Donald Trump’s acceptance speech last night at the Republican National Convention must have been easy to write. Anyone with a modicum of communication skills who had been paying attention the past eight years and isn’t either in denial or thoroughly corrupted could have written it. I could have written it. President Obama and Hillary Clinton, as well as their supporters, have provided so much material, or, if you like, ammunition. No wonder the speech was so long: it was the longest acceptance speech since 1972. It easily could have been longer.
There is no honest or reasonable argument to be made against Trump’s recitation of what is wrong in America. Escalating class, racial, gender and ethnic divisions, uncontrolled illegal immigration, handicapped law enforcement, sluggish economic growth, over-regulation, dangerous debt, incompetent foreign policy, weak national leadership, corruption, attacks on individual rights, and more…the speech hit a lot (not all, because there are so many) of the obvious failures of the Obama presidency, one of the most disappointing and disastrous in U.S. history. Most astute of all, the speech correctly painted Hillary Clinton as a candidate pledged to continue disastrous policies and anti-American philosophies. Read the text here.
The criticism of the speech from the left and mainstream media journalists (all together now: “But I repeat myself!”) was both predictable and telling. “Trump delivered a deeply negative speech that described a darkening America,” wrote Politico.” He spoke of spiking crime, “third-world” airports, growing trade deficits, “chaos in our communities,” and terrorism on the home front. Abroad, he said, the situation was “worse than it has ever been before.” On CNN, former Obama “czar” Van Jones said that “What Donald Trump did tonight was a disgrace. That was a relentlessly… dark speech. He was describing some Mad Max America.” Jones continued:
“I’ve never felt this way in my life. I have read in history being in moments where there’s some big authoritarian movement and some leader that’s rising up, and I felt that way tonight, and it was terrifying for me. This speech divided the country… It terrified me.”
The speech divided the country? That’s hilarious! The fact that Trump reached this stunning moment shows how thoroughly Barack Obama has divided the country, and intentionally too. Eight years of demonizing white citizens, conservatives, business, men, lawful gun-owners, police, religious Americans, free speech, dissent, and centuries-old concepts of the family; two terms of deriding reasonable concerns about a massive religious group with increasingly aggressive radical and murderous elements breeding within it; a Presidency that has habitually blamed past administrations for current problems while one agency after another is shown to be dangerously inept and unmanaged; Obama’s party’s institution of the oppressive tactic of tarring any critic of a floundering black President as motivated by racism, and any critic of his incompetent anointed replacement as sexist…and Van Jones blames the speech that properly and accurately responds to all of this? That is award-winning gall.
But the media’s reaction was pre-ordained, was it not? The stance of the news media throughout the Obama Administration has been to spin or bury bad news and even outright scandals, and adopt as truth the happy-talk deception and partisan blame-shifting coming out of the White House. Ethics Alarms has pointed out this phenomenon all along. Under Obama, the Democratic Party’s theory, endorsed by most journalists, is that only one side of any policy equation matters: the good part. Negative consequences, even when they engulf all of the over-hyped benefits, don’t matter, and it’s rude and distracting to even mention them. How dare Donald Trump portray the post-Obama U.S. as anything but rosy? After all, that would mean that Barack Obama has been a preening, sanctimonious flop. See, we told you Trump was a racist!
Ethics Alarms 
I disagree. Trump’s speech was designed to make the average American fear for his or her safety — and crime rates actually are dropping with the exception of a few urban areas. That’s irresponsible and reckless.
As for racial discord, I personally believe Trump has done more to incite that fervor than anyone in recent memory. “Demonizing white citizens”? Are you off your rocker? What specifically has Obama done to demonize white citizens, except in your own mind? I don’t feel demonized and — other than you — none of my white friends feel demonized either.
The truth is that demographics are changing wildly in the United States. And unenlightened people are reacting the same way to that as they have always done throughout history — with fear and distrust. Trump and a few others in his party are sowing that apprehension. This is no different than the massive fear against Irish immigrants in the 19th century and Chinese immigrants in both the 19th and 20th centuries … or the backlash against Eastern Europeans in Britain right now.
Trump may have a good idea or two about trade, but he certainly is not the one to fix it. The Democrats also need to talk more about “legal” immigration, no question, but Trump’s “Let’s Build a Wall” idea is ridiculous, ineffective, and will sink our country even deeper into debt.
The average American should fear for his or her safety, and jobs, and business, and investments, and children’s education, and future. Racial discord had collapsed in the US well before Trump became a candidate, and he has, in fact, been a victim of the cynical political race-baiting I described. Opposing illegal immigration does not make one a racist—it makes one responsible and a patriot— and saying that too many of a nation’s illegal migrants are criminals isn’t a racist statement (and that’s all Trump was saying, in his inarticulate garbled way, with his “rapist” comment). It’s true.
And this is a false and ignorant statement, Beth: “This is no different than the massive fear against Irish immigrants in the 19th century and Chinese immigrants in both the 19th and 20th centuries … or the backlash against Eastern Europeans in Britain right now.”
It’s very different. First, those were LEGAL Irish immigrants. Second: there was no anti-civilization terrorist group within the Irish group running amuck through Europe.
No anti-civilization group within the Irish immigrants?
What were the Irish then?
Tex, just stop it. Both my maternal grandparents were Irish (one was an Orangeman so go figure). They ran a theatrical boarding house in New York State so I guess you can called that civilized. My mother who was born in the USA became an RN during the depths of the depression. Besides, who built the railroads and became cops and firemen. The Irish of course! I really don’t think that Texans are civilized 😉
I invoke the Mel Brooks “I’m Jewish so I can ridicule Jews, rule”
I’m part enough Irish that I’m good.
We’ve read different history books my friends. Did you not think the IRA was a terrorist group?
And my point stands — indeed, you’ve reinforced it. If Americans historically fear legal immigrants, then yes, they fear illegal ones as well. And since no one knows whether a person is legal or illegal in normal day-to-day interactions, then that hatred, fear, mistrust, etc. gets applied to all “others” regardless of immigration status.
Beth said, “We’ve read different history books my friends. Did you not think the IRA was a terrorist group?”
The IRA wasn’t in existence until the 20th century, YOU were specifically talking about the 19th century!
The Irish were rebelling since Cromwell, that rebellion took on many forms over the centuries.
Interestingly enough, the analogy falls apart further.
Jack alludes to Islamic terrorists, whose ideology pretty well hates ALL WESTERN society…whereas the Irish rebels pretty much only hated English encroachment into Ireland.
The scope of people identified as enemies is somewhat problematic for your analogy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army
Huh, it turns out that it started earlier than I thought.
Beth,
You inserted foot in mouth; stop trying to justify it, just acknowledge the error and walk away.
Read the Wiki entry Zoltar.
I did Beth and it conflicts with other things.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Irish-Republican-Army
I don’t accept everything I read in Wiki as fact, you shouldn’t either; cross reference.
Why don’t you just simply admit the fact that you were trying to connect the IRA, the way we knew it (as terrorist in the United Kingdom) in the 20th century, to the Irish immigrants in the 19th century which were not hell bent on destroying western culture.
To be clear, the phrase you’re looking for is “the Irish have been revolting”
The Irish have been revolting since Cromwell.
Revolting.
Yes, I think we do read different history books.
All mine show that the terroristic style IRA was organized circa 1917, while the Irish wave of immigration that sparked anti-Irish sentiment and animosity occurred mid-1800s.
Something about the math in that doesn’t support your assertion.
WTF? My point is that Americans fear “other.” Jack tried to distinguish that on a terrorism point which I nit-picked. I’m not trying to draw an analogy between all terrorism groups, or even just the IRA and ISIS.
The IRA didn’t do any terrorism in America, or pose any threat. I was aware of that bogus argument, and trusted you not to stoop to it.
Americans haven’t shown fear of legal immigrants since WW II. Fear of illegal immigration is the rational fear of open borders, not just of the individuals—unscreened, possibly criminal— themselves.
And let me add: Hillary and the Democrats easy dismissal of the Fifth Amendment, First Amendment (in the attacks on Citizens United) and the Second Amendment, plus the Obama violations of due process (drone killings) and the Separation of Powers (unilateral amendment of laws, executive orders exceeding established limits of power) ALSO endanger all citizens. As a lawyer, you must comprehend that.
The Second Amendment is a dead issue. No Dem will really challenge it absent some rhetoric around gun shows and increased regulation on assault weapons.
Drone killings will continue under the Republicans and Democrats and you know that Obama didn’t start that practice. But, I agree that was one of Obama’s biggest failures. Executive orders also will continue no matter who is President.
I have no problem with Executive orders. Executive orders saying “don’t enforce the law” are something very different, unique to Obama, and unconstitutional—and a dangerous precedent if, say, a Donald Trump is elected.
Beth said, “The Second Amendment is a dead issue.”
BALDERDASH!
(Pointer to my friend Jason for using that in comments)
Beth said, “Trump’s speech was designed to make the average American fear for his or her safety…”, “That’s irresponsible and reckless.”
I disagree.
I think the speech was actually designed to inform the American public that their safety and freedoms are in jeopardy; it’s true and not to say so in a manner in which alerts the people to open their eyes would have been irresponsible.
The left will paint the truths as they were presented as irrational fear mongering; they know all about fear mongering, they’ve been doing it for decades!
I can’t wait to hear Hillary’s acceptance speech.
You last paragraph is superfluous: I essentially said all of that in the post. Or were you agreeing with me?
I included it to show that I am not a knee-jerk leftie. There are some areas where I digress from my party.
Well I know THAT…
“Trump’s speech was designed to make the average American fear for his or her safety — and crime rates actually are dropping with the exception of a few urban areas.”
We only have those numbers up to 2014, before the race riots started (You want to talk about Mad-Maxian terminology… race riots…. Jesus, but call a spade a spade.)… I’m almost certain that once the 2015 and 2016 numbers are released, you’ll find that those numbers are on the incline again. This is more serious than a simple spike though, it’s a spike in the face of a decreasing trend. If every year, crime reduces by 10% of the previous year’s rate, but instead of a 10% decrease, we have a 15% increase, what we really experienced is a 25% increase, because barring the stimulus that increased the trend, we would reasonably expect the decades long trend to continue. And so what if they are being weighted by urban centres? The reason that the numbers will increase for the country despite the changes happening almost uniquely in urban centres is because most Americans live in cities.
““Demonizing white citizens”? Are you off your rocker? What specifically has Obama done to demonize white citizens, except in your own mind?”
Sentiments like this are why I have a often have a hard time identifying you as an intelligent person. You waffle between reasoned, principled positions, ones I often disagree with but can at least give you credit for… And absolute retardation like this. Do you REALLY need examples of all the times that Obama has attributed actions to racism, despite being absolutely unable to know whether it was a factor? Really?
“I don’t feel demonized and — other than you — none of my white friends feel demonized either.”
Get more diverse friends, and encourage your friends to do the same. Your bubble is small.
“This is no different than the massive fear against Irish immigrants in the 19th century and Chinese immigrants in both the 19th and 20th centuries … or the backlash against Eastern Europeans in Britain right now.”
This is the lie liberals tell themselves. The false moral equivalency. It IS different, and your failure to see why on your own or accept the explanations that have been offered to you by people like myself or Jack over the last few years is just that: Your failure. 19th century Irish immigrants weren’t bombing marathons or shooting up gay bars, they weren’t driving trucks through crowds of people, shooting up parliamentary buildings*, massacring people at concerts or throwing gay people off buildings. But you think they’re the same, somehow. Oh sure, “Not all Muslims are like that” But when you say “Not all X do Y” you inherently admit that SOME do, and the percentage matters. But you’ve lied to yourself, so long as there are SOME moderate Muslims, it’s all the same.
“19th century Irish immigrants weren’t bombing marathons or shooting up gay bars, they weren’t driving trucks through crowds of people, shooting up parliamentary buildings*, massacring people at concerts or throwing gay people off buildings.”
Have you been to a whiskey drenched wake?
Damn, is that all I need to do to understand?
These are real questions. Do you have white female friends who feel demonized? Do you personally feel demonized living in Canada because of Obama’s comments?
The individual who shot up a gay bar was a natural-born American citizen, not an immigrant. The record also is unclear — and we may never know — if he truly was an Islamic terrorist or just completely insane.
Timothy McVeigh also was a domestic terrorist.
“Do you have white female friends who feel demonized?”
White female friends? Yes. Ones that feel victimised? They’re more… acquaintances. I work with one, whoo-ee we’ve had some disagreements. But then we go out for drinks after and buy eachother our first. We tolerate eachother.
“Do you personally feel demonized living in Canada because of Obama’s comments?”
No, J.T. has made some pretty disparaging comments, but nothing on the same level, I think that generall Canada’s approach to race relations has been more…. constructive. Overall. But as an empathetic human being, I think I know how I’d feel hearing my national leader talk about groups I belonged to with the rhetoric Obama has.
“The record also is unclear — and we may never know — if he truly was an Islamic terrorist or just completely insane.”
Oh sure, he was heard yelling Allahu Akbar, and he took time out of his rampage to phone 9-11 and declared himself to ISIS, an endorsement that ISIS wholeheartedly welcomed… But was he REALLY Islamic? No no, silly Jeff… He was just insane. How… Arrogant. These things aren’t mutually exclusive, I think it takes a modicum of insanity to shoot up a room full of people generally, but you have to ask yourself: In absence of an Islamic influence, would he have shot 49 gays in a bar? I personally have serious doubts.
“Timothy McVeigh also was a domestic terrorist.”
This is the poster child of false moral equivalency. Sure. Timothy McVeigh was a domestic terrorist. He was white! He was American! He was a CHRISTIAN!!!!!! See… Christians are like Muslims there are bad apples in each!
Except that Christians amount to somewhere between 70 and 80% of the population, and Muslims account for slightly less than 3% That Muslims commit domestic acts of terror at a rate equal to that of Christians (which is actually close, depending on what you want to count as domestic acts of terror, I’m including mass killings) doesn’t highlight that Christianity is just as violent as Islam, it highlights that about 2500% more likely per capita to commit domestic acts of terror. Islam has a violence problem.
I’m typing too fast… ”it highlights that Muslims are about 2500% more likely per capita to commit domestic acts of terror than Christians.”
Well Beth, being the descendant of a Hessian drummer boy on my father’s side and an Irish immigrant via Canada in the mid 19th Century on my mother’s side, I sure hope the Islamic immigrants your’e so sanguine about assimilate as merrily as you assume they will. I’m not sure I see it, frankly.
It seems important to note that Tim McVeigh carried out an attack that was one of revenge for harsh treatment (as he understood it) and what he also understood as ‘government abuse’. His act was outrageous, cruel and wrong, but it was designed to be all of that and was designed to ‘get even’.
I’d have to say that it seems, therefor, completely American. Internecine. It takes only a hop a skip and a jump to be able to see McVeign as a ‘patriot’.
I only mention these things because, well, they are possible, and for some they are ‘true’.
Beth: “This is no different than the massive fear against Irish immigrants in the 19th century and Chinese immigrants in both the 19th and 20th centuries … or the backlash against Eastern Europeans in Britain right now.”
HT: “This is the lie liberals tell themselves. The false moral equivalency. It IS different, and your failure to see why on your own or accept the explanations that have been offered to you by people like myself or Jack over the last few years is just that: Your failure. 19th century Irish immigrants weren’t bombing marathons or shooting up gay bars, they weren’t driving trucks through crowds of people, shooting up parliamentary buildings*, massacring people at concerts or throwing gay people off buildings. But you think they’re the same, somehow. Oh sure, “Not all Muslims are like that” But when you say “Not all X do Y” you inherently admit that SOME do, and the percentage matters. But you’ve lied to yourself, so long as there are SOME moderate Muslims, it’s all the same.”
_____________________________
(It seems to me that it is not ‘Eastern Europeans’ that are being harassed (though I am aware of those cases) but more the Pakistanis and Near-Eastern and Far-Eastern immigrants and residents that are the issue).
My concern, and the concern of people who see and understand as I do, and here in America, is that most of this issue hinges on what specific sort of immigration one is allowing and that means from what countries (and all else that is obviously implied).
Here, of course, the issue gets difficult given the ideologies of the present. In our present, when people decry as ‘racist’ those who wish to limit immigration, they are on to a real thing. Those people do indeed want to limit and control immigration from non-white countries. This obviously opens up a Pandora’s Box. If one cannot say this openly, and then explain in clear and rational terms why one thinks this, one is likely engaging in an hypocrisy.
And everyone knows what a ‘dog-whistle’ is and they know how to recognize that note.
This problem of deliberate importation of people from non-compatible countries and cultural backgrounds is exactly and precisely the problem. To make such a statement implies whole sets of criteria. It is certainly the problem in Europe and it is one that is being reacted against. The question is how to label that reaction. Progressivism must label it as ‘racism’. But there is an alternative and that alternative is race-realism.
Now, the racial issue and question in America — like it or not — is coming out of the closet so to speak. This is another phenomenon that will have to be made conscious, and spoken about in clear, open, and rational terms.
Such concerns have been purged out of American conservatism, and cannot be conversed except underground or at the fringe, though they have always had a home within American conservatism. The Alt-Right has reinvigorated the doctrine and the ideology which sees things in cultural and racial terms and will reinvigorate conservatism in this and in numerous ways. I say ‘like it or not’ because this is something that is happening and will continue to happen. It is indeed a substantial moral and an ethical issue of large dimension.
wasn’t sure if you saw this. since you used the photo in this article… thought you may enjoy this take. i found it to make a lot of sense.
http://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock-a-reporters-disability/
I am thankful for that. Now it makes sense indeed. It is this level of deceit and mistruth that defines our age. Sortng it out is a Herculean work. People will lie, distort, slander one’s person, and stop at nothing when they believe they are doing it in the service of The Good.
Jack said, “Yes, it was a good and true speech, a speech Americans needed to hear. What a tragedy that Donald Trump was the nominee who delivered it.”
Tragedy indeed; I completely agree.
Wouldn’t have been “nice” if someone like Chris Christie had been the one to deliver the exact same acceptance speech.
Side Note: I just now listened to Newt Gingrich’s speech in its entirety again and it was the perfect precursor to Trump’s speech.
“The truth is that demographics are changing wildly in the United States. And unenlightened people are reacting the same way to that as they have always done throughout history — with fear and distrust.”
______________________
That is a good point, a necessary one: but it could be stated differently: demographics have been intentionally changed, and there are ideological reasons why this has come about, and also ideological intentions involved.
I am happy to know that I can have access to one of the ‘enlightened’ who will teach me how to interpret these things, and has the patience to instruct me and to guide me along to the enlightened future. I do not know what I would do if I had to rely on the unenlightened. The irony is of course rich indeed and yet the one simply statement that I would make is that every aspect of Our Present, and all policy, and all ideation and conceptualization about it, can be placed on the table and examined.
The thing is this: some people are doing this work. They say of themselves that they have ‘taken the red pill’ and are ‘waking up’. This is a very interesting, if somewhat mysterious phrase because it implies having been duped or tricked, or worse of being ‘mystified’.
Again: all the tenets which support our conception of The Present — every and any idea or claim — can be placed on the table and examined, coldly and rationally. It is such a simple concept, yet the ramifications are large indeed.
Never fear Alizia. I have no intention of trying to enlighten you — I suck at writing code.
Nice one!
But if a programmer is one who fixes a problem you don’t know you have in a way you don’t understand, I’d suggest that — like it or not — it is more probable that I am reprogramming you.
Beth said, I have no intention of trying to enlighten you — I suck at writing code.”
Alizia has a machine code bug affecting her core operating system that may not be debug-able. There is no code that can be written to fix such errors, the error must be searched out and fixed at the core and a bug this deep in the root machine code may take years to find. It’s likely that it’s a one and a zero inverted in the binary language but it’s buried so deeply in a vast maze of ones and zeros it may never be found.
🙂
I will defer to Zoltar on this one!
All sad but true. The leftist pundits have lost some ground in propelling Hillary of the top. All the queen’s horses and all the queen’s men can’t make Crooked Hillary queen again!
Jack, based on your summary of The Donald’s speech, I”d say the comparison to Obama’s campaign is not correct. Obama never really said a thing. He was essentially a Rohrsach test. He presented a blank piece of paper that anyone could read onto whatever they wanted to see because of who they were. It was brilliant campaigning but devoid of any content. At least Trump has accurately described a number of really important problems. Sure, he hasn’t explained how he will fix the problems, but at least identifying them and saying them out loud is refreshing. I just think his speech is much less cynical than the David Axelrod approach. Give Trump that.
Why do you think “I’m going to do all these wonderful things” and “I’m going to fix all these terrible things” aren’t just two sides of the same coin?
Obama never said much of anything. He just said, “I’m black and historic and I’m not George Bush. Vote for me. I’m whatever you want me to be.” Incredibly cynical. Trump just gave your standard issue political speech which at least provided some cogent analysis. I think there’s a qualitative difference.
Why would anyone tell what he’s going to do and how he’s going to do it? He’s identified and acknowledged the problem. There. That’s all you get. That’s all you SHOULD get. How he’s going to do these things if he’s elected, is his problem. It’s more than the POTUS has done. Obama was great at telling the enemy and everyone else what, when and where. How did that turn out? A great leader surrounds himself with other great leaders ~ something we haven’t seen in awhile. Trump does that. Let it be.
Ridiculous. What “great leaders” does Trump surround himself with? He surrounds himself with morons and praises dictators. Your comment is outrageous.
I’ll second that. What “great leaders”? Gingrich? Christie? Pence? PALIN? Hilarious.
His children? His book keepers? His ghost writer? What a great cabinet.
“PALIN?” An endorsement? Quite a stretch, don’t you think?
The issue was who this moron might appoint or gather as advosers. Palin’s no stretch–she has moe government experience than Trump, and was a better governor than Pence.
Trump’s speech was terrifying. His description of our problems was accurate, but his implications on how he would fix it make me want to curl up and cry. This guy could win. Obama is leaving a country poised on either socialism or anarchy. He couldn’t have done it more perfectly if he were evil instead of stupid.
It is quite interesting to me and seems the standard liberal reaction. Someone else would horde weapons or go live in a cave. The liberal curls up in a little ball and cries their eyes dry …
🙂
Wyogranny is not a liberal. There are only a few of us here actually.
Yes well I think it best that I decide just who and who has not has been infected by hyper-liberal disease.
But let’s see: Chris certainly. Deery. You. Charles Green. Have you thought of starting Commune?
Take it from me. I’m not liberal. Nor, in light of what’s happening with this election, am I Republican. If I want to cry it’s because you and people like you defy common sense and fall in love with their own rants. It used to be my party and I’ll cry if I want to.
Just so you know: I am fiercely independent and do not affiliate myself with political activism. My object is to define an entire relationship to life. And so it is a question of philosophy, religion in a traditional sense (but not traditional religion), certainly ethics. Cultural identity is high on the list.
I am not pro-Trump nor do mass politics have much meaning for me. I might say I appreciate Trump for opening political space but like you I am certainly worried that he, like Obama and many years ofmAmerican politics, will bring things even more into the pit.
The main topic of my discourse which most worries people is that I speak openly about culture and race. Once one has understood the endeavor as non-offensive it becomes a non-issue (to me anyway).
Other than that I am pretty normal and in fact I buy stuff on Amazon from time to time, too.
I think it’s best that I decide who is fiercely independent and who is defining an entire relationship to life and who is a pompous windbag.
Grandmothers from Wyoming, and grandmothers from anywhere, have special rights in my book.
I take pretense to new levels … 😉
Ah! i just remembered: windbag! https://youtu.be/gHxi-HSgNPc
I’m a sucker for a good pun …
Alizia Tyler said, “I think it best that I decide just who and who has not has been infected by hyper-liberal disease.”
Quite pompous of Alizia and yet an impossible feat for Alizia to accomplish when she is constantly engaged in navel-gazing exercises. Alizia’s whole psyche is surrounded by questions that cannot be answered, she can’t “decide” anything; heck she can’t even “decide” what she is other than female (how knows, maybe that’s in question too), much less what a Liberal is and certainly not what a Liberal “infected by hyper-liberal disease” is.
Yes, I’m being hard on Alizia; in my opinion, she’s earned it.
That sentence must be read ironically and archly.
You are sort of hard on everyone, no? If you change your username again may I suggest ‘Lopsided Grandpa’ for the next go-round? 😉
Alizia asked, “You are sort of hard on everyone, no?”
Firm with everyone yes, that’s who I am; very blunt with some folks yes, as I see fit; hard on everyone, absolutely not, but you’re welcome to you own opinion on that.
Alizia asked, “If you change your username again may I suggest ‘Lopsided Grandpa’ for the next go-round?”
Naaaaa, I’ll stick with this one like I said I would when I changed it.
I have no complaints. I do look forward, should you decide to someday, to read your thoughts on what exactly defines liberalism, what conservatism.
I just know nothing about you.
In fact, I imagine you as a Zeus living in a greyblack cloud and slamming thunderbolts down on the earth.
I suppose that is unrealistic. You likely live in a house somewhere, butter toast, etc etc.
Alizia Tyler said, “I imagine you as a Zeus living in a greyblack cloud and slamming thunderbolts down on the earth.”
I don’t have a problem allowing you maintain that image in your imagination.
Beth is anything but a “hyper-liberal.” Just as left-wing nuts accuse me of being a mad conservative, if you are so far right that Beth looks like a typical liberal, you have a perspective problem.
Well, among various ‘problems’ according to common theory!
I’m serious. You should think about it.
I hope that you understand that despite flippancy or any other dubious quality that I take most everything that is said and written here seriously.
I have my own lexicon and I admit to using some terms a little loosely. But there is a certain amount of banter and drama on this blog and ‘hyperliberal’ is a reverse insult to most of what I get.
All I wish for is for people to define THEMESELVES.
Interesting. Please define yourself. I am a traditionalist, and a constitutionalist.
W.G: Alizia is functioning on a different plane. I think she’s essentially un-engage-able. One tries to do so at one’s peril. More often than not, people here end up getting angry and bully her, which is unfortunate. I don’t think she’s malicious. I think she’s just unfiltered. Beware, her mind works differently. And she’s writing in at least her second language.
My esteemed and revered colleague Other Bill. While this is somewhat better than a slanderous diagnostic, I think it would be fair to modify your assessment. There is much more to be gained by that than by sticking to an unfair and inaccurate one.
Wyogranny, to say that one is a traditionalist and to leave it at that is not I don’t think sufficient as a definition. To define oneself as a constitutionalist makes more sense to me.
I see ‘self-definition’ as a more complex undertaking. Similarly, I see defining ethics as a more complex undertaking. In my view in order to be able to speak of an ethical system one has to be cognizant of and reveal one’s philosophical and religious position. When I use the world ‘religion’ I mean it in a much larger sense than the specific church or house of worship one attends. Religion in my lexicon means the entire reange of one’s relationship to and response to existence. In this sense one’s *religiousness* is evident even if one is an atheist. If I am not mistaken the origin of the word ‘religare’ is ‘to tie fast’. I think it has to do with what one *holds to* at a conceptual level. When one defines oneself, one defines that to which one adheres at such a level. (And I do remember that at one point you did define yourself as a Christian and I bring this up only to help you to see that I usually always remember and think about people’s statements about their understandings, beliefs and views).
I have noticed that speaking of such things, or expanding a conversation beyond what is typical or accessible, causes reactions in people. For you perhaps that allows you the use of a defining term like ‘windbag’. I admit to being little moved by easy and gratuitous designations as these. They arise, as I see things, out of meanspiritedness. For example our respected associate Other Bill has attached, arbitrarily, some designating terms and interpretations. Yet these have no positive function except to break down communication. The question is Why should we refuse to allow communication to break down? In my mind this is one of the most important questions that can be asked. And it points to what is a large and looming problem. I think Other Bill does point up the problem but he also demonstrates it.
So here, you have given me an opportunity to ‘define myself’ and I took the offer believing you to be in good faith. Yet I expect that you will respond to me in bad faith, or that what I attempt to communicate to you will only sour your already-formed opinion of me which is little favorable. Therefor (and if this is true) I ask: Why even bother to attempt communication with people who have a different understanding of things?
Now, you associated me with Trump and a New Political Wave as ‘one who is enamoured of their own rants’. I cannot imagine that what I have said here will modify your opinion and, as often happens here, you may come back only with a continuation of the original insult. That is your business.
But it is important — according to me — to understand that a very significant event has occurred, and it happened very quickly. How to even designate it? The upending and the implosion/explosion of a long-standing political party. This is an event of MAGNITUDE. If you believe (and you might) that it has happened because of ‘rants’, I would respectfully suggest that you are mistaken in perception (if what you mean is irrational). To speak about what has happened and why seems eminently interesting. What I can say is that some people I know who think like I do have indicated happiness that Trump ‘opened political space’ and has allowed other political perspectives to come back in from exile (as it were).
I have put on a titanium helmet and will take my beating off the air …
😉
Trump did NOT “accurately describe our nation’s problems.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/factchecking-trumps-big-speech/
Chris said, “Trump did NOT “accurately describe our nation’s problems.” “
That is a matter of opinion.
No, it’s not. It’s a fact.
You might want to use more than one source for your “facts” like most of the rest of us do.
Chris, you’re a fair guy and a smart guy, so you should recognize this as classic “FactChecking” as partisan rebuttal. See all those “yes, but” sentences? This is why I revile factchecking generally: this is the BEST of the services, and it still cheats.
1. Ask Israel if it thinks that the Iran deal makes it easier for Iran to become a nuclear power.
2. “Trump claimed that Clinton “plans a massive — and I mean massive — tax increase.” But experts say 95 percent of taxpayers would see “little or no change” in their taxes under Clinton’s plan.” That doesn’t disprove the statement, does it?
3. Trump said, “America is one of the highest-taxed nations in the world.” The U.S. has one of the highest business tax rates,but— And business rates were what Trump was talking about. I am sick of this from the new media. We know, and they know, that Trump is a lazy, infuriatingly vague speaker. When he said the judge was “mexican,” he meant “Mexican-American.” When he said Mexico is “sending us rapists” he obviously didn’t mean that all illegals or Mexicans were rapists. This isn’t factchecking. It’s intentional misconstruing.
4.Trump was correct to say that “homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s 50 largest cities,” but criminology and statistics experts disagree with his conclusion that a one-year increase in some cities means that “decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed.” Chris, THAT’S NOT FACT-CHECKING! That’s called appealing to authority to challenge an opinion.
And so on.
I really hate this crap, masquerading as objective checking and delivering a partisan argument instead. You should hate it too, even when you don’t like the target.
And remember, I don’t like this target either.
“1. Ask Israel if it thinks that the Iran deal makes it easier for Iran to become a nuclear power.”
Like…the whole country, or just Netanyahu, who appeals to irrational fears about as much as Trump does?
Most experts I’ve read have said the Iran deal has made it harder for Iran to develop nukes and has slowed down their aspirations.
Trump also said we got “nothing” out of the deal, which is ridiculous.
“2. “Trump claimed that Clinton “plans a massive — and I mean massive — tax increase.” But experts say 95 percent of taxpayers would see “little or no change” in their taxes under Clinton’s plan.” That doesn’t disprove the statement, does it?”
I’d say it’s enough to show the statement was misleading. When people hear “massive tax increase,” do you really think they assume it will only apply to the top 5% of earners? Do you think that’s what the speakers want them to assume when they hear that?
“3. Trump said, “America is one of the highest-taxed nations in the world.” The U.S. has one of the highest business tax rates,but— And business rates were what Trump was talking about.”
And yet the effective corporate tax rates for the US are among the lowest in the world. Again, misleading.
“I am sick of this from the new media. We know, and they know, that Trump is a lazy, infuriatingly vague speaker. When he said the judge was “mexican,” he meant “Mexican-American.” When he said Mexico is “sending us rapists” he obviously didn’t mean that all illegals or Mexicans were rapists. This isn’t factchecking. It’s intentional misconstruing.”
No, it’s just fact-checking the statements Trump said, and the ones people heard, not whatever you think he actually meant. Who knows what Trump means when he says these vague things? I doubt he even knows half the time. It is completely fair to fact-check his actual words, not your interpretations of them.
“4.Trump was correct to say that “homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s 50 largest cities,” but criminology and statistics experts disagree with his conclusion that a one-year increase in some cities means that “decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed.” Chris, THAT’S NOT FACT-CHECKING! That’s called appealing to authority to challenge an opinion.””
You seem to be suggesting that citing criminologists and statistics experts if an “appeal to authority” in the fallacious sense, when it’s actually perfectly rational. And it shows that Trump’s “opinion” on crime stats is baseless–we can’t know that there has been a reversal in crime trends yet, but Trump stated it as fact. That’s EXACTLY what fact-checkers should be pointing out.
1. Most experts I’ve read have said the Iran deal has made it harder for Iran to develop nukes and has slowed down their aspirations. I’ve read them. I’ve also read more convincing arguments that Obama’s deal guarantees a nuclear Iran, just one Obama won’t have to deal with. In any event, opinions aren’t facts. Trump’s opinion is supportable.
2.”I’d say it’s enough to show the statement was misleading. When people hear “massive tax increase,” do you really think they assume it will only apply to the top 5% of earners? Do you think that’s what the speakers want them to assume when they hear that?” That’s not Fact-checking. The statement is factually accurate. For conservatives, the issue is raising taxes, not who its raised on.
3. I don’t know what you mean by “And yet the effective corporate tax rates for the US are among the lowest in the world.” Companies aren’t leaving fo Europe because they’ll be taxed higher. Do you mean deductions? That’s not the issue, and you are the one being misleading.
4. “You seem to be suggesting that citing criminologists and statistics experts if an “appeal to authority” in the fallacious sense, when it’s actually perfectly rational. And it shows that Trump’s “opinion” on crime stats is baseless–we can’t know that there has been a reversal in crime trends yet, but Trump stated it as fact. That’s EXACTLY what fact-checkers should be pointing out.”
Baloney. You don’t check an opinion with another opinion. That’s my point. Fact-checking involves pointing out, for example, that the “77%” figure is a lie. Arguing with the opinion that a trend will continue—and if police forces can’t police because they are being assassinated if they don’t arrest people and sacrificed to the mob if they try and end up shooting someone, I guarantee Trump will be right beyond your worst nightmares.
“That’s not Fact-checking. The statement is factually accurate. For conservatives, the issue is raising taxes, not who its raised on.”
If Trump is elected, millions of Americans will die.
That too is factually accurate, in the same way.
“Millions of Americans will die anyway.”
That’s how FactCheck would check that statement.
But you’ve just stated that Trump was being factually correct. So was I, to the same extent. Just really, really misleading in the implications, no?
Maybe we’re talking past each other here. What Trump said was technically correct, but de facto completely misleading. The notional tax rates on businesses in the US bears no relationship to the amount actually paid, does it?
Summary of Trump’s speech:
One People! One Nation! One Leader!
Yes, that’s exactly what is so alarming.
I don’t see anything alarming or inappropriate about “One People! One Nation! One Leader!” I’m alarmed that any US citizen would think it was alarming.(Zoe gets a pass because she’s not American.) One People means a national culture. We’re all Americans, and divisions of race, religion, gender and ethnicity should not precluded a strong common culture. American cultural values are beneficent, successful, and celebrate autonomy, achievement, liberty, and personal responsibility. Good. The current President has devoted much of his time and words to eroding that culture, and this is the backlash the effort deserves.
One Nation—I’m sorry, that anyone finds that disturbing is weird. Yes, Barry prefers world government. He is tragically, arrogantly wrong, as usual. The World is welcome (and advised) to follow the example of the US. The US abandons its crucial responsibilities by following the World. Progressives think “the US is the only advanced country to…” is a cogent argument against US policies and culture. It isn’t. If the US had followed that logic, it wouldn’t exist.
One Leader? The system was set up for the US to have a single executive. but one tempered and limited by institutions. That doesn’t mean the Presidency isn’t “one leader,” and that the one leaders shouldn’t lead…and not from “behind,” either.
To repeat myself, the problem within Trump’s speech was that an unstable, ignorant, rash, uneducated, sexist, inarticulate, disorganized, crude, unethical narcissist was giving it.
Yes Jack. That’s why he’s been so unsuccessful in all areas of his life. Poor dear.
Ah. So success equals talent and virtue. Donald Trump inherited both his real estate business and his fortune from his father. The number of boobs who managed to “succeed” given that sort of head start is legion. Trump is in the gambling and human exploitation business, with multiple bankruptcies and multiple scams, two divorces and many people hurt—on Ethics Alarms, that’s not the definition of “success.” You’re really impressed with this slob? How sad. How very sad.
It’s not “one leader” in the sense you describe that is alarming. It’s in the sense of one leader who makes all of the rules that is alarming. I believe a “leader” like Donald Trump, Barak Obama, and all of the former leaders who learned to abuse executive privilege, pervert the Supreme Court, and defang Congress, has the potential to take us far from the intent of the Constitution. I had hoped a Republican would reverse some of the damage. Now I have come to realize that Republicans are just as bad for the fate of the Constitution as any liberal. I find it troubling and scary. Clearly not a concern shared by many.
“To repeat myself, the problem within Trump’s speech was that an unstable, ignorant, rash, uneducated, sexist, inarticulate, disorganized, crude, unethical narcissist was giving it.”
Just like the speaker of the original Deutsch. “Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer!” Except he was less egotistical.
Please, if you can, imagine the speaker here is some obscure middle european politician whose influence on history was scant.
Jack, please, for the love of mike, study the speeches of the 1930s. “America First”. Listen to the speeches of Hitler, with subtitles. Today he’s viewed as some kind of evil monster, a demonic cardboard cutout. That’s with the benefit of hindsight. The view when he was making speeches just like Trump’s was very different. Much of what he spoke was good. Your assessment of Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer was exactly what was thought about Hitler’s speeches at the time.
When I see a speech given in that style, regardless of content, my hackles rise. I can speak German reasonably well, and can even understand Hitler’s outrageously Bayerische accented oratory.
I’m Australian, not American. I don’t have your faith in the mystical powers of checks and balances, not when a candidate has declared an intent to have laws passed to enable purging of the government payroll – which includes Federal Judges lower than the SCOTUS – of political opponents, and to have the opposing candidate jailed.
Of course Trump would never actually do that. Any more than he’d ever win the GOP nomination, the idea is absurd….
There are far too many unconstitutional laws on the books which take years, not days, to overturn. When an administration has a compliant enough legislature to pass them in days or even hours, and when they hit a judiciary that moves at a more sedate pace, the checks are illusory, the balances mere fictions.
I’ve often criticised the Left for crying Wolf. For taking a tiny, tiny shred of truth and blowing it out to insane proportions. For the Hyperbole and ridiculous exaggeration that seems characteristic of US partisan politics. The danger was, and is, that when a genuine threat comes along, any warning will be seen as the usual partisan BS.
Jack, you should have a really bad feeling about this guy. Shivers down your spine. Hackles rising. Not because of what he definitely is, but because of the hopefully remote possibility of what he might be. The safeties have been removed by the Defence Authorisation Act and similar legislation, and the custom of using Executive Orders to keep the country minimally functional despite a dysfunctional Congress.
Bingo.
Agreed. It is the PRE-Hitler history that needs closer examination now: the overturning of social standards and personal freedoms, and the setting aside of rights both legal and taken-for-granted up until Hitler came to power in 1933. Before he destructured the country so it could be rebuilt as “Ein Volk, Ein Reich”, with himself as “Ein Fuhrer,” Hitler’s party garnered support across the whole spectrum of the population by capitalizing on social unrest, prejudice, and current fears of those who were “einen als die anderen” (different from the others). He focused on a weak economy and military, tossing them together with unemployment to invent the idea of (an unlikely) rebuilding and expansion of the military that included a whole new navy and air force. He exploited fears of imminent invasion by foreign powers, and touted the (very unlikely) idea of regaining national pride by overturning the Treaty of Versailles. In language rather more precise than Trump’s but no less sweet to the ears of a dissatisfied, gullible, short-sighted public, Hitler lied and then made some of the lies come true — for instance, when not being able to overturn the Treaty, he broke it — and by manufacturing real job openings in the workforce … just by pulling all the women out of it.
Lots of good stuff like that. They had no idea what they were getting. But we do. The real danger is that Trump, given the chance, might actually find ways to deliver on his (garbled or unstated) promises.
Concur.
Hitler is for us the emblem of ontological malevolence. It functions almost at the same level as Christians speaking of Satan. Once the emblem of Hitlerian evil is brought out — I suggest — it often seems as though further rational conversation is impossible. Not that it is not still a conversation, it is, but rather that it turns more into a rehearsal, an enactment, of known, practiced and predicatable tropes.
I have a feeling that in some circles there mere mention of this — as an observer looking down on it as it were — will be seen as problematic in itself, yet it seems to be a role I have carved out for myself.
I am very interested to hear more (or at least to be provided with a few more clues) as to the stage that has been set for the rise of a tyrannical demogogic leader that will turn America into a Fourth Reich (you have made mention of the Defense Authorization Act, use of executive orders and such). If the stage has been set, and if it has been set in the psychology of a people, then it may not matter if Trump manifests it. It is being manifest and no one can oppose it. This seems to follow from your assertion.
I am also interested int he comparison between Germany’s situation in the 30s and America’s in the 2010’s. National Socialism and fascism was said to be a reaction against a substantial power-putsch by active Communist or Marxian forces. Do you see Trump and his constituency as rising up to battle ‘communism’ or a sharp turn toward a socialistic state? Could they be said to be representing any value at all? Or just an orgiastic and celebratory wallowing in malevolence?
It seems that once one has made that comparison (Hitler-Trump) one has no choice but to carry it through to its logical conclusion.
Trump hasn’t written anything as turgid – not to say psychotic – as My Struggle – a crime against German Literature.
His speeches though… are redolent of the same language.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FGVBn_3EjmE
Wow, Zoe. Your assertions are strange indeed, and yet I do think they must be made. The way that our concepts of the present are constructed — built on a post-war platform — a man or a political movement which would actually take it upon itself to expel millions of Mexicans and to assert its own boundary must be interrpeted as a Nazi Evil.
As Bill O’reilly points out (though he does not say it in this way) there is NO WAY to oppose, to resist, to reverse or to get rid of the Meso-American invasion. You can only accept it. And then modify your politics, your political system, to accomodate a large Mexican national population.
Curiously, what I notice is that America is hogtied (not sure if that is the right word) by its own rule of law. Therefor, it is now becoming and can only further become a multiethnic society, a multi-cultural society, and along bizarre mercantile lines: a Walmart Federal Nation. Yet it will lose and is losing it ‘national character’ (its former national character) as it morphs into another national character altogether.
The ‘face’ of that is in essence the Democratic Party. They know what they are, and they know what they must do to secure their own rulership position.
You know that there is an alternative here? I think you allude to it. Wasn’t it Lincoln himself that undertook the Constitutional Dictatorship: the ‘crisis government’. It has a long history in Europe. This is I think what you are getting at. But you obviously desire to see that, and any similar process, as an Evil.
I do think you are onto something, in some sense. The future will be strange indeed, and I think everyone recognizes this.
*Bingo*. Such is the power of tropes. They frame perception and guide it along …
Godwin’s law may have reached its expiry date. I don’t think anyone could object to Erdogan’s recent actions in Turkey as being very redolent of those of Josef Vissarionich Dzugashvili, the “Man of Steel” for that matter.
Note, it’s the methods I’m referring to, not the objectives.
Wait—have you missed all of my posts about Trump? I had a bad feeling about this guy more than a decade ago. I’m the one who suggested that the GOP should ban him from the race. I’m the one who advocated Welching him in the debates. You didn’t notice that I have written that as despicable and untrustworthy Hillary Clinton is (it’s a fact, not an opinion), I will vote for her to make sure Trump loses. How much clearer can I be?
None of which is to agree that anything in the speech itself was intrinsically un-American. Americans want strong leadership, and have been burdened by a weak President, who has tried to compensate for his weakness by undermining many of the checks and balances, which work. Trump’s not Hitler; he’s too dumb to be Hitler. He just thinks being President is like being a CEO. It isn’t. If elected, he’d have the same experience the generals elected President have had.
Trump isn’t Hitler. But if he gets a compliant Congress (and so far the GOP has been very compliant, especially many who know better) and passes a “Law for the Restoration of a Professional Government Service” auf Deutsch “Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums” as he has said he will… and if (a big If) it extends to Federal Judges, plus an executive order vetoing funding of any implementation of contempt penalties against the Administration…
Many people on both sides of the political fence would welcome the arraignment of HRC on a variety of charges. A sizeable fraction of Trump supporters would insist the charge be Treason, the penalty, Death. Many others would see that as insanely extreme, but wouldn’t actually do more than vocally object. The same Trump supporters would like to see the same charge levelled against Obama.
That would lead to massive civil unrest, which could be blamed on Muslims, and put down harshly… especially if it were all perfectly legal, and the 4th Estate dealt with preemptively.
The main defence against this kind of thing would be an uncooperative Congress. Actually, it’s the on!y defence left.
I really don’t think this will happen. But if it starts to under a Trump administration, if he starts doing the things he says he’ll do, then the system as you know it is gone.
Thanks Zoe. I had come to the same conclusion but was still working on expressing it for eight minutes while you banged out your more eloquent and currently informed post.
Nope. Just scaremongering. Obama had both Houses and still couldn’t get his far less offensive agenda through. More likely is that Trump’s massive failure causes a mad backlash against rational conservatism, and the Left, as is its tendency of late, starts strangling personal liberty.
I hope you’re right. In fact, I hope the experiment isn’t performed.
Zoe: “I really don’t think this will happen. But if it starts to under a Trump administration, if he starts doing the things he says he’ll do, then the system as you know it is gone.”
_______________________________
A couple of observations from a political innocent.
More important than what you think won’t happen is what you imagine might. The associations made, the videos put up, the imagination gone hysterical. I am interested in the phenomenon of political hysteria and social hysteria and I link it to irrational emotionalism. One thing I have noticed, or think I have noticed, is that the left-leaning camp is particularly susceptible and also makes use of ‘hysterical tropes’. At the slightest evidence or indication of some idea or policy or potential proposed by a right-leaning or conservative faction, the left trots out the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and gives a face to each one. And it functions in exactly the way that you have indicated: “No, no, he’s not Hitler” and yet in image, in idea, and in association and through image which speaks to something sub-rational you have in fact done just that. And this sort of imagery, which is a programming at a sub-rational level, hs a tremendous power and effect. Which is why these techniques are used.
Whether it is ‘true’ or not is irrelevant because truth no longer matters (if it ever did). What matters is what is desired to be true, which means the desires of the imagination, which means the forefronting of political paranoia, which means that rational discourse is back-burnered or taken from the stovetop entirely.
I wonder if essentially the same phenomenon is occurring with the BLM hysteria? There is an essay today in the NYTs by Nikole Hannah-Jones where she describes what amounts to her emotional and if you will subconscious or ‘imagined’ relationship to the various police killings. Stepping back from the essay and looking at it objectively it is almost 100% pure imagination. She wakes in bed and imagines her own relationship to the haunting images she has seen. The actual facts do not matter and they are not relavant. Multiply her subjective reaction by 1 million or 10 million or 100 million and understand that some seem to be feeding themselves off of blood images like the blood Odysseus offered to Tiresias and a whole spectral world becomes visible and is given voice. Nikole Hannah-Jones excludes a white person from being able to understand her black relationship to this and that much is true. Because it is ‘private imagination’. Or imaginal rehearsal ‘by invitation only’.
Once you have primed a people to react hysterically, to be an hysterical people, I’d suppose that some great part of the work has been done. But when I look around me I do not notice right-wing brown shirts striking Nazi poses. I notice troops of lefty activists with revolutionary glint in their eyes who are on the psychological hunt for Great Enemy of Man. They have identified that they are Michael’s servants in the terrestrial drama; that they have been ordained in their role of Justice Warrior. They know they are just and as someone recently noted here also among ‘the Enlightened’. They know what is true and good and right and they also know What Is To Be. They’ve read from the invisible providential scrolls and are Truth Revealers.
And because they know this they know who to hate, and with the slightest signal — just a word in fact — they can channel that hatred and anger and frustration toward the the object they have identified. This is a profound act of the will. This is a real form of power. It is an act against Ontological Malevolence. Really, it is a general thing, in fact it is a ‘spiritual’ thing, a non-incarnate thing, against which they fight. I mean they rally to this fight through an exalted sentiment.
I am reminded of the idea of ‘spiritual war in high and low places’ (Ephesians 6:12 ‘For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world powers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens’) My theory is that we live in a ‘post-Christian culture’ and yet a great deal of the underlying structure of the religion (the metaphysic) still operates. In fact, unmoored from this understanding it gets accentuated in bizarre ways. It is easy to call to mind a young idealistic Bernie Sanders devotee-activist and to see him or her through this lens).
(No wonder Beth and Chris won’t talk to me! I am dark and evil like a tarantula come crawling out of a bag of marshmallows).
(I have engaged here in a form of poetical rhetoric and allusion to express a real phenomenon. You can only really speak of such phenomena through allusion and with images since it is a subject of the imagination. My general idea is that we actually exist in an imagined world (a world that plays in our imagination) and a great deal of it is imaginary. This does not make it unreal. Naturally, this is related to some Platonic ideas and once again I’d recommend Heidegger’s essay on Plato’s Cave metaphor).
‘…such phenomena’ (in place of ‘phenomenon’).
It would mean a great deal if this would be corrected.
I understand. I’ll fix it. I’m surprised you weren’t equally troubled by the misspelling of marshmallows, but I fixed that too.
No marshmallows in Venezuela.
Not so. It is kmown as: ‘malvavisco’, ‘esponja’, o ‘dulce de merengue blando’.
Not as common as the common tarántula though…
Etimología ‘malva’: nombre genérico que deriva del Latín malva, -ae, vocablo empleado en la Antigua Roma para diversos tipos de malvas, principalmente la malva común (Malva sylvestris), pero también el “malvavisco” o “altea” (Althaea officinalis) y la “malva arbórea” (Lavatera arborea).
I was surpirsed to find out how ancient is the use of this plant. Apparently goes back to Egypt. Has curative properties and originated as a medicine.
This is what America needs: a healing National Marshmallow.
What I’m trying to say is that if the year was 1932 in Germany, on the evidence, I’d agree with you. There had been no previous example back then.
But the list of “surely he wouldn’t really do that”s is growing.
Surely Trump wouldn’t really withdraw from NATO…
… shut down the Internet…
… muzzle news editors…
… put restrictions on muslims…
… purge the civil service….
… torture terrorists’ families…
… issue illegal orders to the military
etc etc.
Those must all be exaggerations, misinterpretations, gaffes, hyperbole, even mischaracterisations by opponents, taken out of context.
They really might be, genuinely. But from a 1932 viewpoint, there was one middle european politician who had a shorter list, if anything. Surely he couldn’t really mean what he said. That would be insane. It must all have been exaggerations, misinterpretations, gaffes, hyperbole, even mischaracterisations by opponents, taken out of context, as was said at the time by all but a few.
That didn’t end well. So while Jack might see no cause for alarm in Ein Volk Ein Reich Ein Fuhrer, while still agreeing that Trump is unacceptable in any way, I fear that any post-mortem of a Trump regime might start with “It wasn’t that we hadn’t been warned…”
That list of course in 1932 was only a start. This one might be too, and under the Bush and especially Obama administrations, and some exceedingly defferential SCOTUS decisions, the safeties have been by and large removed. An enabling act isn’t even needed, just the Will to ignore the Constitution and abide by the law.
Surely Hillary wouldn’t really turn over core American rights to control by international bodies…
… tax Internet use to avoid massive debt from paying for national free college, nationalized health care, and a guaranteed living wage
… give the US a totalitarian-style news media, with journalists being a loyal arm of state propaganda
…hamper law enforcement and eliminate prison-time for many offenses, leading to 70s-style crime spikes.
…sign laws legalizing harmful or addictive drugs
… allow unrestricted legal and illegal immigration of Muslims and other groups
… allow Islamification, as in Paris, with a resulting in rampant terrorism
.. encourage rampant anti-male gender preferences in college and the workplace
..usher through the first amendment ever to limit freedon of speach in order to end Citizens United
…sign anti- Fifth Amendment and pre-crime legislation that blocks Second Amendment right based on traits and conduct that suggest a likelihood of breaking the law.
…accepts various forms of financial quid pro quo–aka “bribery” from foreign powers and mega-corporations to ensure policy favors
… torture terrorists’ families…
… issue illegal orders to the military
etc etc.
…appoint radical, anti-constitution Supreme Court Justices willing to gut the Commerce Clause, Due Process and other protections against government over-reach
…engage in secret schemes to rig local, state and national elections through dirty tricks
…use the IRS and other regulatory agencies to intimidate and punish political opponents.
Those must all be exaggerations, misinterpretations, gaffes, hyperbole, even mischaracterisations by opponents, taken out of context too, right?
Actually, I view the above worst case scenario as far, far more plausible than the Trump horrors, but reasonable minds can disagree.
Still, two can not only play this game, they both have plenty of ammunition to play it.
Well played!
It wasn’t hard.
Jack – I only included things Trump has actually said he explicitly intends to do.
If you can find HRC explicitly stating she will allow complete!y unrestricted immigration, then your list should have that on it. But if not, not.
It’s not a fair comparison. Trump has proven, and on some occasions said, that he doesn’t think before he says stuff, or thinks out loud. It literally doesn’t matter what he says he’ll do, other than to show us how irresponsible he is and how unfamiliar with the office and the law, as much of what he claims to want to do is impossible. In Clinton’s case, all we can do is judge her by what she has done, since what she says is either a lie or a pander in most cases.
Actually, I estimate that my Clinton list contains a higher probability of reality than your Trump list. On the other hand, there are things Trump might do or say that are more horrible than anything either of us could imagine.
So there’s that.
Now that Trump is the official Presidential nominee of the Republican Party, I can’t wait to see how they put lipstick on a pig in the 2016 Republican Platform.