Am I the only one that sees this?
Donald Trump and the stereo-typical Donald Trump supporter seems to have more anger than most. They don’t like push-back. They make personal attacks and ridicule anyone with a different opinion. They refuse to recognize or remember facts that make their guy look bad. The past is re-written and spun to fool and misdirect voters. They bully people. They believe that getting their candidate elected is for the greater good. They love that their guy is highly devisive, has a “win at all cost” mentality, and really believes he is smarter than everyone else.
Same for Hillary and her crew.
Please share widely!
SomervilleTom says
Comparing Donald Trump events and supporters to those of EITHER Democratic candidate is, frankly, an unconscionable and vicious lie. It’s isn’t remotely true, and I think EB3 knows that full well.
I don’t think the campaign staff of either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Sanders has been arrested for battery. I don’t think ANY event for Ms. Clinton or Mr. Sanders has been cancelled because of violence. I don’t think Ms. Clinton or Mr. Sanders have claimed ignorance of the association of David Duke and the KKK and I don’t think either have offered quotations from Mussolini to their supporters.
I don’t think either have have said anything REMOTELY comparable to the hate that pours out of Mr. Trump’s mouth at every opportunity and is echoed by his crowd.
I suggest that the three who’ve recommended it think again of what this comment is saying.
regularjoe says
I agree that the Republican process has been more violent and seamy. Even though, you have to admit that Hillary’s accolytes have been howling about Bernie going negative for well over a month now. In my opinion their protestations sound a lot like what Reese Witherspoon sounds like in the clip. I took a Hillary guy to dinner this week and he was apoplectic about Bernie’s “aggressive” tactics. He is very angry at Bernie as are many more of his ilk.
EB3 wrote ” They love that their guy is highly devisive, has a “win at all cost” mentality, and really believes he is smarter than everyone else.” He compares this to Hillary’s people and I think that the comparison is apt. I picture Hillary throwing stuff at aides and at poor old Bill when the drip, drip, drip of this election gets too much. I get the same vibe from certain members of BMG as well.
petr says
…Tom. This is a naked attempt to stir the pot. Do not feed the anger vampire
sabutai says
More like a placeholder until Ernie’s annual post on the racial composition of the Red Sox front office. Or latest complaint about some minor elected functionary.
edgarthearmenian says
that you stop inferring that everyone who disagrees with your politics is a racist, fascist or ignoramus. If you are so hung up on racism you should be doing all that you can to free the people currently being held in slavery by Muslims in the Southern Sahara and West Africa. But that, of course, would imply that Americans for Trump are not the worst racists and fascists in the world.)))
SomervilleTom says
I see. I’m not supposed to mention the behavior of Donald Trump, his staff, and his supporters, or the well-documented episodes at Trump events?
Did I mention “my politics” here? The words “racist”, “fascist”, and “ignoramus” are yours, not mine, and don’t appear here.
Please clarify which parts of my comment you think are inappropriate. And, while you’re at it, please cite an episode at a Clinton event that is remotely comparable to, for example, the video-taped battery of Mr. Trump’s CAMPAIGN MANAGER against a reporter doing her job.
I think the comparison between Ms. Clinton OR Mr. Sanders and Donald Trump is total bullshit, and I therefore wonder what it is that makes you recommend this diary. Is it perhaps YOUR politics?
edgarthearmenian says
around the barn on your use of the fascism card. And you have said that the followers of Trump are racists. Those words did not appear in your post here, but you have used them often in past discourses. You conveniently forget that the DA who wants to prosecute Trump’s advisor is a contributor to Hillary, and that most legalists believe that the charge will be thrown out in court. You select your facts, as we all do. My politics is quite simple: i neither belong to nor shill for any political party. Unlike you, I recognize that none of them are perfect and that most of them are interested only in their own gain,
kbusch says
to such a pinnacle of marvelous objectivity and insight. Yes, every one of the Democrats here repeatedly asserts the utter perfection of the Democratic party. Now that you point that out we are all very ashamed of this fact. Can I be the first to apologize? Would you be so kind to accept my apology?
Also it is very useful of you to have pointed out that the DA was clearly and unambiguously politically motivated. I know I lack such insight into his motivations as one perched far above our petty politics here down below. Possibly you might send your very useful insights to the other Breitbart staff members who resigned because they didn’t back up the reporter. They are likely completely unaware of the DA’s obviously nefarious affiliations.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
He was speaking to Tom.
Carry on.
kbusch says
I was talking to Edgar
SomervilleTom says
You’ve seen the videos of the violence at Trump events, so have I. I’m appalled. Your not. If that is using the “fascism card”, I plead guilty. Have you watched the videos of the episode for which his campaign manager has been charged? Have you read or listened to the accounts of what happened?
Whatever happens in that court case, can you please cite EVEN ONE instance where a campaign functionary for Ms. Clinton has been involved in anything REMOTELY comparable?
You’ve heard the hate speech from Mr. Trump about Mexicans and Muslims, so have I. I’ve said the Mr. Trump’s own statements are racist, and I stand by that characterization. I don’t know how you listen to his proposal to create a nationwide registry of Muslims and not conclude that he is inciting religious hatred.
I agree that you’re politics are simple, as far as I can tell. They apparently don’t include any value judgments about a candidate or his or her supporters. I get that you’re cynical (“…most of them are interested only in their own gain”).
This diary is nonsense. The attempt to compare the behavior of Mr. Trump and his supporters to either Democratic candidate is utter rubbish, and I think you know that.
kbusch says
Before emancipation, slavery had to be justified to the putatively Christian by asserting racial inferiority. This persisted through Reconstruction and into the Redeemer period in the U.S. South. The theory of racial inferiority has had fewer and fewer champions until we’re left with just a sprinkling of IQ misinterpretters and unsavory elements like the KKK. The consequence is that racism now is almost always expressed in our political life indirectly and obliquely. So if a candidate is going to make racial appeals, he or she certainly won’t sound like Strom Thurmond or George Wallace. They’ll take a page from Nixon’s emphasis on law and order, or Reagan’s lyrical strains on welfare.
Tom’s point isn’t of course that anyone who disagrees with him is a racist. (Christopher and I have disagreed with him plenty without ever being so accused.) Instead, one has to understand Trump’s appeals to the “great” American past, his extremely slow disavowal of David Duke, and his attack on political correctness as a brake on salutary violence in the context of a country where it had been very difficult to pass anti-lynching laws or to enforce them once passed.
Racism now takes the form of hinting in our national discourse. Trump has been heinously hinting unhindered for a while. Note too that I haven’t even mentioned Latinos or Muslims.
edgarthearmenian says
your talents. So now all the people who have voted for Trump are racists? Sorry, but that is complete bullshit.
kbusch says
except perhaps to continue an empty accusatory style.
If you would like to discuss this, could I suggest that actually responding would be helpful? If you don’t think the whole dog-whistle criticism of the Right has merit, then a more substantive response would be productive.
SomervilleTom says
Nothing in the comment you are responding to says anything like “all the people who have voted for Trump are racists”. Of course it’s complete bullshit, because it’s a strawman that you set up to knock down.
The comment you’re responding explicitly doesn’t mention Latinos or Muslims. I AM mentioning those two groups.
The statements that Mr. Trump makes about Mexicans and Muslims are explicitly intended to inflame passions against them. SOME of the supporters of Mr. Trump are supporters BECAUSE of such statements. Not ALL, but SOME.
What portion of Mr. Trump’s support do you think is NOT based on racism, xenophobia, misogyny, religious prejudice, and similar passions? Surely we can agree that said portion is greater than zero. There has been extensive talk of “angry white men” here at BMG and in the larger arena. Are you seriously trying to say that people who identify as “angry WHITE men” are not making a statement about race?
In my view, it is has been conclusively demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump is targeting Mexicans and Muslims in his campaign appearances. He does so proudly and in the apparent belief that such utterances will increase his support.
Just WHO do you think he is attracting, in these appearances, if not people who celebrate his attacks on Mexicans and Muslims?
How would you characterize someone who celebrates attacks on Mexicans and Muslims from a political candidate if not “racist”?
jconway says
I won’t dispute that, but we play into their hands following the likes of Trump or LePen or the populist far right that is increasingly growing in power in Europe. The EU could disintegrate, Turkey is becoming authoritarian and NATO desperately needs our help to stay afloat and to counter Russia’s expansionist aims into Eastern Europe. This isn’t even factoring in the growing coalition to contain China that Obama is desperately trying to assemble before his term ends.
At this time of unprecedented global crisis it is foolish to turn inward and embrace a narrative of American victim hood and white victimhood. What’s Trump’s plan? It’s isolationist one day, from leaving NATO to pulling out of the Middle Easy and Jacksonian the next, bomb their women and children intentionally and torture them even more. It’s shockingly and consistently pro-Putin. We don’t counter the growing barbarism of ISIS by embracing its narrative and justifying it.
This isn’t a clash of civilizations; Islam v the West. It is a Clash of Civilization itself confronting its opponents. The global community that respects human rights and the rule of law versus the rogue states and growing barbarian entities that seek to destroy this consensus. This bipartisan consensus has held the world together and averted a world war for over 70 years and Trump
could undo it in less than a year in office. If there is any reason to vote for Secretary Clinton over any of her opponents, including Bernie Sanders, it is this one.
fredrichlariccia says
in this election.
If that isn’t realty – based commentary, I don’t know what is.
I believe Trump is a threat —- not only to our domestic tranquility — but to our standing in the united community of nations.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
edgarthearmenian says
How many women and children were vaporized or left mutilated after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? War is hell.
fredrichlariccia says
especially an all out nuclear world war where death and destruction would be horrific.
But to conflate Trump’s ignorance of NATO ‘s role in keeping us all safe, his reckless call for a nuclear Japan and South Korea — to the decision by President Truman to end World War II to save the lives of one million American soldiers and sailors — is a gross misunderstanding and distortion of the historical truth.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
kbusch says
In the modern area, after say 1990, no one talks about bombing women and children as an explicit tactic. The international community has come to recognize that as a war crime. When women and children do get killed, that is regarded as tragic.
We might contrast this with Donald Trump who explicitly advocated bombing women and children.
Or stated differently, when they attempt to commit war crimes, modern leaders at least have the decency to use some camouflage.
jconway says
This is an assymetrical conflict which will be lost, not won, by comparing it to total wars of the past century. It is unlikely nuclear weapons will ever be used in combat again, certainly not by a state actor against a non state actor. I don’t see what that would accomplish, particularly when the people stuck living in the IS are the folks we will need to recruit the effort against them.
This is a war that will be won by cutting off funds rather than cutting off heads. Stemming the tide of recruitment online rather than accelerating recruitment through offline carpet bombing. It’s going to take a smarter strategy rather than a bigger one. There are a lot of holes in Hillary’s strategies, mainly due to a lack of intelligence about the threats we face, and variables at play no president can control. But I am confident it will do more to degrade ISIS than electing Trump, which would be its greatest triumph.
SomervilleTom says
What does this question have to do with anything?
How many women and children would have been incinerated, dismembered, or mutilated had conventional war against Japan been pursued — particularly given the peculiarly unique Japanese cultural tradition of fighting until the very end?
Yes, war is hell. The many women and children incinerated at Dresden were just as dead as the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
There is some evidence that an aspect of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings was to demonstrate to the Soviets that the US (1) had the ability to deliver an arbitrary number of such weapons, and (2) had the willingness to use those weapons. As distasteful as it is, it is hard to know what effect that demonstration had on the Soviets.
The world has possessed nuclear weapons for seventy years, and has not used them. Some of us think that’s a good thing. Do you disagree?
I have no clue how your question relates to this discussion AT ALL!
Finally, just one more comment — the US quite intentionally structured the post-WWII agreements with German, Italy, and Japan so that NONE of those nations would EVER acquire a military capability that could provide an existential threat to the US. Those nations have embraced those constraints since then.
When Mr. Trump rants about Japan and “Europe” not paying their share when it comes to nuclear defense, I think he is literally insane. I think Mr. Obama used exactly the correct word “madmen”.
I really do wonder what you’re attempting assert on these threads (on this diary).
kbusch says
In outline the reasoning is
jconway: It’s bad for Trump to speak of intentionally bombing women and children.
eagerthearmenian: The U.S. [even under a Democratic President] bombed women and children. [Therefore, it’s hypocritical or inconsistent to say Nagasaki women and children don’t matter but ISIS women and children do.]
To be completely fair, this is not a non sequitor, but I think it misses the point of why jconway said it was bad in the first place.
Christopher says
…that is laid bare for all to see!
kbusch says
The OP was making a point using the shock of comparing icky, yucky Trump with a Democratic candidate. The point, though, seems lost in the shock — so much so that it has led to a medical response from one of our esteemed contributors. (Mark, get well soon.) Shock after all is Boch’s stock and trade.
Nonetheless, the underlying point is almost unremarkable now: one’s support for a candidate almost always invites one into an elaborate game of confirmation bias. This is, of course, painfully true of Trump supporters, but it is true of all of us. We’re all so invited. Few us turn down the invitation.
jconway says
I always knew Hillary would win and the policy wonk in me favored her, especially since Sanders still doesn’t have a foreign policy. I called out Sanders supporters early in this primary for saying stupid stuff about the Clinton’s and I feel the Barney Frank remarks are similarly uncharitable towards a base of supporters we desperately need to come out doorknocking in September and October, let alone, vote in November.
Both campaigns and their surrogates have grown bitter and negative, the Clinton campaign should agree to debates and use them as an opportunity to co-opt Sanders and his program while denouncing Trump. There hasn’t been enough attention against Trump or Cruz on our side of the aisle. Most debates have been quite substantive and educational to the undecided voter and they only reinforce the branding of the progressive movement as the party of progress and opportunity for all citizens, not a reactionary cesspool like the other side.
Mark L. Bail says
I’ve upped my statin intake.