Admit it. You saw those two words in the title and knew this post was going to be about Trump.
The Canadians tell it like it is. Here’s a recent documentary from the CBC that gives the outsider perspective on the Trump phenomenon — it’s 42 minutes of horror.
See what I mean? He’s simply the worst.
No, I take that back. Trump could be abducted by a UFO and carried off to a distant galaxy, and the problem would still remain: his supporters. It’s his proudly ignorant gung-ho American racist supporters we should fear. A couple of young men attended a Trump rally, expecting to get a good laugh, and instead they got a sense of nausea.
But out of everything I saw, the crowd was the worst part. I have never seen more hateful people in my life. Everyone was just filled with so much hatred. If a protester had a sign, even the peaceful ones, they would take the sign from them, rip it up, and throw it back at the protesters. Whenever a protester would get removed, the crowd would yell horrible things. Once, after a protester was removed, Trump said, “Where are these people coming from? Who are they?” A lady, sitting not 5 feet from me, said, “Well hopefully when you’re president, you’ll get rid of em all!” Get rid of them? Get rid of anyone who opposes Trump? It was sickening. I felt truly nauseous. And these people loved the protesters. They loved the drama and the chaos. And Trump fed upon it. It was easily one of the strangest and uncomfortable things I’ve ever witnessed. I could just hear the horrible things being spoken around me and it made my skin crawl.
After the violence in St Louis and the chaos in Chicago, I worry that it’s getting worse.
Honestly, I’ll be very afraid, personally concerned for my safety, if Trump were to be elected, and what’s even scarier is that there are people who think it’s good that some American citizens should be frightened.
Hell, I’m frightened of President Trump, and I don’t even live in the US.
PZ:
A good many of those righteous Americans are carrying guns too, to aid them in their judgement. Fuck, I thought Reagan getting elected was the absolute worst that could ever happen. Boy, was I wrong.
Also, I know this is a very trivial thing, but does anyone ever get a photo of Trump with his mouth closed?
That’s a difference I’ve noticed between liberals and conservatives.
When conservatives fret that liberals are going to take away their guns, close their churches, turn them gay, and sell them out to terrorists, the typical liberal response is frustration and ineffectually attempting to explain that no, no one is trying to do that to them and they have no reason to be afraid of that.
When liberals fret that conservatives are going to physically assault them, rig the system against them, strip them of their legal rights, and relegate them to second-class citizens, the typical conservative response is glee at their fear and proudly proclaiming that they’re right to be afraid for their safety.
I am, by avocation, education and profession, an historian. My first interest in history was WWII, primarily researching the airplanes and tanks. Which led to trying to understand WWII. Which led to WWI, the Franco-Prussian War, the Napoleonic Wars, all the way back to the Thirty Years War. And I ended up with a degree in modern military history. I read history books (and palaeontology books) for pleasure. And, by profession, I interpret industrial, labour and technology history.
And for the past six months or so, I have been watching Trump’s campaign. And I have been trying very, very, very hard to not take the second-rate-science-fiction-writer’s out and apply a linear progression of events from the past into a distopian future. And watching Trump’s campaign, I am some frightening shit.
I know the Hitler/Mussolini fascist/NAZI parallels are flying fast and furious around the internet. That is not what I see. Well, not completely. I do see the parallels — the othering rhetoric, the scapegoating, the incitement to violence, the extra-legal violence against those with differing views.
What I see more of, though (and I know that history does not repeat itself but there can be scary parallels), is early 20th century Spain. A moderate left-centrist coalition wins an election and begins making progress helping the poor. And the religious right (in this case, the RCC (which, in Spain, has a history of repression going back to the 1500s)), the political right, and some extremely regressive generals, declared that the legally elected government was going to eliminate the churches, create a communist dictatorship, confiscate all wealth, and pretty much to everything that the modern GOP has been accusing Obama of doing.
Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and the rest of these oligarchical right-wing populist politicians are deliberately feeding fear and terror, much the same way that Azana demonized Sanjurjo. The CEDA coalition against the legal government of Spain (ironically called the Nationalists (which I suppose is more politically palatable and salable than traitors)) created the 36-year Franco dictatorship (which rivaled any of the communist regimes for repression and murder). Which was probably not Azana’s intention. Nor the intention of most of the generals and right-wing politicians and priests and bishops. But they created a fire of fear and terror they could not control. And it led to a three year civil war and a dictatorship that lasted twelve times longer.
Please note that I am not saying that Trump is a fascist. His is a different form of right-wing authoritarian populism (which we may not have a name for yet but, if he wins, may go down in the history books of the future as Trumpist). He is creating fear, terror, and insecurity among his followers — followers who have been fed a steady diet of a watered-down version of this for the last seven years via Faux News and, to a lesser extent, CNN, MSNBC, and just about all commercial news outlets. He is fanning the flames of terror and directing the rage created by the fear towards others: Latino immigrants, Muslims, liberals, blacks. And it is working.
And I really don’t think he has any idea just how dangerous this is. He has always struck me as profoundly (and proudly) ignorant, unread, uneducated. Which, to me, means that as he continues to fan the flames, he won’t be able to control where the violence is directed (keep in mind that much of the discontent on the right is a distrust of politicians of all stripes).
Trump is playing with fireworks in an overgrown forest during a severe drought. And he will be honestly surprised at the size of the conflagration he has ignited. Especially if he loses the general election to either Clinton or Sanders.
Sorry for the Teal Deer. Watching the descent of Trump rallies scares the shit out of me.
I don’t think he really cares. And if (when) it does erupt into a conflagration he will revel in it as long as it doesn’t engulf him. Just look at the vicarious thrill he gets when his followers attack any protesters.
I’m actually hoping Trump gets the GOP nomination because I’m not sure the party would survive a Trump nomination. I think the GOP would get clobbered in November, and probably loose Congress too.
I’ve observed before that the only benefit to a Trump candidacy is that it will end the nonsensical Brexit campaign over here; no-one wants to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the USA under a President Trump.
About the melee in Chicago. People are missing the important point, Chicago PD said it would be safe for the Donald to appear but bold Sir Donald bravely ran away.
Intaglio @ 8:
That’s not the important point. The importance is what his followers are doing, and what they are willing to do. Who gives a shit where Trump happens to be if his followers decide a riot is a good idea?
Caine @ #3
Sure, but usually with a smug smirk or a scowl. There are some other Drumpf looks, even one’s where he’s smiling but it’s not clear he’s sincere. Of course, we should remember that photos are selected by publishers to convey a point a view. I’ve seen some consistent images for Sanders and Clinton that convey an unflattering message.
Come on, wouldn’t you want to see America great again, my friends?
Trump already scuttled his event at the convention center in Downtown Cincinnati and relocated to the lily white exurbs of Westchester. He actualy went on the Maddow show last night but I refused to break my policyof avoiding candidate interviews because even Rachel ‘s are painful to listen too.
I find it amazing how prescient THIS film was 24 years ago…
https://youtu.be/YZXFdikh-70
I’m actually encouraged by the Chicago thing, in that people are finally pushing back against the Trumpists.
You should be afraid. During the Bush adminstration, I got so many death threats I lost count. So did and probably does PZ Myers. I don’t have to wonder what the christofascists think of me. They enthusiastically tell me whenever they can.
It makes a difference in tone who is president. During the Bush administration, there were seems like monthly attacks on family planning clinics. They were so common they rarely made the news.
You should be afraid. During the Bush administration, I got so many death threats I lost count. So did and probably does PZ Myers. I don’t have to wonder what the christofascists think of me. They enthusiastically tell me whenever they can.
It makes a difference in tone who is president. During the Bush administration, there were seems like monthly attacks on family planning clinics. They were so common they rarely made the news.
I’m already drawing up survival plans for a President Trump. One does not live under Fascism, one merely hopes to survive it.
We will be the new Doomsday Preppers. I’m sure someone will write a How To book about this. I would but I’ll be at a secure, undisclosed location.
Step 1. Throw out your TV or at least stop watching the news. I did this during the Reagan administration. It changes nothing but at least keeps your blood pressure from spiking. Spend that time with your friends, family, hobbies, and pets.
Step 2. Don’t expect things to fall apart immediately. The US is a huge country with a lot of momentum. Look how long it took Bush to wreck the USA. Things really didn’t fall apart until his last year. Obama spent his whole 8 years fixing the Bush/Cheney Catastrophe and we still haven’t fully recovered.
Step 3. Try to stay out of any fallout patterns.
Donald Trump deliberately stokes the kind of violence that we saw at the cancelled rally in Chicago. He wanted that to happen.
Maddow video link, first segment.
Trump claimed that Chicago police had advised him to cancel the event. The Chicago Police Department contradicted that claim. They issued a statement saying they did not advise him to cancel. Trump waited until about 7,000 people were inside the venue, some of them spoiling for a fight, before he had a spokesperson read a very odd statement cancelling the event. Thousands more people were lined up outside. Trump set up a powder keg, and then he lit the fuse.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-finds-political-utility-in-violence-642793027894
Trump works hard to create an “other” group of humans that is comprised of everyone that is not white, and not up to his standards. He even includes humans that he thinks are not good looking.
A young man who attended a Trump rally, posted his impressions. You’ll note that Trump takes particular pains to get the crowd worked up against protestors:
Link.
Another excerpt from text at the link above:
He’s simply the worst.
I dunno ’bout that. Has CBC taken a hard look at the Calgary-Born-Cuban yet?
Um, Lynna, you’re quoting stuff that is quoted in the OP.
More details about the Chicago rally, and proof that Trump lied when he said (several times, and is still repeating) that the police advised him to cancel:
Talking Points Memo link.
In a telephone interview with Chris Matthews, Trump had the gall to say that he had met with the police and spoken to them at length about the situation.
Trump got exactly what he wanted, what he planned for in Chicago. He got wall-to-wall media coverage, and sympathy from his supporters. This is how he is using that today:
The quote is from Trump’s Twitter feed.
Think Progress link.
Rachel Maddow talked about the history of politicians who have incited crowd violence for political gain:
Video on Media Matters, with some text as well.
This is, (sort of), a followup to Brother Ogvorbis @5.
Caine, @20. Thank you. I wanted to repeat some of that, but did not intend to repeat it all. My editing error. Apologies.
People are missing a more important point. The Chicago PD has a dismal track record for anything, and no credibility.!!!
During the 1968 Democratic convention (“The whole world is watching”), they were famous for beating up, arresting and tear gassing demonstrators. A commission later called it, a police riot.
Trump was right to cancel the event. He was dead wrong to even hold it in a heavily minority area. The guy is smart and may be smart enough to pull off some Machiavellian stunts like this. We will see if and when he holds his rallies in heavily Mexican-American areas like LA and San Antonio.
The problem with a president Trump is that he makes a president Cruz, Rubio, Romney or McCain look positively reasonable.
Thanks, Mr Overton.
How does Trump prompt his supporters to use violence against protestors? Heres how:
Link.
Trump repeats that kind of stuff at every rally, and in most of his interviews with the press. Having an anonymous voice announce that people should not touch the protestors before each rally starts does not make a dent in the language of incitement to violence that Trump uses all the time.
I keep reiterating this whenever discussing the horror-show of Trump.
I sometimes like to think of Trump as just a “performance artist”. The horrific thing is the fan base his “performance” has ignited. Even the consolation hypothesis, that Trump as nominee will get even the Rethugs to swamp the Dems, out of fear, doesn’t hold up when viewing the outrageous rallies he invigorates and encourages and amplifies (trumpets).
He (as nominee) may well overwhelm the election process with quantity of frustrated re-Thugs poised to explode.
The Rethug Convention will be a “interesting” [sik] horror show to view, as it erupts in total in-fighting and chaos.
(I wonder if there is enough mud for all the mudslinging to entail. They’ll probably resort to BS as the first resort as a hedge to preserve the mud for the campaigning afterwards)
Social injustice warriors.
Thinking more on this, and reading the differing accounts from the Trump campaign and the CPD, I am now thinking that this was a brilliant piece of political theater inoculating Trump against future violence by is supporters.
1: Trump (or his henchmen) schedules a rally in a predominately minority area knowing full well that his support comes from the racist and bigoted wing of American politics.
2: Chicago Police Department sends police officers to the area of the rally (which they would do if any other major candidate were speaking at the same venue)
3: Protesters show up, exercising their Constitutional rights.
4: Trump waits until the last minute and then cancels the event claiming that security threats (which I guess means dark-skinned people who don’t agree with him) made it too dangerous to speak.
5. To cover his arse, he claims the CPD told him to cancel the event.
6: He trumpets, loud and long, that the evil Muslim Mexican liberal communists have tried to squelch his free speech rights, that he is the one being oppressed, he is the one being threatened.
7: When violence inevitably occurs, Trump can claim that he and his poor oppressed supporters are merely defending themselves against those denying his right to speak.
Has a rather Pravda-esque feel to it.
Could be. We are so used to fundie xians being stupid that we forget that a few aren’t. And Trump isn’t really much of a xian.
I just read the news report on it. It was held at the U. of Illinois Chicago. A college know for a high minority population and history of social activism. There were guaranteed to be protesters there. And these are Trump’s enemies since his base is Nativist lower class whites.
He really can’t hold rallies in areas with Moslem or nonwhite groups. Because his whole campaign is based on demonizing and marginalizing those groups.
Let’s see if he keeps on doing it. If he does, sooner or later, there is going to be a big honking riot somewhere.
it makes no difference at all if Trump really believes any of the crap he is yelling at the crowds he gathers or not he is using it to gather support. The problem with riding the tiger is it is impossible to control the tiger or to get off safely because the tiger only cares for itself and does not have any loyal to the rider who ever it is. The establishment republicans are now learning that simple lesson.
Brother O puts it in historical perspective
uncle frogy
oh please. There’s nothing remotely clever about any of this. This is a very common strategy for every Nazi group in every country I know. The only reason you haven’t heard of it before is because you don’t follow the likes of Stromfront very often.
The only difference is now a presidential candidate and nominee-apparent of a major is acting like the Aryan Nations. That’s his appeal.
AlexanderZ @ 32:
Exactly. You don’t need to be clever to appeal to people’s basest instincts. You don’t need to be clever to exploit bigotry and fear. And yes, it’s just like Stormfront, Vanguard, and the rest.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/378493-chinese-idioms-riding-a-tiger-and-not-being-able-to-get-off-%E9%A8%8E%E8%99%8E%E9%9B%A3%E4%B8%8B/
Trump is disgusting and dangerous, but the thought of Ted Cruz as president scares me even more. Either way, it’s bad news. The Republican party has totally lost it if this is the best they can come up with.
Oh. I see. This is like the Fred Phelps clan showing up to demonstrate at military funerals. It’s guaranteed to make the news and incite counter-protesters.
I suppose Trump will hold rallies in heavily Arab Moslem areas like Dearborn, Michigan. Rallies in heavily Hispanic areas of Texas, NM, and California. And so on. I wonder how many riots Trump can set off before November.
Alexander Z @32:
Sorry. I did not intend to imply that this was in any way original or intelligent on the part of Trump and/or his campaign. What I did mean to imply was that, given the state of US commercial news — center right to far right — that this tactic which will allow Trump to claim victimhood will work and is thus a ‘clever’ way, in other words, an effective way, to inoculate the campaign from accusation of fomenting violence. Intent is not magic. Sorry my writing was so poor.
raven @36:
I doubt Trump will do this. My intent (again, not magic) was to introduce the possibility that this was a relatively safe way to allow Trump to claim victimhood and thus immunize himself from charges of inciting violence. He can ride this “We are defending ourselves” through the general election.
===========
And my writing is apparently pretty bad today, so I’m gonna bow out of this conversation before I really screw it up. Sorry.
My fear is that Trump will eat Hilary Clinton for breakfast. She has so many points of vulnerability and he knows them all. Shame on CBC for not even mentioning the guy who offers an outsider alternative to Trump, Bernie Sanders. As I see it, from the Canadian side of the border, Sanders is America’s best hope. He can appeal both to the comfortable and the disaffected, but offers a kinder, more inclusive, vision of America. I’m sure hoping he gets the nomination.
“I’ll be very afraid, personally concerned for my safety, if Trump were to be elected.”
I wouldn’t be any *less* afraid if he loses, at least not in the immediate aftermath of the election. Without any recourse to paranoia, I can easily see widespread rioting if Trump loses — especially to Hillary, the one that the far-right wingnuts really love to hate. And I say this without knowing what kind of horrible, incendiary shit Trump is going to toss at Hillary between now and November.
Of course, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to even *picture* November.
Trump probably get his over-the-top, loudmouth personality from watching too many WWE events.
Correction, from being in too many WWE events…
Ogvorbis #37
No need to apologize. I was addressing a general sentiment rather than a single comment or person.
—
raven #36
I agree with Ogvorbis #37 – I doubt that Trump will keep doing this constantly. Unlike fringe groups Trump has grave logistical concerns – he needs to think about thousands of supporters present at a single place, whereas the fringe groups have hundreds at most. He also needs to stay interesting so as to keep the national focus on himself, whereas the fringe groups need to do the same thing again and again because they don’t get as much coverage as they want.
Furthermore, he has his supporters’ safety to think of. While they’re horrible bigots, they aren’t true in-fire-and-blood activists. He can send them to a respectable location in a non-white neighborhood because he and they know that nothing really serious will happen. Going to a poor non-white region where the residents are ready to fight back is too scary for his people and they’ll probably won’t come, which could break his tough guy image.
Finally, he’s a presidential nominee and that means he can’t be all about fisticuffs – he also has to interest bigots with families who like to bring children to the rallies and who wouldn’t want to go anywhere not child-friendly.
All in all, I don’t doubt that Trump will revisit this tactic, particularly in the general elections since beating up liberals is pretty safe, but he’ll do it sparsely.
—
zaledalen #38
Oh yeah, an elderly self proclaimed socialist who never had to face tough electoral opposition clearly has no vulnerabilities. Solid as a rock he is.
Look, Clinton has many problems, but vulnerability is not one of them. If you doubt that go rewatch her Benghazi hearings. In the several decades that she has been the boogie-woman of the right she has learned to withstand right-wing pressure. Centrist or leftist pressure is a different matter.
MassMomentumEnergy #41
Wow. He really hasn’t fought a single fight in his life if that’s his idea of a punch.
robro: Why are you making fun of his name? It’s not like he chose it. Even if he did, would you also make fun of Chelsea Manning for choosing a new name that she felt better suited her?
Please try to stick to the issues. The person is an authoritarian right-wing populist with a record of saying many outrageous and offensive things — surely that is enough for you.
Here’s an anecdote from my side of the pond.
Being a white-skinned, blue eyed, blond haired male, I tend to not be identified as “the enemy” by the local fascists, (in fact, I’ve been confused for a member of the FN’s security service… by members of the FN’s security service), so, it happens sometimes that I end up in the same room or bar that a bunch of local wingnuts who proceed to talk among themselves without filter because they don’t realize that the Perfect Aryan™ silently drinking his coffee is in fact using his acting chops to hide his disgust as he listen to their bullshit.
12 years ago, I ended up in such a situation: I was in my corner of a bar, drinking my coffee, and a bunch of local fascist youths were enjoying their beers and spewing the kind of bullshit normally reserved for behind closed doors, and then, one of them drew the noisy approval of his peers by saying
Translation: “Anyway, we’ll have fixed problems when we’ll have bled in the gutter all the socialists’ voters”
The guys (and his approving buddies) weren’t just toying with the fantasy of slaughtering all the politicians or even the activists they didn’t like: they were fantasying about killing everyone who had voted for a candidate of the main left-wing party: that was nearly 17 million people back then, and that would be over 18 million people today: take away the pretense and the caution they display when they know they are being filmed, and you’ll find far-rightists wallowing in genocidal fantasies
So if I was an evil genius — and I was Donald Trump — but I repeat myself.
Let’s assume he gets the nomination. I find it hard to believe someone like that would go to all that effort, just to get a McCarthy-style drubbing in the polls. I suspect he’s already rummaging around in the Richard Nixon bag of dirty tricks.
The most obvious would be a good old October surprise — not necessarily of Hillary herself. The problem with the Clintons is that they’ve never met a millionaire they didn’t want to schmooze. Remember how poor Bill Ayers got paraded around, when he was barely an Obama acquaintance? There will be a long procession of Clinton donors and buddies, people whose house they’ve stayed at, who have done questionable things. I expect, for instance, that we’ll hear a whole lot more about Jeffery Epstein. Alas, the Big Bucket of Clinton Scandal will probably never be fully exhausted.
If that doesn’t work, there’s something even sneakier that I’d do if I was completely unethical and determined to win at any cost, and I was way behind in the polls. I would attempt to rig the election — in Hillary’s favor. I’d try to bribe some election officials through sleazy middlemen, get some homeless folks to vote twice for her, maybe even hack a voting machine or two.
Obviously, this would blow up — there’s no way this kind of chicanery would go undetected. But the ever-cowardly media wouldn’t dare come right out and say “This looks like a false-flag operation.” They’d go mealy-mouthed with “reports of voting irregularities” and try to bury the story, which would play right into my hands. Then, if I was Trump, my “concession” speech would go something like this:
“Brothers and sisters, the media have told you that I’ve lost this election, 58%-40%. They’ve told you that this election was a blowout. But they haven’t said much about [insert irregularities here]. With questions like these about this election coming up just within the first few hours, can we really trust any of these so-called ‘election results’?
Friends, I’ve been saying this all along: the liberals are trying to steal your country from you. And now they think they’ve succeeded. But will you let them cheat their way back into the White House, for another four years to finish the destruction that Obama began? I think not!
It’s time to take back our country by any means necessary! We’re armed, we’re the majority, and we carry the spirit of the original patriots who first were willing to shed blood for freedom! Who’s going to stop us? The liberals? They’re allergic to the mere thought of our guns. The police or army? The liberals have declared war on them, too — they’ll be on our side! Get your weapons, drive to Washington, and we’ll give those socialists the surprise of their lives!”
Do I think this course of action is likely? No, I hope I’m not that paranoid. But within the realm of consideration? I literally cannot believe that any tactic is beneath this man. He has been systematically grooming his followers to be immune to all forms of “facts” and “evidence,” ever since his Birther days — these are the people who believed Mitt Romney was going to win in a landslide, and he’s made their bubble even thicker. And remember how fond Republicans are of blaming their opponents for the things they themselves like to do, and then think about how often they like to make the “false flag” accusation.
The worst thing is, “Trump: The Civil War” isn’t even the worst-case scenario. That would be “Trump: The Coup.” Everyone always says “It can’t happen here” until it does.
Brucegee1962:
Aye, me too.
Regarding the reference to StormFront, Vanguard, etc. up-thread: the tactics are not new. What is new is that those tactics common to fringe rightwing groups have been brought front and center by Donald Trump.
Trump has made the fringe the center.
Trump made several statements today that show how he will continue to use the outbreaks of violence at the Chicago rally to paint himself as a victim. Trump said that “thugs shut down our First Amendment rights.”
Fox News was glad to back Trump up on this. Megyn Kelly said, “his First Amendment free speech rights have been shut down.” Sean Hannity said, “violent agitators hijacked what was to be a peaceful campaign rally.”
The problem with this tale of victimhood is that the First Amendment protects the right of free speech, but it does not protect Trump or his supporters from criticism. The First Amendment does not protect political candidates from protesters. Trump has not been silenced, as the free coverage he gets on all the major and minor news outlets attests. His supporters have not been silenced.
The idea that the rallies of a presidential candidate are private, and therefore only supporters of the candidate can attend, is likewise bonkers.
And what about the fact that Trump has spent months encouraging violence? He is still calling the assault of protestors “very, very appropriate” today. He is still advising the crowds at his rallies to “knock the crap out of” protestors. When he says stuff like that, his supporters go wild. They love it.
Trump does not want free speech for protestors. He wants “consequences” for protesting.
brucegee1962, Caine,
Sure, that sort of tactic isn’t beneath Trump, but it’s far too subtle. Trump’s style is to throw shit against the wall and go with what sticks; he’s far too lazy to take the kind of Machiavellian approach you outlined. Trump’s just stumbled on a message that resonates with a large sector of the electorate, and so he’s milking it for all he can, but I seriously doubt he’s figured out any long-term strategy.
What’s scary in the Trump campaign isn’t the messenger, but the audience. There are people far more clever than Trump watching what’s happening and preparing to exploit it. Even if Trump gets thumped, the danger will not go away.
Anyone else unsettled by the reference in the NY Times article to Trump supporters wearing “outfits that matched his, yelling “Trump! Trump! Trump! ” while they waited.”?
Modern day brownshirts?
AlexanderZ –
He really hasn’t fought a single fight in his life if that’s his idea of a punch.
He grew up with people to throw punches for him.
Drumpf the bully wants protesters at his rally to be arrested.
Better yet, arrest Drumpf for inciting the protesters. Hope the protesters have the ACLU on speed dial.
AlexanderZ
re: ‘Trump’ ‘punching’ McMahon
It’s a video from the WWE.
It just might be totally, completely, utterly fake.
Protestors have been using high-profile arrests as a tactic for, what, fifty years now? And he’s never noticed this?
Of course, he’s promised his followers “No more protestors!” Just conditioning them to get used to his promises being worthless?
Look at D.J. Grothe fall all over himself to defend Drumpf.
chigau #54
That’s not the point. Even in a fake fight you have to try to make it look real, and his strokes with the bottom of a clenched fist are, if anything, enough to break the illusion of WWE.
—
Robert #56
That doesn’t look like an outright defense of Trump, more like a freeze peach defense. Nothing new there, we always knew that that side of the atheist movement has the same understanding of free speech as an average chan commenter.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out he’s a Trump supporter, though.
How often freeze peach has been used as a code word for “I agree with the bullshit this guy is spewing but do not dare yet openly express my approval“?
These rallies are ticketed events and held in private – rented – venues. This makes the protests somewhat more problematic from my POV. It’s Trump’s party and he gets to say who goes and who stays. Free speech for protests applies to the public space, not the private, and then only for government acts.
If protesters plan to disrupt a private event, then they are in the wrong. Protest outside – no problem. As for violence – I can remember long ago in my youth that if I went out on a Friday night looking for a fight, I usually found one. It is always wrong to physically assault anyone except in self defense. At the same time, do not expect polite and courteous treatment by by your enemies when you invade their party.
Trump is the very model of what a demagogue is. Huey Long got nothing on him. I hate the Nazi meme but damn if Trump rallies only need the torch light parades to make the image complete. He is the worst thing to come along in American politics since George Wallace. Trump also has the right to speak at his own private event.
WATCH: Kansas City police unleash pepper spray on demonstrators outside another chaotic Trump rally
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/donald-trump-issues-threat-make-me-president-or-supporters-will-sabotage-election/
So one of the talking heads telling us how horrible Trump is is a dude who shows his authority by carrying (or shooting) a gun. This is why Republicans can’t stop Trump – they are nearly as crazy as he is.
Trump has made it his business to appeal to the so-called “Low Information voter”, even proudly saying “I love the poorly educated !” Except, if that’s all he can draw, a candidate trump (should he get the nomination) is looking at losing on a scale akin to Goldwater in 1964. Now if only the other side can avoid being McCarthy in ’68.
Unfortunately, Trump supporters today would likely have supported any of the Fascists of the 1940s back then. But then, they have been subjected to the mushroom principle for 2 generations now, and it will take at least that long to fix it, if indeed it could be fixed. Now you know why conservatives loathe proper education.
I’m amazed that Hillary Clinton was this terrible a person!
Oh, wait, this was Donald Trump?
Heck, sorry, I keep being told by smart people that we literally can’t tell them apart, and I guess I was convinced for a second there.
I respectfully disagree. While protesting a private event might be legally inadvisable, I don’t agree that it is some sort of moral wrong. Sometimes breaking the law to make a point or drag an issue into the light is an important part of activism.
Trump made stuff up. He said on Fox News Sunday that “something like 27 percent” of Muslims are “really very militant.”
Trump said stupid stuff about connecting a protester at one of his rallies to ISIS:
That’s a Trump tweet that noted U.S. Secret Service agents stopped a guy trying to rush the stage.
And here’s a summary of a conversation Trump had with Chuck Todd about Trump having used a bogus internet video as his source for the ISIS connection:
Donald Trump is threatening Bernie Sanders:
The canard Trump is telling is that the Sanders campaign organizes the protests at Trump rallies. It is true that some Sanders’ supporters have joined in the protests. It is not true that the Sander’s campaign organized the protests. Sanders had nothing to do with the protests, and there’s no evidence that he or his staff had anything to do with them.
Trump also told Chuck Todd on NBC’s Meet the Press this morning that he might pay the legal bills of the white man who punched a black man who was being escorted out of a Trump rally.
In Kansas City last night police pepper-sprayed a group of protesters. The pepper-spraying incident was largely condemned as not necessary. Circumstances didn’t call for it.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article65749927.html
News reporters have also been harassed by Trump supporters.
Cross posted from the Moments of Political Madness thread.
Here’s what Bernie Sanders had to say about violence at Trump rallies:
Link.
@#25, Sili
While the Republicans were pulling the Overton Window rightward, the Democrats have been pushing from the other side. When the DLC took over the party in the mid-1980s, Trump — or at least someone like Trump in some way — became inevitable. And, gee, there appears to be a former DLC member running for the Democratic nomination right now.
@#44, fakeusername
I’ve noticed that although the commenters on this site tend to be rather mind-my-wig about mocking people’s names, there has been no outcry about calling Trump “Drumpf”. Not that there’s a problem with mocking Trump, but it’s strange to see that particular type of mockery here.
@#50, What a Maroon, living up to the ‘nym
All the more reason to steer clear of blue-dog Democrats who don’t want to confront the Republican Party… like a certain candidate who has promised not to push for any big changes.
@#58, laurentweppe
Yes. But when it is used alone it is also — as Randall Munroe points out (in the hovertext) — an admission that “there is no valid defense of this idea, other than that it is not actually illegal”.
@#64, Anri
Oh, you can tell them apart all right. It’s just that Clinton isn’t actually any better.
Trump brings out violence right here, and threatens to screw up the country immediately.
Clinton exports violence and death (the embargo on Iraq which is estimated to have starved a million children in the 1990s, the coup in Honduras, the war in Iraq, the bombing of Libya in favor of “freedom fighters” who turned out to be ISIS, currently trying to gin up wars with Russia/China/Iran, etc.), and backs policies which will eventually screw up the country (NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, GATT, etc.).
I realize that to the sort of person who is perfectly content that there should be death and suffering caused by the U.S. as long as that suffering happens somewhere out of sight and earshot, Clinton is the superior choice. And also to those who believe that the screwing-up part won’t take effect until after they’re retired and/or dead (finally an explanation for Clinton’s popularity with Baby Boomers!), but both of them are ultimately bad for the country. Trump (and his supporters) want chaos now, Clinton (and her supporters) want chaos later, with a side-helping of chaos now but somewhere else.
Aside from the ethical problems involved, Clinton-style policies can and do backfire in the immediate term. Islamic terrorism against the U.S. is a side effect of U.S. foreign policy which treats Islamic nations poorly, robbing them and installing dictators, which is the model to which Clinton subscribes. (It’s what Kissinger was praising when he complimented her.) When all is said and done, the real reason most Americans were shocked by the 9/11 attack wasn’t because they thought the Islamic world uniformly loved us but because we had the assumption that those we rob and kill can’t strike at us in return. Not only was that not true, but all the puffing and blowing about “security” after 9/11 (which Clinton is 100% in favor of, incidentally) does nothing to make us actually safer, and so this sort of foreign policy — which, again, Clinton is 100% in favor of, and the flaws of which she does not even seem to be capable of understanding — is insanely dangerous.
The reason people are mocking Trump’s name is that john Oliver pointed out that Trump mocked some rival or political opponent for having an ancestor who changed the family name saying “He should be proud of his heritage.” Oliver wound up his show riffing on the impact and power of Trump’s name, and pointing out how much more appropriate, how neutralized, his original family name would be. People pick up on that and hand Trump back some of his own poison.
The ‘political opponent’ in question was Jonathan Leibowitz, aka Jon Stewart. Aka John Oliver’s former boss. So Oliver had a front-row seat to that particular bit of Trumpism happening.
@#70, zaledalen:
Yes, I know what the reference is. And I approve, more or less. I’m just surprised to see it here. It’s like walking into your bedroom and seeing your refrigerator standing on your bed. There’s no problem with a refrigerator, far from it — but what’s it doing there?
I’ve been saying for many months, as the violence increases, it’s a matter of time until someone gets shot at one of Trump’s rallies. He’ll then say that he doesn’t know what happened, as he says that he doesn’t know what is going on.
Frankly, the man is a toxin to democracy.