about getting your information from more than the exaggerated claims of the mainstream media and Biden's statement that Trump was making a "moral equivalence" between white nationalists and liberal protesters?
Why not refer to Trump's exact words? (from ABC News):
""You also had some very fine people on both sides," Trump said in 2017. "You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. You had people -- and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists; they should be condemned totally -- you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists."
One of "their own" has been killed? Do you hear yourself? This savage and primitive way of viewing our fellow citizens is disgusting. One of OUR own has been killed. I feel sorry for you if you can't see that. I'm done. Fuck this whole election and both parties. It's all hateful and sick.
What of sandy hook? And Alex Jones? And his audience . I’m
Just wondering if you ever stood up and posted about how sick it all was. OF the Christmas cards with full families in their Jammies holding assault rifles - during season of Christmas and Hanukkah - when children were gunned down in their classrooms . Every stand up to anyone at any time saying how sick it all was ? Just wondering …
I am a lifelong Liberal Democrat. Of course I stood up and said how sick it all was. Unlike you, I don't shift my moral center to fit the narrative of my political tribe.
Really ? You can see how one might be mistaken . No one has shifted their morals - we think it is sick. Will the R change now that it has impacted them more directly , not some school children or LBGTQ dancers in a nightclub . Just because that ? Is asked , it’s valid, doesn’t mean we agree with the lives being taken. Not seeing the lifelong liberal dem in your take on things
Needless to say, I am not in favor of nutcases shooting up schoolyards or classrooms.
However, for all those who want to maintain Democracy (actually, a Constitutional Republic), "assault weapons" may be necessary to combat a future tyranny.
BTW, I've heard all the counter-arguments to my point of view. Give it a try! While you're at it, remember Tom Jefferson's wise words: "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Taking a moment to thank you all for participating in this conversation. It’s clear, as Martha Nichols says, that we don’t all interpret words and gestures in the same way. And some of our differences go deeper than that. But I appreciate you all for your engagement. Maybe I’ll do a stack on dogs again and we can all discover what we have in common!
I dislike Trump and hate everything he stands for, but I would rather see him raising his fist and slightly bloodied than lying dead on the dais.
For everyone howling about the response of some Democrats, let me remind you about the response of many Republicans to the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi, and the gleeful deathwatch on SJC Ruth Bader Ginzburg.
One thing is true - there ARE people on both sides who will choose violence over due process and compromise.
One person died at that rally, and two more are in jeopardy of losing their lives.
You want to own a gun to "defend your home"? Great. Leave it there when you go out in public.
I just think that some commenters are caught up in the political whirlwind, and not the awful occurrence of what might have been another mass shooting.
His hand wasn’t just “raised.” His face was contorted with rage as he shouted “Fight Fight Fight!” And he pumped his fist all the way to the car. He’d just been shot. The shooter was dead. Who was he urging the crowd to “fight” against? Clearly, the enemy Dems. But he had no evidence (and we still don’t) that the shooter was politically motivated. Why add an aggressive gesture to the already explosive situation? Don’t be naive, Frank. As soon as he realized he wasn’t seriously hurt (he had the presence of mind to ask for his shoes), he exploited the situation. Why not calm things down instead? But that’s never Trump’s instinct.
As a Film Scholar who has studied and published quite a bit on screen performance tropes, I've observed that facial expressions can be very ambiguous, interpreted in numerous ways based on the prior suppositions of the viewer.
For instance, I've heard Trump's facial reactions after being shot as "steely resolve" and "courageous willingness to be undeterred."
Yes, yes, yes, Susan - I urge everyone to watch the raw footage of Trump being shot, in which he did tell the agents helping him to wait. Then he raised his fist, and the crowd roared - this is terrifying stuff. We now have a martyr in the making, with his Republican quislings already spinning this into “they’re out to get us!”
Yet no issues with Biden's violent hate filled rhetoric? On July 8th, 2024, Joe Biden said: "We’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye."
Please don't ask me to validate every comment from Biden, because there are plenty that don't thrill me. But hate-filled? I guess I have a different definition of that. See the clip of Trump's comments about Paul and Nancy Pelosi that Susan runs at the end of her post.
If intimating that your main political opponent get shot isn't hate filled, not sure you would consider anything Biden says to be hate filled. I find his attempts to turn "Maga" into some sort of curse to be hate filled, dispensed with rage and venom everytime he says it. As for Trump, I see his fist pump just after getting shot as showing courage and a bold statement he won't allow hate and violence to stop him from running for president.
Steve, I like that you say how you interpret the fist-pump differently than I might, because it makes clear we all have our lenses for viewing politics – and I don't mind being called out for mine. As for "put Trump in a bullseye," I'd call that a metaphor, the kind of verbal embellishment, exaggeration, or joke that another commenter in this thread noted of Trump's "dictator for a day" comment. Politicians embellish and throw words around on both sides all the time. What matters to me is the overall emotional tone and respect for others. I doubt we'll ever agree on this or what "hate-filled" is, but maybe we can agree that everyone needs to avoid shooting metaphors.
When Sarah Palin used a crosshairs "metaphor" she was VILIFIED forever. How is that much different from what Biden said about a "bullseye"?
ANSWER: It's NOT much different - except for the underlying ideological commitment of the observer.
As I always say, the expression should not be "I'll believe it when I see it." More often than not, esp. in the political realm, it should be "I'll SEE it when I BELIEVE IT."
If I have to choose between whose rhetoric is more violent than the other, then I agree with Mercutio in ROMEO & JULIET: "A plague on both your houses!"
I watched the assassination attempt video over 40 times and did not once hear Trump "tell the agents helping him to wait." What I heard was that he wanted to get back his shoes before leaving the stage.
If YOU heard differently, please provide some EVIDENCE. Otherwise, why do YOU - like so many others - LIE about what transpired in this case (and so many others).
This is not just me, Frank, and there is evidence on camera. After asking about his shoes, he says, "Wait, wait." The NYT reports him as having asked the agents to stop. They also say it sounds like he said, "Fight, fight," although I couldn't tell that — and so I didn't state it. I based what I said on my own observations. While what any one person observes can be mistaken, that doesn't mean they're lying. I certainly wasn't.
I've included the link of the NYT's latest video clip below. The one I watched last night was only about a minute long without commentary. Whatever you think of the *New York Times* (and I have my own problems with their coverage), I think they're doing their best to stick to the facts of a still-breaking story.
So the terrifying stuff is not that they tried to kill him, but that even in such a moment he stood strong and defiant? You are certifiably bonkers! You and all the other anti-American Marxists.
The terrifying stuff is that Trump is in high spirits after 2 others are dead , 2 others gravely injured. He just doesn’t care - at all, about anyone other than himself. The terrifying stuff is that he immediately assumed it was the left ( like we’re engaged in a lot of violence and advocate for gun ownership). Al, cmon , see any problems with this picture ?
Sorry, pal, but Trump did care. He immediately asked about everybody else. In fact, he's been the ONLY leader to care for regular folks in decades. And the assumption that it is the Left trying to do everything to get rid of Trump is not an assumption. It is a reality. And make no mistake. They're not going after him alone; they're going after us all "deplorables". He's just the stonewall protecting us.
Kris: This is a fairly common experience - especially of soldiers in battle. They are pleased - even "in high spirits" - that they survived, even though others around them did not.
Besides, Trump DID express regret and sorrow over the death and injuries to his MAGA supporters. The fact that he signaled to the crowd that he was OK may have prevented a riot (if he'd be killed or seriously wounded).
Furthermore, WHEN did Trump "immediately assume it was the left"? I read all his comments carefully and he made no such statement (Although SOME Republicans hinted at it).
Please provide some EVIDENCE for your claims!!!
Isn't there enough "fake news" in the media? Do I have to read it in Susan Bordo's blog too (and with Susan's blessing!)
Actually, Al, I was terrified by him getting shot. It was terrible, and such anarchic violence scares me for everyone. But who is “they”? We don’t know that yet. I am very far from being a Marxist, by the way, but I do know my history, and the raised fist and roaring crowd evokes fascist tropes that chill me. I ask you not to assume I have no sympathy for those who were killed or hurt by this act of violence. You have turned me into a “they,” as if every Dem feels the same thing. We don’t, and I don’t.
I was about to use an ad hominem here but I was taught NEVER to do so in my Philosophy classes (when I studied with Socrates)>
That said, yes, Hitler used a raised arm salute (actually more like an extended arm parallel to the ground. CF. THE TRIUMPH OF THE WILL), but so do victorious Olympic athletes, graduating seniors, and many others who are just glad to be alive or in some special situation. Adrenaline has a mind of its own.
These comparisons are clearly contrived and based on one's baked-in ideology, without a consideration of any of the other possible explanations. Likewise, almost ALL political candidates try to get their crowds to "roar." (Some just have bigger crowds than others.)
Fair enough, Martha. I believe your fear of fascism is not warranted. Fascism lurks in the shadows, while Trump has been extremely public and under the fiercest scrutiny ever. Fascism is actually the Biden administration. We know who “they” are, and it’s clear who was behind this assassination attempt: precisely those who refused to call it that!
Thanks, for this response, Al. I don’t think that fascism only lurks in the shadows, but we can agree to disagree. I am about to post a link to Braver Angels with a response by a conservative member and Trump supporter about reaching out to his Dem friends. I believe reaching out to each other is one way to get past this terrible political moment, and I’d like to keep the communication lines open.
Trump had his chance in his first term to try to close down the "fake news" newspapers and networks or jail his opponents, as would happen in a true fascist dictatorship. Instead, he just used his Freedom of Speech to criticize them.
I' must've told you people a ZILLION TIMES never to exaggerate! :-)
OK, you may say, Trump really didn't do anything "fascist" in his first term. But should he win again, he'll jail his opponents (like they tried to do to him). But that is pure CONJECTURE with little or no basis in fact. (Please don't tell me that he said he's be a dictator "for one day." That was OBVIOUSLY a joke and referred to ONE thing: an Executive Order to close the border and "Drill, Baby, Drill." You may not like those policies, but that is NOT "dictatorship" by any true definition.
Susan: I normally agree with most of what you say.
This time, in the wake of the assassination attempt on Trump, I have to voice a SEMANTIC objection.
While I agree that the Republicans you cite are out of line for blaming the attack on Trump and the other casualties on Democratic rhetoric, I take issue with this statement of yours: "... the Democrats’ warnings about how electing Trump will bring an end to Democracy. This is a fact, not 'rhetoric.'”
Most "will" statements are predictions of the future, not facts. Maybe your crystal ball is 100% accurate but , even so, how is it able to predict "the end of Democracy"?
Again, I'm not taking sides here about Trump vs. Biden. I'm ONLY making a semantic/philosophical point about confusing opinion with "facts."
I love it when my posts generate conversation and I try to respond to comments and participate in any debates that emerge. But I also have new writing to work on every week, and some of my stacks involve significant research. That’s the case with my next stack, on the “Presumed Innocent” series/remake, for which I’m re-reading the Turow book, rewatching the original 1990 movie, rewatching the current series, and looking at the changes in cultural context—with sidetrips to another remake from the same period—“Fatal Attraction.” So, for a few days, I’m trying to disengage my brain from politics— except of the gender politics variety, which are highly relevant to the shapeshifting versions of “Presumed Innocent” and “Fatal Attraction.” It’s going to be a great stack! So forgive me for exiting this conversation, and of course feel free to continue to talk among yourselves.
Dear Susan, you know I could never fully say good bye to you. I meant Godspeed as in best of luck in your journey. I can share life, and reality with you although it seems sometimes that we live in different planets. We can agree to disagree as Americans of different backgrounds, generations and political opinions. But the Democrat Party you support doesn’t exist anymore, as it’s been replaced by absolutism. At the same time, you keep on seeing Trump as a destructive monster but that is not reality either. His policies were million times better than anything Dems or Republicans had to offer, that’s why he won in 2020 and will win again in 2024, if the Left doesn’t kill him before. God bless.
I can’t “like” this because of statements in it with which I so thoroughly take issue. However, I’m glad that our doors to each other are still open, and I give your comment a heart for that. (By the way, ARE we of different generations? It struck me I don’t really know anything about your age or background—just your political opinions, some of which we had some strong agreement on and others of which we do indeed seem to live on different planets.)
I may be older than you. Our doors must remain open: it’s the only way to jointly combat the madness engulfing the world. And don’t forget you still owe me a waltz…
Metaphors have been know to kill people. Think of all the "metaphors" used to describe German Jews during the 1930s. They were not being called LITERAL rats (after all, they didn't have tails) but they were portrayed as FIGURATIVE vermin - and that helped the cause of the "Final Solution."
Besides, can't Trump and others use "metaphor" (or exaggeration or humor) when claiming he'd be "dictator" for just one day? (Even though he ONLY meant to use executive orders - as Biden, Obama, and other POTUSes have - to close the border and "Drill, Baby, Drill."
You may not like either of those policies, but I'm merely commenting on the difference used in evaluating rival candidates' "metaphors."
You’re right that metaphors can be destructive. But when Hitler called Jews “rats,” he really did intend that we should be exterminated. It’s really a stretch to argue that Biden was advocating the assassination of Trump. Re. Trump as dictator, I don’t think he meant that metaphorically. And SCOTUS has given him the tools.
It is. What Trump did there, in my opinion, was inflammatory. I was appalled that it was the first thing he thought of to do after the shooting—and he kept doing it. Yes, raise your arm to show your supporters you’re ok. But he went way beyond that, pumping his fist all the way to the car and even as they urged him inside it. And with a ferocious look on his face.
And it’s too soon to say, but the shooter so far appears to have a profile much like the typical school shooter—bullied, deranged “outsider” rather than deep political motivation. If that turns out to be correct, all those GOPs blaming Biden and the Dems should correct their tweets. But they won’t.
How many times have I heard Donkeys braying, "We will FIGHT for you!" or "You must join our FIGHT!"
As usual, I'm not taking sides. My thinking - in agreement with 75% of the U.S. population in polls - is that NEITHER candidate offers much to voters. (As Mercutio put it, "A plague on both your houses!")
When you choose the lesser of two evils, you still end up choosing an evil.
Sorry, but I don’t think of an administration that has the platform Trump just approved as simply the “greater of two evils.” Even if you don’t think Biden is a great candidate, the idea that the Dems “don’t offer much to voters” only makes sense if you’re not Black, a woman, or poor.
First, the Republican platform has not yet been "approved." And the entire Convention must approve the platform, not just Trump (who, as I write this, is not yet the nominee.. So, YOUR facts here start off as false.
2. Trump just gave an interview with Harris Faulkner in which he abjured MUCH of the 2025 Project, claiming it is "too conservative." SOME of it - maybe like renewing Trump-era tax cuts -may end up as part of the Party platform, but the entire 2025 Project is NOT official Republican doctrine and its 900 pages will not be.
3. The 2025 Project was devised by the Heritage Foundation, which, yes, is a conservative "think tank" whose views often align with Elephant ideology BUT they do not always coincide.
4. In my lifetime, I've noticed that most political party platforms are IGNORED once the election is over. They're written for those who like to wallow in the partisan "weeds" or those who try to find ammunition against their opponents.
5.On one particular issue, abortion, Trump has explicitly stated that Project 2025 goes too far. His position - likely to be the Republican Platform view - is that abortion regulations should be determined at the state level. He even mentioned, quite calmly, that some states had already approved very "liberal" rules.
You’re being naive. Trump, like the salesman that he is, is taking the temperature of what will “sell” best to undecideds, and wants to seem less “extreme.” I don’t trust a word he says. He’s lied shamelessly in the past, and I don’t see him changing.
This is the usual response: say that Trump is lying - as was famously said against writer Mary McCarthy: "Every word she says is a lie, including 'the' and 'and.'"
Such exaggeration gets us nowhere.
BTW, although I disapprove of BOTH candidates, I've caught Joe Biden in more outright LIES than Trump, but VASTLY more exaggerations and misstatements from Trump than Biden.
I could address several specific issues, but just one for now: “His position - likely to be the Republican Platform view - is that abortion regulations should be determined at the state level.” This is what we have now, and it’s a disaster for girls and women who don’t live in Blue states. Have you been following how that’s turning out? The “leaving it to the states is just a ploy on Trump’s part to make him seem “softer” on abortion, because he’s knows the overwhelming number of Americans favor what we had with Roe v. Wade. But “up to the states” is far from Roe V. Wade. Plus, if the GOP wins the house and senate, we WILL very likely have a proposal for a national ban, and Trump will ok it. He just picked a VP who favors it.
Too many people believe that SCOTUS decisions should be decided on the basis of either (1) what is best for the nation and/or (2) what is considered best by a majority of citizens, as determined by polls.
In the latter case, we do not live in a TRUE Democracy, where majority rule would, well, rule. (In fact, most people wouldn't want that - because slavery and later Jim Crow would have been approved by a majority of voters in the Deep South.).
The fact is that the U.S. is a constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy, and hence that founding document leaves final decisions in the hands of the SCOTUS - like it or not. One is free to disagree with its rulings BUT that's how the Constitution crumbles. (BTW, Jefferson thought that too much power had been allotted to the Supremes.)
So, from a legal perspective, what is popular among citizens is really not germane to whether the states or the federal govt. decide on abortion rights. MANY liberal jurists have told me that they loved the original Roe decision but that t was was decided poorly, and that Roe herself had lied about her situation in bringing the case:
“Jane Roe,” the plaintiff in the case, was Norma McCorvey. Norma was a child of divorce who began committing crimes at age 10. She became a ward of the state, abused alcohol and took drugs.
But some of her accounts are not to be believed. In 1969, 21-year-old Norma became pregnant for the third time and wanted to have the fetus, a girl, aborted. But Texas law prohibited abortions except in certain cases. So she lied (and later admitted to it) and claimed she had been raped by a group of black men. (!) This ploy failed due to lack of police evidence. An attempt to get an illegal abortion also failed. But she found two lawyers who were looking for a woman in just her situation in order to launch a lawsuit.
Like it or not, SCOTUS rulings SHOULD BE based on the Constitution and legal precedents. (Needless to say, that is not always the case.)
It may well be "rhetoric" - among other things. For example, as a semiotic SIGN to his supporters that he was OK and able to continue to "fight' for the principles they believed in.
But "rhetoric" is not equivalent to VIOLENCE or an appeal to violence, as some people in this discussion claim. In fact, I've done a longitudinal cross-blind study of use of the word "Fight" in political speech and found that the Donkeys used that word 2.666 times more often than the Elephants. :-) (OK, not a scientific study but it's true.) Dems are always promising to "fight" for universal health care, civil rights, biological men in women's sports, and other worthy (and some unworthy) causes.
The raised fist was famously used by the Black Olympic sprinters - John Carlos and Tommie Smith - to signify "Black Power." Anyone remember that?
Human gestures are notoriously ambiguous. In some cultures, nodding your head up and down means "NO." In others making a "V" with your fingers means "Victory" or "Peace" while in some Mideast nations it means "Felix Unger" (Get it? F.U.) :-)
As usual, people SEE what they want to BELIEVE - and I'm no exception - EXCEPT that I have "no dog in this hunt" - as Bill Clinton used to say. In short, I can analyze the candidates more objectively than most partisans because, like Noam Chomsky, I believe that "America has one party — the 'Business Party,' which has two factions — the Democrats and the Republicans. Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb." ...
It feels to me that this discussion is preliminary. Don’t we need to step back and reflect objectively on all sides without pointing out to our political alliance? Just as a human moment.
You are dead wrong on this one Susan. What AOC hypocritically called "stochastic terrorism" has been promoted by both the Dems and the GOP. To double down on this rhetoric now is to act in extremely bad faith and with extreme recklessness.
At least one innocent human being has been murdered because he or she dared to attend a Trump rally.
That's what really matters here.
Innocent life is being lost because the constant drumbeat of "Trump is going to kill us all" is whipping some lunatics into a frenzy.
“Whipping some lunatics into a frenzy.” Will you use the same words to describe the MAGA incitement to storm the capital? Or Trump’s own rhetoric? And by the way, we don’t yet know why this particular lunatic tried to kill Trump.
I certainly agree that there are lunatics “on both sides.” But I don’t even know what “stochastic terrorism” is, and I don’t see any Democratic officials (as opposed to crazies on social media) calling for the assassination of Donald Trump.
Yes, Susan, I would and I did condemn the nutjobs who stormed the capital. I voted Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020. But this insane hateful divisive rhetoric has got to STOP. There is no "good" party vs an "evil" party. There are basically just people who want the same things but who believe in different solutions to our problems. it's not sexy, but it's the truth.
Trump has very violent rhetoric - and has been intimately involved in one very violent event. He wanted Pence hanged , and multiple D lawmakers assassinated on J6. I and millions of others were extremely terrorized by what went down - and extremely worried about AOC, Pelosi etc in addition to the law enforcement present that day. It would be one thing if J6 had not occurred , but your writing seems to wipe from memory A pretty significant day in our history - one Trump promoted
And stood by and watched unfold, when he, POTUS, didn’t lift a finger to stop for hours. How quickly we forget and think both sides are the same - we’re not.
We are the same. We are all human beings whose perspectives are different. We are the same in every way that matters, and we need to get back to that reality asap.
I’d argue that we are not - tho all human. One group has been radicalized. I just read some statistics on R Reichs stack, about the increase in threats to congressional officials - it jumped from under 1k before T elected, to almost 10k after- note that this does not include the judges, das, jurors , or people like Dr fauci. It does not include the daily decades long harrassment by A Jones and his audience of the Sandy Hook families. There is a clear through line between DJT and an increase in both violent rhetoric and violent acts. These are for the most part absent from the dialog on the L. We’re the party of gun control legislation after all - we are mostly the victims and the targets of the rhetoric and the acts. We can’t begin to correct the problem if we cannot agree on what it is. Both sides do not carry equal blame in the matter- nor do all individuals - DJT Carries a great weight on his shoulders , but he isn’t the only one.
It's not an either/or issue. You can have been "terrorized" by J6 and also agree that the violent rhetoric of people like AOC, who hypocritically warned about the dangers of "stochastic terrorism" but who says nothing when it is directed against "deplorables") is terrorizing much of the population.
You were "terrorized" by J6 and the media has done everything in its power to terrorize you further. Stop letting them! Trump supporters are human beings just like you, and until you can accept that fact, this hatred and division will continue.
It comes from AOCs experience - as you know she not only endured J6, but endures constant daily barrage of death threats. Jurors in Hunter Biden’s case can speak openly without fear, jurors in trumps cases can not have their names released bc they will be threatened . Dr fauci remains u der top
Security to this day, even though retired. Don’t put terrorized in quotes - it’s inappropriate. I know trump supporters are human beings - I feel very sorry for the victims And their families . There is no both sides - there is one side that is extremely radicalized and Carries guns. A bloodless revolution , if the left allows it - this is from a GOP P2025 operative not a Dem. The radicalization is coming from one side. Wake up, “life long liberal “😉
Kris: First, the 2025 Project comes from the Heritage Foundation, NOT the Republican Party or Donald Trump.
In fact, Trump has explicitly foresworn many aspects of that 2025 plan, calling it "too conservative."
From the BBC: "With Mr Biden's age increasingly a key election topic, the party has aimed to refocus their supporters' attention in an effort to mobilise voters against Project 2025 - which Mr Biden recently said would "destroy America".
In response, Trump has disavowed the document:
"I know nothing about Project 2025," Trump posted on his social media website, Truth Social. "I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal."
Why are there so many outright lies and misstatements on Susan's blog? Why does she continue to approve of them without checking them out?
I'd like to see the direct quotes from Trump that "He wanted Pence hanged" or wanted "multiple DC lawmakers assassinated."
I could list DOZENS of misquotes and misunderstood comments "by" Trump that are made up out of whole cloth OR revised to fit one's ideology that have been taken as gospel by true believers in the liberal cause.
I’ll look those up for you and get back . I don’t think he us misquoted , as these statements are often times in video format - they’re not going through someone else . People are very very careful to be sure that they are saying exactly what he said - and T ofc is often very covertly using innuendo.
I believe they are true. As Mike pence is not his VP any longer , he lost all generals , chiefs of staff, several AGs, and many many staff as the express result of immoral and illegal behavior. It strains credulity to believe that ALL of these people are lying about him. They were his hand selected team. Those that are still on Team Trump, continue to advocate for violence - flynn, Bannon, etc. just like the guy running for gov in NC- these folks are on video and tape.
There’s a reason why millions in this country are afraid of him - they have good reason to be. We’re still not going go buy up ARs.
I'm still waiting for the EVIDENCE that Trump said, texted, or otherwise expressed a desire to see Mike Pence HANGED. Who are these "people" you trust, the ones who are VERY careful not to misquote anyone.
Likewise, please PROVE that the Donald "wanted "multiple DC lawmakers assassinated."
I'll help you out. When one can't prove something awful against Trump, the narrative becomes that he was using "dog whistles" to convey his evil intentions. Well, the point of a dog whistle is that ONLY DOGS can hear them. So, if YOU do, maybe you have some canine DNA. (BTW, I LOVE doggies and my beloved Golden Retriever Goldie just died 2 days ago.)
The staffing firings and desertions have ZERO to do with the UNPROVEN assertions you made, right?
But speaking of dancing, anarcho-feminist Emma Goldman famously said, "I do not believe that a Cause which stood for a beautiful ideal, for anarchism, for release and freedom from convention and prejudice, should demand the denial of life and joy."
She then went on to say, "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution."
If so (and maybe that's NOT what you implied), that demonstrates the faux humanitarianism of many Trump-haters who equate him with Hitler or the Devil Incarnate.
Why not get rid of him through the Ballot, not by means of the Bullet?
Plato's last major work, THE LAWS, was his last volume. It is generally regarded as a rationale for an authoritarian state - close to what we now call Fascism.
And Penny Adrian: Please stop generalizing about those of us who are frightened about what will happen if Trump is elected. I am not a “privileged Marxist” and I certainly don’t advocate “defeating the enemy with bullets instead of ballots.” ONE person on this thread made a comment that does not reflect my post or any of the other comments in this thread.
Thanks for your support, Al, but believe it or not _I_ happen to be a Marxist myself - but not of the contemporary variety. For instance, I happen to believe in (almost) absolute Free Speech, especially in my former home: academia. I also realize that many of the goals that Karl Marx wrote about and fought for - 8-hour day, no child labor, unionization, welfare state policies like Social Security and Medicare, etc. - have been achieved under Capitalism.
Today's so-called "Marxists" tend to emphasize gender, racial, environmental, and "identity politics," rather than the ECONOMIC determinants at the heart of Karl (and Groucho) Marx's analysis. Thus, most are really "ultra-liberals," who pay lip service to the proletariat but, as you say, espouse an elite, privileged message that often does harm to the working classes (i.e., immigration and inflation policies).
When I lived in California, we called them "Malibu Marxists."
Thank for the explanation, Frank. Your academic Marxism belongs in the field of academic thought, not in daily reality.
As you very well know, Karl Marx devised his thought to be applied in the industrial society of Britain in the 19th century. He didn’t have in mind the society of agrarian Russia in the 20th century, and far less the China of the 1930s or the Cuba of the 1960s. You have rightly admitted that Capitalism itself has implemented most (if not all) social requests Marx advocated for in relation to the industrial workforce of the 19th century in Britain.
All the Malibu Marxists of today, including the Nespresso Hamas supporters at Ivy League colleges, deserve
first, to be fully defunded and
second, to be temporarily deported to the Middle East or Venezuela, so they meet reality for the first time in their privileged lives.
What is not questionable any longer is that America can’t survive allowing millions of illegals breaking and entering, and generations of its own citizens being indoctrinated in the anti-US Malibu Marxism the Left is pushing everywhere.
Support the country you live in, or live in the country you support. And if you hate the US so much, be coherent and grow a pair: get the f*ck out of here and enjoy whichever shithole you think is better than here.
Pleasure talking to you, pal. Serene voices like yours are much appreciated.
And Al and penny - you have no idea whom you’re conversing with. Lotsa chaos agents - ie don’t assume you’re talking to a Dem. I’d add that the use of the term Marxist is both incorrect and inflammatory , they detract from your points in a discussion - but I imagine you’ve been advised this before …
Now will MAGA lawmakers finally work with Dems to ban assault weapons? And will Trump finally stop inciting political violence? One of their own has been killed, and another two grievously wounded. Do they not care?
Note the contradiction here.
Some Dems have already applauded the shooting attempt on Trump's life and wished that it had succeeded - because they view him as a possible despot should he be elected. However, they want to ban the weaponry that might be used by future patriots against a dictatorial regime.
As Tom Jefferson said, "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Sad but true.)
I don’t applaud the shooting. And no public officials have either. I gather by “some Dems” you mean random individuals on social media. My quotes are from people in official positions.
You’re proving you are crazy, Frank. We’ve advocated for serious gun control measures for decades , mostly as the result of school children being executed in their classrooms … there’s a king list of Americans far more deserving of martyrdom than this one. If the L you speak of posting - do you know for sure they’re not the
Calling me "crazy" is - by definition - an ad hominem attack on my character and being. If you meant "wrong-headed," then why not say that instead of denigrating my sanity?
BTW, an old girlfriend was completing her doctorate in Psychology and I ended up being her guinea pig by taking dozens of psychological tests as she learned. The LONE area of abnormality in my profile was my "Paranoia Quotient." BUT, it was "normal for someone who grew up in New York City"!
If you want to rank-order victims of gun violence, be my guest. However, I would call that "wrong-headed." ALMOST every ;life is sacred, IMO.
Most people would agree that school children have a right to be safe at school, Frank . So let’s start there. Elderly people who are in houses of worship , too. LBGTQ folks dancing in a club, them too. IF a person has themselves espoused violence toward others in words and actions, we have to consider that that person did play a hand in their victimization. If that person has radicalized others to perpetrate violence - we kinda gotta take a look at the mitigating factors - as they say. The list of people targeted for violence by DJT is a very long one. He cared not about the young woman murdered in Charlottesville - there were “fine people” on “both sides”. So we have to consider in all DJTs words and actions if he holds life sacred - I would argue that he does not , at least not every American - some of us our “fair game” as they say.
Interesting that the folks most worried about tyranny are themselves following a would be tyrant. Don’t be too surprised when you find yourself on the wrong side of history.
I just don’t think we have a lot to agree on Frank - you sound like you wake up every day with possible tyranny on yer mind , and I’ve been a school nurse for over a decade - so you know what I wake up every day with - preparing to deal with the fallout of those who fear tyranny daily .
WHY should we "start there"- with the safety of school children?
Why not with the ENTIRE POPULATION having a right to be safe from tyranny, the whole point of the American Revolution?
Am I in favor of nutcases shooting up a schoolyard or classroom, churchgoers, or gays in a nightclub? Of course not.
Neither am I predisposed to allow "jackbooted government thugs" to arrest or kill rebels and innocent bystanders in some future dictatorship of the right, left, or center.
As for the misreporting of the "fine people on both sides" hoax, see Trump's EXACT quote below.
BTW, as I keep pointing out, I'm no Trumpist or right-wing troglodyte, no matter how many words or ideas anyone tries to put in my mouth.
Again with the "good people on both sides" BS.
1. Trump denounced the white supremacists in Charlottesville.
2. He was referring to the "good people on both sides" of the statue removal debate. You may think that anyone who wanted to keep the statue of Robt. E. Lee in the park is a racist, that's your right.
But it's not your right to misstate the FACTS. How about getting your information from more than the exaggerated claims of the mainstream media and Biden's statement that Trump was making a "moral equivalence" between white nationalists and liberal protesters?
Why not refer to Trump's exact words? (from ABC News):
""You also had some very fine people on both sides," Trump said in 2017. "You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. You had people -- and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists; they should be condemned totally -- you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists."
Funny that when confronted with Trump's exact words - which DESTROYED the myth created around them - no one in this group has changed their mind.
And Biden JUST told the NAACP in Vegas that Trump believed that there were "good people on both sides" of white supremacy!!!
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
Right? Do you know for sure they’re not RUssians ? Bc you have no idea who they really are, do you?
One of "their own" has been killed? Do you hear yourself? This savage and primitive way of viewing our fellow citizens is disgusting. One of OUR own has been killed. I feel sorry for you if you can't see that. I'm done. Fuck this whole election and both parties. It's all hateful and sick.
What of sandy hook? And Alex Jones? And his audience . I’m
Just wondering if you ever stood up and posted about how sick it all was. OF the Christmas cards with full families in their Jammies holding assault rifles - during season of Christmas and Hanukkah - when children were gunned down in their classrooms . Every stand up to anyone at any time saying how sick it all was ? Just wondering …
I am a lifelong Liberal Democrat. Of course I stood up and said how sick it all was. Unlike you, I don't shift my moral center to fit the narrative of my political tribe.
Really ? You can see how one might be mistaken . No one has shifted their morals - we think it is sick. Will the R change now that it has impacted them more directly , not some school children or LBGTQ dancers in a nightclub . Just because that ? Is asked , it’s valid, doesn’t mean we agree with the lives being taken. Not seeing the lifelong liberal dem in your take on things
Needless to say, I am not in favor of nutcases shooting up schoolyards or classrooms.
However, for all those who want to maintain Democracy (actually, a Constitutional Republic), "assault weapons" may be necessary to combat a future tyranny.
BTW, I've heard all the counter-arguments to my point of view. Give it a try! While you're at it, remember Tom Jefferson's wise words: "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Taking a moment to thank you all for participating in this conversation. It’s clear, as Martha Nichols says, that we don’t all interpret words and gestures in the same way. And some of our differences go deeper than that. But I appreciate you all for your engagement. Maybe I’ll do a stack on dogs again and we can all discover what we have in common!
I dislike Trump and hate everything he stands for, but I would rather see him raising his fist and slightly bloodied than lying dead on the dais.
For everyone howling about the response of some Democrats, let me remind you about the response of many Republicans to the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi, and the gleeful deathwatch on SJC Ruth Bader Ginzburg.
One thing is true - there ARE people on both sides who will choose violence over due process and compromise.
One person died at that rally, and two more are in jeopardy of losing their lives.
You want to own a gun to "defend your home"? Great. Leave it there when you go out in public.
I agree with you completely, but I’d add that the way Trump responded is violence-encouraging itself. That was the point of my post.
I did understand that:)
I just think that some commenters are caught up in the political whirlwind, and not the awful occurrence of what might have been another mass shooting.
I guess I must have been advocating violence when I almost drowned and emerged from the ocean with my hand raised so that others could see I was OK.
His hand wasn’t just “raised.” His face was contorted with rage as he shouted “Fight Fight Fight!” And he pumped his fist all the way to the car. He’d just been shot. The shooter was dead. Who was he urging the crowd to “fight” against? Clearly, the enemy Dems. But he had no evidence (and we still don’t) that the shooter was politically motivated. Why add an aggressive gesture to the already explosive situation? Don’t be naive, Frank. As soon as he realized he wasn’t seriously hurt (he had the presence of mind to ask for his shoes), he exploited the situation. Why not calm things down instead? But that’s never Trump’s instinct.
As a Film Scholar who has studied and published quite a bit on screen performance tropes, I've observed that facial expressions can be very ambiguous, interpreted in numerous ways based on the prior suppositions of the viewer.
For instance, I've heard Trump's facial reactions after being shot as "steely resolve" and "courageous willingness to be undeterred."
Yes, yes, yes, Susan - I urge everyone to watch the raw footage of Trump being shot, in which he did tell the agents helping him to wait. Then he raised his fist, and the crowd roared - this is terrifying stuff. We now have a martyr in the making, with his Republican quislings already spinning this into “they’re out to get us!”
Yet no issues with Biden's violent hate filled rhetoric? On July 8th, 2024, Joe Biden said: "We’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye."
Please don't ask me to validate every comment from Biden, because there are plenty that don't thrill me. But hate-filled? I guess I have a different definition of that. See the clip of Trump's comments about Paul and Nancy Pelosi that Susan runs at the end of her post.
If intimating that your main political opponent get shot isn't hate filled, not sure you would consider anything Biden says to be hate filled. I find his attempts to turn "Maga" into some sort of curse to be hate filled, dispensed with rage and venom everytime he says it. As for Trump, I see his fist pump just after getting shot as showing courage and a bold statement he won't allow hate and violence to stop him from running for president.
Steve, I like that you say how you interpret the fist-pump differently than I might, because it makes clear we all have our lenses for viewing politics – and I don't mind being called out for mine. As for "put Trump in a bullseye," I'd call that a metaphor, the kind of verbal embellishment, exaggeration, or joke that another commenter in this thread noted of Trump's "dictator for a day" comment. Politicians embellish and throw words around on both sides all the time. What matters to me is the overall emotional tone and respect for others. I doubt we'll ever agree on this or what "hate-filled" is, but maybe we can agree that everyone needs to avoid shooting metaphors.
I agree with just about everything in your reply. Also appreciate your respectful tone, something I don't always receive from folk who dislike Trump.
Martha is truly wonderful, isn’t she? You should subscribe to her if you haven’t already.
When Sarah Palin used a crosshairs "metaphor" she was VILIFIED forever. How is that much different from what Biden said about a "bullseye"?
ANSWER: It's NOT much different - except for the underlying ideological commitment of the observer.
As I always say, the expression should not be "I'll believe it when I see it." More often than not, esp. in the political realm, it should be "I'll SEE it when I BELIEVE IT."
Do you know how to post a pic in here? If I can figure it out, I’ll illustrate the difference between Hillary “crosshairs” and Biden “target”
If I have to choose between whose rhetoric is more violent than the other, then I agree with Mercutio in ROMEO & JULIET: "A plague on both your houses!"
I watched the assassination attempt video over 40 times and did not once hear Trump "tell the agents helping him to wait." What I heard was that he wanted to get back his shoes before leaving the stage.
If YOU heard differently, please provide some EVIDENCE. Otherwise, why do YOU - like so many others - LIE about what transpired in this case (and so many others).
I'm waiting for that EVIDENCE...
This is not just me, Frank, and there is evidence on camera. After asking about his shoes, he says, "Wait, wait." The NYT reports him as having asked the agents to stop. They also say it sounds like he said, "Fight, fight," although I couldn't tell that — and so I didn't state it. I based what I said on my own observations. While what any one person observes can be mistaken, that doesn't mean they're lying. I certainly wasn't.
I've included the link of the NYT's latest video clip below. The one I watched last night was only about a minute long without commentary. Whatever you think of the *New York Times* (and I have my own problems with their coverage), I think they're doing their best to stick to the facts of a still-breaking story.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/14/us/trump-shooting-election
So the terrifying stuff is not that they tried to kill him, but that even in such a moment he stood strong and defiant? You are certifiably bonkers! You and all the other anti-American Marxists.
The terrifying stuff is that Trump is in high spirits after 2 others are dead , 2 others gravely injured. He just doesn’t care - at all, about anyone other than himself. The terrifying stuff is that he immediately assumed it was the left ( like we’re engaged in a lot of violence and advocate for gun ownership). Al, cmon , see any problems with this picture ?
Sorry, pal, but Trump did care. He immediately asked about everybody else. In fact, he's been the ONLY leader to care for regular folks in decades. And the assumption that it is the Left trying to do everything to get rid of Trump is not an assumption. It is a reality. And make no mistake. They're not going after him alone; they're going after us all "deplorables". He's just the stonewall protecting us.
Trump may not have immediately know that a spectator and the shooter were dead, and two others injured. Why ASSUME so much.
After all, to modify the old cliche: When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U. (I leave out the ME) :-)
Kris: This is a fairly common experience - especially of soldiers in battle. They are pleased - even "in high spirits" - that they survived, even though others around them did not.
Besides, Trump DID express regret and sorrow over the death and injuries to his MAGA supporters. The fact that he signaled to the crowd that he was OK may have prevented a riot (if he'd be killed or seriously wounded).
Furthermore, WHEN did Trump "immediately assume it was the left"? I read all his comments carefully and he made no such statement (Although SOME Republicans hinted at it).
Please provide some EVIDENCE for your claims!!!
Isn't there enough "fake news" in the media? Do I have to read it in Susan Bordo's blog too (and with Susan's blessing!)
Actually, Al, I was terrified by him getting shot. It was terrible, and such anarchic violence scares me for everyone. But who is “they”? We don’t know that yet. I am very far from being a Marxist, by the way, but I do know my history, and the raised fist and roaring crowd evokes fascist tropes that chill me. I ask you not to assume I have no sympathy for those who were killed or hurt by this act of violence. You have turned me into a “they,” as if every Dem feels the same thing. We don’t, and I don’t.
I was about to use an ad hominem here but I was taught NEVER to do so in my Philosophy classes (when I studied with Socrates)>
That said, yes, Hitler used a raised arm salute (actually more like an extended arm parallel to the ground. CF. THE TRIUMPH OF THE WILL), but so do victorious Olympic athletes, graduating seniors, and many others who are just glad to be alive or in some special situation. Adrenaline has a mind of its own.
These comparisons are clearly contrived and based on one's baked-in ideology, without a consideration of any of the other possible explanations. Likewise, almost ALL political candidates try to get their crowds to "roar." (Some just have bigger crowds than others.)
Fair enough, Martha. I believe your fear of fascism is not warranted. Fascism lurks in the shadows, while Trump has been extremely public and under the fiercest scrutiny ever. Fascism is actually the Biden administration. We know who “they” are, and it’s clear who was behind this assassination attempt: precisely those who refused to call it that!
Thanks, for this response, Al. I don’t think that fascism only lurks in the shadows, but we can agree to disagree. I am about to post a link to Braver Angels with a response by a conservative member and Trump supporter about reaching out to his Dem friends. I believe reaching out to each other is one way to get past this terrible political moment, and I’d like to keep the communication lines open.
Certainly. Much obliged.
Trump had his chance in his first term to try to close down the "fake news" newspapers and networks or jail his opponents, as would happen in a true fascist dictatorship. Instead, he just used his Freedom of Speech to criticize them.
I' must've told you people a ZILLION TIMES never to exaggerate! :-)
OK, you may say, Trump really didn't do anything "fascist" in his first term. But should he win again, he'll jail his opponents (like they tried to do to him). But that is pure CONJECTURE with little or no basis in fact. (Please don't tell me that he said he's be a dictator "for one day." That was OBVIOUSLY a joke and referred to ONE thing: an Executive Order to close the border and "Drill, Baby, Drill." You may not like those policies, but that is NOT "dictatorship" by any true definition.
Susan: I normally agree with most of what you say.
This time, in the wake of the assassination attempt on Trump, I have to voice a SEMANTIC objection.
While I agree that the Republicans you cite are out of line for blaming the attack on Trump and the other casualties on Democratic rhetoric, I take issue with this statement of yours: "... the Democrats’ warnings about how electing Trump will bring an end to Democracy. This is a fact, not 'rhetoric.'”
Most "will" statements are predictions of the future, not facts. Maybe your crystal ball is 100% accurate but , even so, how is it able to predict "the end of Democracy"?
Again, I'm not taking sides here about Trump vs. Biden. I'm ONLY making a semantic/philosophical point about confusing opinion with "facts."
That’s a good point. I wrote this really fast. I should tweak it.
I pray for peace. I pray for our country.
You're exactly right Susan. 🙏
Dear everyone in this thread:
I love it when my posts generate conversation and I try to respond to comments and participate in any debates that emerge. But I also have new writing to work on every week, and some of my stacks involve significant research. That’s the case with my next stack, on the “Presumed Innocent” series/remake, for which I’m re-reading the Turow book, rewatching the original 1990 movie, rewatching the current series, and looking at the changes in cultural context—with sidetrips to another remake from the same period—“Fatal Attraction.” So, for a few days, I’m trying to disengage my brain from politics— except of the gender politics variety, which are highly relevant to the shapeshifting versions of “Presumed Innocent” and “Fatal Attraction.” It’s going to be a great stack! So forgive me for exiting this conversation, and of course feel free to continue to talk among yourselves.
Sorry, Susan, but your post confirms it all. Sadly we must admit that we live in different planets. Godspeed.
https://open.substack.com/pub/foreignlocal/p/crossing-the-rubicon?r=2vnoe2&utm_medium=ios
So I gather you are saying good-by? That’s too bad, as we’ve had an unusually civil relationship for two people who disagree so strongly.
Personally - I don’t think he was going to be able to handle the discussion - bc it would not have gone in the direction he anticipated.
Dear Susan, you know I could never fully say good bye to you. I meant Godspeed as in best of luck in your journey. I can share life, and reality with you although it seems sometimes that we live in different planets. We can agree to disagree as Americans of different backgrounds, generations and political opinions. But the Democrat Party you support doesn’t exist anymore, as it’s been replaced by absolutism. At the same time, you keep on seeing Trump as a destructive monster but that is not reality either. His policies were million times better than anything Dems or Republicans had to offer, that’s why he won in 2020 and will win again in 2024, if the Left doesn’t kill him before. God bless.
I can’t “like” this because of statements in it with which I so thoroughly take issue. However, I’m glad that our doors to each other are still open, and I give your comment a heart for that. (By the way, ARE we of different generations? It struck me I don’t really know anything about your age or background—just your political opinions, some of which we had some strong agreement on and others of which we do indeed seem to live on different planets.)
I may be older than you. Our doors must remain open: it’s the only way to jointly combat the madness engulfing the world. And don’t forget you still owe me a waltz…
I doubt that you’re older than me….but I’m sure we can both still manage a waltz!
Maybe we can get together a conga line! :-)
Or, I do a mean minuet!
Could not agree more
On July 8th, 2024, Joe Biden said: "We’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye."
METAPHOR.
Metaphors have been know to kill people. Think of all the "metaphors" used to describe German Jews during the 1930s. They were not being called LITERAL rats (after all, they didn't have tails) but they were portrayed as FIGURATIVE vermin - and that helped the cause of the "Final Solution."
Besides, can't Trump and others use "metaphor" (or exaggeration or humor) when claiming he'd be "dictator" for just one day? (Even though he ONLY meant to use executive orders - as Biden, Obama, and other POTUSes have - to close the border and "Drill, Baby, Drill."
You may not like either of those policies, but I'm merely commenting on the difference used in evaluating rival candidates' "metaphors."
Just as important,
You’re right that metaphors can be destructive. But when Hitler called Jews “rats,” he really did intend that we should be exterminated. It’s really a stretch to argue that Biden was advocating the assassination of Trump. Re. Trump as dictator, I don’t think he meant that metaphorically. And SCOTUS has given him the tools.
Sez you! :-)
Only one side uses the term “by any means necessary.”
WHICH side are you referring to? I honestly don't know.
That phrase - "By any means necessary" - is most associated in my mind with Malcolm X.
And Hamas.
Politicians deliver rallying cries to inspire people to act. “Fight fight fight” with a raised fist. Is that not a form of rhetoric?
It is. What Trump did there, in my opinion, was inflammatory. I was appalled that it was the first thing he thought of to do after the shooting—and he kept doing it. Yes, raise your arm to show your supporters you’re ok. But he went way beyond that, pumping his fist all the way to the car and even as they urged him inside it. And with a ferocious look on his face.
And it’s too soon to say, but the shooter so far appears to have a profile much like the typical school shooter—bullied, deranged “outsider” rather than deep political motivation. If that turns out to be correct, all those GOPs blaming Biden and the Dems should correct their tweets. But they won’t.
How many times have I heard Donkeys braying, "We will FIGHT for you!" or "You must join our FIGHT!"
As usual, I'm not taking sides. My thinking - in agreement with 75% of the U.S. population in polls - is that NEITHER candidate offers much to voters. (As Mercutio put it, "A plague on both your houses!")
When you choose the lesser of two evils, you still end up choosing an evil.
Sorry, but I don’t think of an administration that has the platform Trump just approved as simply the “greater of two evils.” Even if you don’t think Biden is a great candidate, the idea that the Dems “don’t offer much to voters” only makes sense if you’re not Black, a woman, or poor.
I'm just going by the nonpartisan polls, which ALL seem to show that 70-75% of the population wants other candidates.
That must include many Blacks, women, poor people, and maybe even "undocumented" immigrants.
First, the Republican platform has not yet been "approved." And the entire Convention must approve the platform, not just Trump (who, as I write this, is not yet the nominee.. So, YOUR facts here start off as false.
2. Trump just gave an interview with Harris Faulkner in which he abjured MUCH of the 2025 Project, claiming it is "too conservative." SOME of it - maybe like renewing Trump-era tax cuts -may end up as part of the Party platform, but the entire 2025 Project is NOT official Republican doctrine and its 900 pages will not be.
3. The 2025 Project was devised by the Heritage Foundation, which, yes, is a conservative "think tank" whose views often align with Elephant ideology BUT they do not always coincide.
4. In my lifetime, I've noticed that most political party platforms are IGNORED once the election is over. They're written for those who like to wallow in the partisan "weeds" or those who try to find ammunition against their opponents.
5.On one particular issue, abortion, Trump has explicitly stated that Project 2025 goes too far. His position - likely to be the Republican Platform view - is that abortion regulations should be determined at the state level. He even mentioned, quite calmly, that some states had already approved very "liberal" rules.
You’re being naive. Trump, like the salesman that he is, is taking the temperature of what will “sell” best to undecideds, and wants to seem less “extreme.” I don’t trust a word he says. He’s lied shamelessly in the past, and I don’t see him changing.
This is the usual response: say that Trump is lying - as was famously said against writer Mary McCarthy: "Every word she says is a lie, including 'the' and 'and.'"
Such exaggeration gets us nowhere.
BTW, although I disapprove of BOTH candidates, I've caught Joe Biden in more outright LIES than Trump, but VASTLY more exaggerations and misstatements from Trump than Biden.
I could address several specific issues, but just one for now: “His position - likely to be the Republican Platform view - is that abortion regulations should be determined at the state level.” This is what we have now, and it’s a disaster for girls and women who don’t live in Blue states. Have you been following how that’s turning out? The “leaving it to the states is just a ploy on Trump’s part to make him seem “softer” on abortion, because he’s knows the overwhelming number of Americans favor what we had with Roe v. Wade. But “up to the states” is far from Roe V. Wade. Plus, if the GOP wins the house and senate, we WILL very likely have a proposal for a national ban, and Trump will ok it. He just picked a VP who favors it.
Too many people believe that SCOTUS decisions should be decided on the basis of either (1) what is best for the nation and/or (2) what is considered best by a majority of citizens, as determined by polls.
In the latter case, we do not live in a TRUE Democracy, where majority rule would, well, rule. (In fact, most people wouldn't want that - because slavery and later Jim Crow would have been approved by a majority of voters in the Deep South.).
The fact is that the U.S. is a constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy, and hence that founding document leaves final decisions in the hands of the SCOTUS - like it or not. One is free to disagree with its rulings BUT that's how the Constitution crumbles. (BTW, Jefferson thought that too much power had been allotted to the Supremes.)
So, from a legal perspective, what is popular among citizens is really not germane to whether the states or the federal govt. decide on abortion rights. MANY liberal jurists have told me that they loved the original Roe decision but that t was was decided poorly, and that Roe herself had lied about her situation in bringing the case:
“Jane Roe,” the plaintiff in the case, was Norma McCorvey. Norma was a child of divorce who began committing crimes at age 10. She became a ward of the state, abused alcohol and took drugs.
But some of her accounts are not to be believed. In 1969, 21-year-old Norma became pregnant for the third time and wanted to have the fetus, a girl, aborted. But Texas law prohibited abortions except in certain cases. So she lied (and later admitted to it) and claimed she had been raped by a group of black men. (!) This ploy failed due to lack of police evidence. An attempt to get an illegal abortion also failed. But she found two lawyers who were looking for a woman in just her situation in order to launch a lawsuit.
Like it or not, SCOTUS rulings SHOULD BE based on the Constitution and legal precedents. (Needless to say, that is not always the case.)
It may well be "rhetoric" - among other things. For example, as a semiotic SIGN to his supporters that he was OK and able to continue to "fight' for the principles they believed in.
But "rhetoric" is not equivalent to VIOLENCE or an appeal to violence, as some people in this discussion claim. In fact, I've done a longitudinal cross-blind study of use of the word "Fight" in political speech and found that the Donkeys used that word 2.666 times more often than the Elephants. :-) (OK, not a scientific study but it's true.) Dems are always promising to "fight" for universal health care, civil rights, biological men in women's sports, and other worthy (and some unworthy) causes.
The raised fist was famously used by the Black Olympic sprinters - John Carlos and Tommie Smith - to signify "Black Power." Anyone remember that?
Human gestures are notoriously ambiguous. In some cultures, nodding your head up and down means "NO." In others making a "V" with your fingers means "Victory" or "Peace" while in some Mideast nations it means "Felix Unger" (Get it? F.U.) :-)
As usual, people SEE what they want to BELIEVE - and I'm no exception - EXCEPT that I have "no dog in this hunt" - as Bill Clinton used to say. In short, I can analyze the candidates more objectively than most partisans because, like Noam Chomsky, I believe that "America has one party — the 'Business Party,' which has two factions — the Democrats and the Republicans. Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb." ...
It feels to me that this discussion is preliminary. Don’t we need to step back and reflect objectively on all sides without pointing out to our political alliance? Just as a human moment.
I wish that people could look at situations objectively and avoid knee-jerk reactions based on their pre-existent ideological beliefs.
"I'll SEE it when I BELIEVE it" seems to be how people perceive things, not the other way around.
You are dead wrong on this one Susan. What AOC hypocritically called "stochastic terrorism" has been promoted by both the Dems and the GOP. To double down on this rhetoric now is to act in extremely bad faith and with extreme recklessness.
At least one innocent human being has been murdered because he or she dared to attend a Trump rally.
That's what really matters here.
Innocent life is being lost because the constant drumbeat of "Trump is going to kill us all" is whipping some lunatics into a frenzy.
Stop.
Now.
“Whipping some lunatics into a frenzy.” Will you use the same words to describe the MAGA incitement to storm the capital? Or Trump’s own rhetoric? And by the way, we don’t yet know why this particular lunatic tried to kill Trump.
I certainly agree that there are lunatics “on both sides.” But I don’t even know what “stochastic terrorism” is, and I don’t see any Democratic officials (as opposed to crazies on social media) calling for the assassination of Donald Trump.
Yes, Susan, I would and I did condemn the nutjobs who stormed the capital. I voted Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020. But this insane hateful divisive rhetoric has got to STOP. There is no "good" party vs an "evil" party. There are basically just people who want the same things but who believe in different solutions to our problems. it's not sexy, but it's the truth.
Trump has very violent rhetoric - and has been intimately involved in one very violent event. He wanted Pence hanged , and multiple D lawmakers assassinated on J6. I and millions of others were extremely terrorized by what went down - and extremely worried about AOC, Pelosi etc in addition to the law enforcement present that day. It would be one thing if J6 had not occurred , but your writing seems to wipe from memory A pretty significant day in our history - one Trump promoted
And stood by and watched unfold, when he, POTUS, didn’t lift a finger to stop for hours. How quickly we forget and think both sides are the same - we’re not.
We are the same. We are all human beings whose perspectives are different. We are the same in every way that matters, and we need to get back to that reality asap.
I’d argue that we are not - tho all human. One group has been radicalized. I just read some statistics on R Reichs stack, about the increase in threats to congressional officials - it jumped from under 1k before T elected, to almost 10k after- note that this does not include the judges, das, jurors , or people like Dr fauci. It does not include the daily decades long harrassment by A Jones and his audience of the Sandy Hook families. There is a clear through line between DJT and an increase in both violent rhetoric and violent acts. These are for the most part absent from the dialog on the L. We’re the party of gun control legislation after all - we are mostly the victims and the targets of the rhetoric and the acts. We can’t begin to correct the problem if we cannot agree on what it is. Both sides do not carry equal blame in the matter- nor do all individuals - DJT Carries a great weight on his shoulders , but he isn’t the only one.
It's not an either/or issue. You can have been "terrorized" by J6 and also agree that the violent rhetoric of people like AOC, who hypocritically warned about the dangers of "stochastic terrorism" but who says nothing when it is directed against "deplorables") is terrorizing much of the population.
You were "terrorized" by J6 and the media has done everything in its power to terrorize you further. Stop letting them! Trump supporters are human beings just like you, and until you can accept that fact, this hatred and division will continue.
It comes from AOCs experience - as you know she not only endured J6, but endures constant daily barrage of death threats. Jurors in Hunter Biden’s case can speak openly without fear, jurors in trumps cases can not have their names released bc they will be threatened . Dr fauci remains u der top
Security to this day, even though retired. Don’t put terrorized in quotes - it’s inappropriate. I know trump supporters are human beings - I feel very sorry for the victims And their families . There is no both sides - there is one side that is extremely radicalized and Carries guns. A bloodless revolution , if the left allows it - this is from a GOP P2025 operative not a Dem. The radicalization is coming from one side. Wake up, “life long liberal “😉
Kris: First, the 2025 Project comes from the Heritage Foundation, NOT the Republican Party or Donald Trump.
In fact, Trump has explicitly foresworn many aspects of that 2025 plan, calling it "too conservative."
From the BBC: "With Mr Biden's age increasingly a key election topic, the party has aimed to refocus their supporters' attention in an effort to mobilise voters against Project 2025 - which Mr Biden recently said would "destroy America".
In response, Trump has disavowed the document:
"I know nothing about Project 2025," Trump posted on his social media website, Truth Social. "I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal."
Why are there so many outright lies and misstatements on Susan's blog? Why does she continue to approve of them without checking them out?
I'd like to see the direct quotes from Trump that "He wanted Pence hanged" or wanted "multiple DC lawmakers assassinated."
I could list DOZENS of misquotes and misunderstood comments "by" Trump that are made up out of whole cloth OR revised to fit one's ideology that have been taken as gospel by true believers in the liberal cause.
I’ll look those up for you and get back . I don’t think he us misquoted , as these statements are often times in video format - they’re not going through someone else . People are very very careful to be sure that they are saying exactly what he said - and T ofc is often very covertly using innuendo.
I believe they are true. As Mike pence is not his VP any longer , he lost all generals , chiefs of staff, several AGs, and many many staff as the express result of immoral and illegal behavior. It strains credulity to believe that ALL of these people are lying about him. They were his hand selected team. Those that are still on Team Trump, continue to advocate for violence - flynn, Bannon, etc. just like the guy running for gov in NC- these folks are on video and tape.
There’s a reason why millions in this country are afraid of him - they have good reason to be. We’re still not going go buy up ARs.
I'm still waiting for the EVIDENCE that Trump said, texted, or otherwise expressed a desire to see Mike Pence HANGED. Who are these "people" you trust, the ones who are VERY careful not to misquote anyone.
Likewise, please PROVE that the Donald "wanted "multiple DC lawmakers assassinated."
I'll help you out. When one can't prove something awful against Trump, the narrative becomes that he was using "dog whistles" to convey his evil intentions. Well, the point of a dog whistle is that ONLY DOGS can hear them. So, if YOU do, maybe you have some canine DNA. (BTW, I LOVE doggies and my beloved Golden Retriever Goldie just died 2 days ago.)
The staffing firings and desertions have ZERO to do with the UNPROVEN assertions you made, right?
I'm still waiting...
Kris et al.: I'm STILL waiting for some EVIDENCE that Trump actually said or advocated the things you claimed he did.
Perhaps you made it up OR read it on an unreliable Internet source?
I'm STILL waiting for Kris's EVIDENCE that Trump actually said or advocated the things Kris claimed he did.
As Rodney King valiantly asked, after being savagely beaten by L.A. cops, "can't we all get along?"
Apparently not.
No, but “there will be dancing.” Name the movie this is a quote from and I forgive you everything.
I named the movie in question in a separate post.
But speaking of dancing, anarcho-feminist Emma Goldman famously said, "I do not believe that a Cause which stood for a beautiful ideal, for anarchism, for release and freedom from convention and prejudice, should demand the denial of life and joy."
She then went on to say, "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution."
MY BEST FRIEND'S WEDDING. (Of course, I have an advantage in movie quizzes like this because I have a Ph.D. in Film Studies.)
Here's the whole scene leading up to "There will be dancing":
https://www.google.com/search?q=there+will+be+dancing&sca_esv=183dc6637f0766c0&sxsrf=ADLYWIK_BBksOMEGiZd8yHulGWV38wTnhA%3A1721141947536&ei=u4qWZp2oILWp5NoPibCv6AI&oq=%22there+will+be+dancing%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:4ed5ee0f,vid:Zsi7-dbKxP8,st:0
Just 1 more centimetre.
Re.: "Just 1 more centimetre."
Meaning what? That you wished Trump dead?
If so (and maybe that's NOT what you implied), that demonstrates the faux humanitarianism of many Trump-haters who equate him with Hitler or the Devil Incarnate.
Why not get rid of him through the Ballot, not by means of the Bullet?
Yeah, the "pro democracy" crowd sure seems fine with defeating the enemy with bullets instead of ballots.
I'm not pro democracy, mainly because most people don't know how to vote. Just ask Plato.
Plato's last major work, THE LAWS, was his last volume. It is generally regarded as a rationale for an authoritarian state - close to what we now call Fascism.
Good try, Frank, but facts don’t ever reach these privileged Marxists of “rules for thee, not for me”.
And Penny Adrian: Please stop generalizing about those of us who are frightened about what will happen if Trump is elected. I am not a “privileged Marxist” and I certainly don’t advocate “defeating the enemy with bullets instead of ballots.” ONE person on this thread made a comment that does not reflect my post or any of the other comments in this thread.
Thanks for your support, Al, but believe it or not _I_ happen to be a Marxist myself - but not of the contemporary variety. For instance, I happen to believe in (almost) absolute Free Speech, especially in my former home: academia. I also realize that many of the goals that Karl Marx wrote about and fought for - 8-hour day, no child labor, unionization, welfare state policies like Social Security and Medicare, etc. - have been achieved under Capitalism.
Today's so-called "Marxists" tend to emphasize gender, racial, environmental, and "identity politics," rather than the ECONOMIC determinants at the heart of Karl (and Groucho) Marx's analysis. Thus, most are really "ultra-liberals," who pay lip service to the proletariat but, as you say, espouse an elite, privileged message that often does harm to the working classes (i.e., immigration and inflation policies).
When I lived in California, we called them "Malibu Marxists."
Thank for the explanation, Frank. Your academic Marxism belongs in the field of academic thought, not in daily reality.
As you very well know, Karl Marx devised his thought to be applied in the industrial society of Britain in the 19th century. He didn’t have in mind the society of agrarian Russia in the 20th century, and far less the China of the 1930s or the Cuba of the 1960s. You have rightly admitted that Capitalism itself has implemented most (if not all) social requests Marx advocated for in relation to the industrial workforce of the 19th century in Britain.
All the Malibu Marxists of today, including the Nespresso Hamas supporters at Ivy League colleges, deserve
first, to be fully defunded and
second, to be temporarily deported to the Middle East or Venezuela, so they meet reality for the first time in their privileged lives.
What is not questionable any longer is that America can’t survive allowing millions of illegals breaking and entering, and generations of its own citizens being indoctrinated in the anti-US Malibu Marxism the Left is pushing everywhere.
Support the country you live in, or live in the country you support. And if you hate the US so much, be coherent and grow a pair: get the f*ck out of here and enjoy whichever shithole you think is better than here.
Pleasure talking to you, pal. Serene voices like yours are much appreciated.
And Al and penny - you have no idea whom you’re conversing with. Lotsa chaos agents - ie don’t assume you’re talking to a Dem. I’d add that the use of the term Marxist is both incorrect and inflammatory , they detract from your points in a discussion - but I imagine you’ve been advised this before …
Thanks, Kris. Interesting point of view. Logically subjective, but interesting nonetheless.
It's okay, wish a lot of people dead. I'm also not in the US, so I can't vote but his place in the world affects all of us.
Frank - You have no idea who this individual is and what their aim is. Proceed with caution - no doubt a lot of Russians and chaos agents out.