The piece in question is one published in The Daily Banter. The author is Justin Rosario, self-described as a “center-left Jewish-Puerto Rican atheist liberal.” His essay came out just before Thanksgiving, and he titled it, Yes, You Should Shame Your Trump Voting Relatives At Thanksgiving Dinner
(They’ve gone beyond politics and should be treated like the pariahs they are).
Here are the guts of it, when he explains exactly what your Trump-voting relatives “are”:
They’re the people in Germany who stood by and watched the Jews be herded into concentration camps and murdered. Except they’re worse because at least the Germans had never seen anything like the rise of Hitler before. They had no frame of reference to understand what was happening to their country. Your Donald voting relatives have heard and read about Nazis their entire lives. They know and they didn’t care.
Yes, they will have a million excuses for why they voted for someone they knew was a monster but they’re all bullshit. It wasn’t the economy. It wasn’t ISIS. It wasn’t unemployment. It wasn’t Hillary’s emails. It wasn’t Bill’s affairs. It wasn’t Washington corruption. Every single reason they give is a lie and they know it. They wanted one thing and one thing only: To take “their” country back from that fucking n*gger in the White House. That’s it. End of line. Full stop.
Your Donald voting relatives were so freaked out that a black man was president that once Donald told them it was not just permissible to be racist but necessary, they leapt at the chance to put Those People back in their place. And in doing so, they knowingly elected a man that will be all the things they were so afraid Obama was going to be: A tyrant. A dictator. A bully. An autocratic pig that will disregard the rule of law and treat America like his own personal playground. A brutal despot that will silence the media, arrest his political opponents and use the full power of the government to destroy his enemies.
Observations:
1. If anything qualifies as hate speech, this does. Its only objective is to create hate—not illumination, not truth, not perspective, just plain, unreasoning, blind hate. The fact that the objective is to foment hate against one’s own family is especially sinister, and demands attention.
2. Rosario’s objective is the a complete commitment to social schism, assigning the worst qualities imaginable to those whose offense to civilization was disagreeing with the writer’s highly flawed choice for President. No intellectual, qualitative, analytical explanation for the damning vote is conceded: it must only be an endorsement of evil.
3. This is a pure form effort to de-legitimize the Trump victory and impending Presidency by not only demonizing him, but the Republican Party and anyone who voted for him. It is a rejection not just of Trump, but civil debate, democracy, dissent, and opposing political views. Only we are right and good, Rosario believes. They who disagree with us must intend evil, be motivated by evil, are evil.
4. This is, in method and motive, a totalitarian screed—ironic, since among the evils Trump is found summarily guilty of is a totalitarian mindset. It is, in fact, Trump’s opposition which, after labeling him anti-democratic for not pledging to accept the results of the election, is now attempting to undermine the election and democracy in every way possible: seeding fear, protesting the results, demanding a change in the rules, denying the legitimacy of the Electoral College, holding futile recounts, and, of course, “shunning” and denigrating the half the nation and its values.
5. Either Rosario is a world contender for the Lack of Self Awareness Championship, or he is intentionally hypocritical. He engages in racism to accuse others of being racist. He employs hate to accuse others of hate. He makes gross and unsupported assumptions about a man and his supporters, the essence of bigotry.
6. Elsewhere in the same article, the author wields unconscionable and hypocritical weapons against Trump and his supporters, guilt by association, that old standby of red-baiters, prime among them. When Obama’s links to figures like Reverend Wright and William Ayers, and the support of the New Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam were used to tar him in 2008, the left was apoplectic. Now that some unsavory groups and individuals support Trump, the same individuals who defended Obama from guilt by association are using that support to smear Trump.
7. The despicable essay is one of many traveling the web with the purpose of inciting mindless fear in the vulnerable, ignorant, gullible, weak-minded and paranoid. Fear is the main weapon of choice the Left has settled upon to undermine the new, duly-elected President before he has spent a day on the job. The ahistorical and defamatory comparison with Hitler is the prize lie: nothing, and I do mean nothing, Trump has ever done, said or promised either echoes Adolf Hitler or hints of fascism.
8. Anyone who seriously thinks Donald Trump is a “monster” doesn’t know what a monster is. This is an ad hominem attack based on animus rather than truth. Advocating enforcing the immigration laws does not make someone a monster. Admitting that there is an inherent problem allowing into the country many members of a foreign culture that resist assimilation and includes significant numbers of individuals prone to terrorist acts does not make someone a monster. Even blurting out half-baked and constitutionally ignorant ideas for addressing the problem doesn’t come within 500 furlongs of justifying calling someone a monster. Opposing Obamacare doesn’t make someone a monster. The increasing theme of progressive political activism for the past eight years has been that anyone who doesn’t agree with progressive cant is a monster…and that itself is monstrous.
9. Some Ethics Alarms readers get upset when I point this out, but again, the constant last ditch defense against criticism of Barack Obama on the merits (his eight years have been a disaster of historic proportions, especially for his party) is that his critics are racists. This has been used as an illicit tactic to block media criticism, political criticism, and even the barbs of comics and satirists. Never in U.S. history have the deplorable results of a President’s leadership been so out of proportion to the criticism of them, and these are the primary reasons: intimidation and race-baiting. The strategy has been effective, but has come at a terrible cost, gouging deep and widening racial and partisan divisions in society.
9. I believe that Rosario is sincere, and that he is one of those souls who, after eight years of being told that anyone who opposes the President who rammed a massive, expensive, flawed health insurance plan down the public’s virtual maw using a lie to do it (I don’t have to repeat the lie, do I?), does not appreciate being told the national debt would be decreased only to see it raised by a staggering seven trillion dollars…doubts the efficacy of a President who presided over scandalous incompetence in one agency and department after another, usually with no accountability resulting, exchanged five terrorists for a deserter, paid millions for terrorist hostages, and agreed to release billions in funds to a terrorism sponsoring state pledged to wipe Israel off the map in exchange for a promise that past experience says that nation will not keep…doesn’t trust the judgment of a POTUS who let Syria explode into an international disaster after botching an intervention in Libya and destabilized Iraq after it was finally under control and allowed his allies and a partisan and politicized Justice Department to undermine law enforcement and a great deal more…must be a racist, since that is the only reason any sentient citizen would ever find fault with such things.
10. I believe that thus deranged, Rosario really embraced the Bizarro World logic that no informed citizen who eschews the opportunity to vote for an all-white national ticket headed by Presidential candidate who seems incapable of telling the truth, admits in speeches to a Wall Street firm she was paid $600,000 to give that she has a public position and a real position, attacks her opponent for being a sexual predator after she rose to national power through her loyalty to another sexual predator who will follow her into the White House if she gets there, at various times proposes to remove constitutional rights from individuals “under suspicion” without due process of law, to make flag-burning a crime, to limit access to guns or confiscate them like Australia, uses her position as Secretary of State and expected election as President to raise millions from nations expecting favors and assistance, all after pledging to Congress that she would not, and whose surreptitious and bungled violation of her own department’s policies on handling official communications, destruction of likely evidence and trail of lies in an attempt to deny doing so nearly got her indicted and probably should have...could do so without being—wait, what?–a racist.
11. What possible motive could a pundit have for spreading this assertion about half the country, and deliberately promoting it to fellow Clinton voters regarding their own family members? The only one I can see is to try to drive the nation into civil war. What other motive could there be?Trying to divide the nation into incompatible groups based on hate and distrust is unethical. Why do I even have to write that?
12. Speaking of Hitler, how is spreading this outrageous, illogical, hysterical Big Lie to turn children against parents, sibling against sibling, black against white and generation against generation any less sinister than what the Nazis did to turn Germans against the Jews? And Rosario calls Trump a fascist.
13. When I read the revolution-tinged rhetoric from friends who I know—know—to be good and reasonable, if politically naive, too easily manipulated by propaganda, and still trusting of a news media that is untrustworthy, and hear the genuine fear from African-Americans, other minorities, mothers, women, gays and just ordinary Democrats, it is clear that no normal and rational analysis would cause them to let their emotions run wild this way. This fear, which can only exist if one believes that Republicans, conservatives and half the nation would submit to this imaginary Trump-Monster and allow his plans to reduce the U.S. to a Nazi Germany clone, has been created and inflamed by unethical published essays like this.
14. We should not just shrug off these pieces as inconsequential ravings of the hyper-partisan, because they are more than that. There are many of them, and they are tearing the country apart. They are posted with approval in the social media every day, and their poisonous effect is undeniable. The act of rebutting and condemning them is a bi-partisan civic duty.
UPDATE: Just so you don’t think this kind of hysterical fear-mongering is restricted to mouth-foaming wackos, here’s Neil Gabler writing on the website of PBS icon Bill Moyers:
America died on Nov. 8, 2016, not with a bang or a whimper, but at its own hand via electoral suicide…It turned out to be the hate election because, and let’s not mince words, of the hatefulness of the electorate. In the years to come, we will brace for the violence, the anger, the racism, the misogyny, the xenophobia, the nativism, the white sense of grievance that will undoubtedly be unleashed now that we have destroyed the values that have bound us….Who knew that so many tens of millions of white Americans were thinking unconscionable things about their fellow Americans? Who knew that tens of millions of white men felt so emasculated by women and challenged by minorities? Who knew that after years of seeming progress on race and gender, tens of millions of white Americans lived in seething resentment, waiting for a demagogue to arrive who would legitimize their worst selves and channel them into political power? Perhaps we had been living in a fool’s paradise. Now we aren’t….
Ethics Alarms 
“by a staggering seven billion dollars” should be ‘trillions’?
Thanks, fixed. The staggering thing is that 7 billion dollars wouldn’t be staggering…
Jack said, “We should not just shrug off these pieces as inconsequential ravings of the hyper-partisan, because they are more than that. There are many of them, and they are tearing the country apart. They are posted with approval in the social media every day, and their poisonous effect is undeniable. The act of rebutting and condemning them is a bi-partisan civic duty.”
You’ve hit the nail on the head!
Justin Rosario is a partisan idiot, suffering from an acute case of Histrionic Malevolence Syndrome. Justin should read your blog with an open mind and learn what reality is all about; although, I don’t think that’s a possibility for a political hack like Justin.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is spreading.
It’s almost like some elements of the political spectrum are actully stewing for a civil war…
But that kind of upending chaos would be a great imperative to come crashing in with a solve-all-problems *actual* totalitarian state to end the infighting.
I wonder if any powers have considered creating and exacerbating problems just to push the solution they’ve always wanted?
It certainly appears that way.
By the by, a lot of these hysterics on the Left by default knee jerk to accusations of “you’re a Nazi”. Here’s a good time to discuss Who Goes Nazi?
I wonder how many of those people are Communists who praised Fidel Castro.
I’m not a betting man but if I was I’d bet many to most of them.
I agree with much of what you said, but from the viewpoint of a former Democrat who voted for Bernie Sanders. I am a progressive who is extremely disappointed with the Democratic Party.
However, my understanding of the debt situation was that Bush didn’t include the cost of the wars he started on the books, and Obama did, in order to deal with that cost. To be honest, I stopped watching TV years ago and have been just struggling to survive, take care of elderly parents, and get my son through college, so I’m not aware of what Obama has done with the debt in his second term.
I enjoy your blog. It’s important to revive the focus on ethics, and get away from the blatant lies, name-calling and divisiveness that the oligarchs are using to control us.
The debt is the debt. No money spent during the Bush Administration was “off the books.” What’s spent on ongoing activities, like Medicare and wars, are still the responsibility of the current President.
The rationalizations used to avoid pinning Obama’s budget flagrancy where it belongs has been a story in itself.
“the cost of the wars he started on the books”
Which wars are you talking about?
The war in Afghanistan started when the Taliban refused to cough up Bin Laden for his attack on us in September of 2001…do you remember that?
The war in Iraq began in the 90s when Saddam invaded Kuwait…you do remember that Bush, 43, only lifted the ceasefire after Saddam had been egregiously violating the terms for a decade…you do remember that right?
So, which two wars are the ones he started?
That is some pretty bold spin, tex.
No, it’s actually facts. Should I link to the long discussions here on the topic to you save you and I the trouble?
Chris said, “That is some pretty bold spin”
Please tell us exactly how what Tex wrote was spin.
How about the part where he says the Iraq War started in the 90s? Do a simple Google search; every result I’m looking at marks it as starting in 2003. I am well aware of the Gulf War and other military actions by the U.S. during that time, but every one else but Tex seems to understand that the Iraq War was a separate thing. And yes, Bush started the war. It is also a factual statement that Bush started the war in Afghanistan. Whether he was justified or not is a totally separate question, but tex was trying to muddy the waters by acting as if Bush did not start these two wars, when it is a fact that he did.
Actually, Afghanistan started that war by sponsoring a bombing of our Pentagon and office buildings (unless you think we started WWII by declaring war on Japan), and the Gulf War was in a cease fire that Iraq expressly violated the terms of, triggering US action. This isn’t part of the “Bush Lies and People Died” narrative, but it is true nonetheless. Since the Gulf War never officially ended, Tex is correct. And Saddam, who invaded Kuwait, and who breached the terms under which the hostilities were suspended, started one war or both, depending how you care to describe them.
For clarification: I hold that the Iraq War was a mistake, but only because the US did not have the support of the corrupt UN, many of whose members were profiteering off of Saddam’s manipulation around the sanctions.
To show you that I do have a Jacksonian streak, I would have given the UN an ultimatum: enforce the cease fire with us, or find another patsy to pay your bills…and be out of NYC in six months. If and when Trump throws down a gauntlet to the corrupt UN, I’ll be applauding.
You do know what a cease fire is don’t you? Please tell me you do…
Yes Bush was the one who intiated the calls to enforce the ceasefire agreement that Saddam violated… and in short hand we’ve called that a separate war. But do your best to deal in facts please.
Also, regarding Afghanistan, by your spin, I’m to presume that if a school yard bully violently pushed you to the ground and you got up and popped a solid hook across the jaw, I should accuse you of starting a war?
Phenomenal…
Saran?
Somehow apple thinks that’s the best Saddam autocorrect.
Very Star Trek! I fixed it…
Don’t you remember the episode where the Federation bankrupted itself going to war on a planet just for the dilithium crystals?
Do you really not understand how declarations of war work? The US declared war in both instances.
Afghanistan was justified.
The Iraq War was not.
Either way, presidents have to take responsibility for the wars that happen under their watch, and I’m sure Bush would be the first to do so. Your question “which wars?” was willfully obtuse.
But this was just a tangeant started by you to detract from Sarah’s initial point that the wars were unfunded. Certainly you can concede that Bush bears responsibility for that?
I’m not confident you understand foreign interactions, especially wars. Did world war 2 for us start when congress declared war or when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor? It’s pretty easy, but I bet you’ll spin it.
Whether or not Iraq was justified in your opinion doesn’t change the reality that it was the method espoused to enforce the violations of the *cease-fire* of the previously unfinished Gulf War (which saddam started, though *you* might argue otherwise).
It’s phenomenally easy.
And I called her out on her misconstruction because it’s a classic lead in from the whacko-pacifist angle. Her entire arguement is clouded by it.
I suppose the war being unfunded is Bush’s fault, though let me dust off my constitution to determine where funding bills originate before they become law…
Yes Bush spent like a profligate sailor on the wars. Ok… your girl above tried to make that somehow mitigate Obama’s profligate spending.
It doesn’t.
Moyers always had it in him. He’s just become more obvious over the years.
So Moyers has virtual clones writing his garbage. What a surprise.
Jack said, “holding futile recounts”
Here’s an off-topic deflection regarding the recounts.
I had an conversation over the weekend with a friend who’s tends to be drawn towards conspiracy theories, we were talking about the recounts. We were talking about possible outcomes of the recount and one question he came up with was “interesting”; what happens if the recounts shows that Trump actually obtained many, many more votes than were originally counted and there is reasonable evidence that actual fraud was perpetrated by members of the political left trying to give Clinton an overwhelming win? Then I stuck my usual counter in; what happens if the recounts shows that Clinton actually obtained many, many more votes than were originally counted and there is reasonable evidence that actual fraud was perpetrated by members of the political right trying to give Trump an overwhelming win? We both ended up agreeing that both scenarios would undermine the integrity of our entire election process, likely trigger a national hand recount (where possible) of all paper ballots (but what’s done about 100% paperless voting machines), possibly delay the inauguration, and maybe even nullify the entire election.
My off-topic deflection question regarding this; what would actually happen if the Presidential election is nullified because of no confidence in the election process due to wide spread election fraud?
My friend, being the conspiracy kinda guy he is, says that Obama would stay in office and that’s the goal; I’m not sure what the answer is.
Tell your friend that if states don’t bother to appoint electors it works the same way as if no one got to 270.
If zero people receive presidential or vice-presidential electoral votes then the speaker of the house is next in the line of succession.
There is no mechanism for keeping a president on once her second term has expired. They become ineligible.
Conspiracy theories can, and should be, way out there in crazy town. But you have to stay inside the established framework. Like Obama can’t be president so he hides the CIA mind control device under the resolue desk and uses the next president as a meat puppet. Or ever president gets mind controlled by the device because it’s the Greys who are running everything form inside the hollow earth.
Lots of good stuff to work with.
valkygrrl said, “If zero people receive presidential or vice-presidential electoral votes then the speaker of the house is next in the line of succession.”
I don’t “think” the line of succession applies in this instance. Isn’t there something about if the election doesn’t elect the President outright then the House of Representatives chooses the next President from the top Presidential candidates? I’m just not knowledgeable enough in this to know for sure.
The house chooses between the top three electoral-vote getters. Each state delegation getting one vote. But your scenario had the election being nullified. No electors would be appointed so there’s no no votes to count.
The top three would be no one, no one, and Jaqen H’Ghar, um, I mean no one.
valkygrrl said, “The top three would be no one…”
Just because the election is nullified does not mean that the candidates are no longer candidates, they would still exist as candidates chosen by the people and that’s who the House should choose from.
You could also look at it as if they are all 100% equal at zero, so the House would have to choose between ALL of the available Presidential candidates.
If the House can choose someone that was NOT a Presidential candidate then maybe they could choose Jack Marshall as our next the President. 🙂
Honestly, I’m not well versed on this particular subject, that’s why I posted it.
They don’t choose between candidates. They choose between the three people who got the most electoral votes. The 12’th amendment spells it out.
valkygrrl said, “They don’t choose between candidates. They choose between the three people who got the most electoral votes. The 12’th amendment spells it out.”
But, but, but…
They all got the most – zero. Zero is the most if you compare that number to -10. It’s all relative 🙂 🙂 🙂
Something you completely failed to think about is the fact that I didn’t say that no one got any Electoral College votes, I said “Presidential election is nullified because of no confidence in the election process due to wide spread election fraud”; that’s a difference.
How? What causes it to be nullified?
As long as at least one state appoints at least one elector, the worst-case is deadlock. But that just leaves the next person in the succession acting as president until the deadlock is resolved.
Don’t know about your state, but Texas is casting electoral votes, I know for a fact. So there will be a top one, at least.
“If zero people receive presidential or vice-presidential electoral votes then the speaker of the house is next in the line of succession.”
Fake news, and I ask with as little meanness as possible, “Where the HELL did you get THAT idea?”
The Speaker is involved if and only if the President and VP DIE. If the Electoral College can’t elect anyone, the election is thrown into the House, as it has been three times, electing Jefferson, JQ Adams and (sort of) Hayes.
Um. Yeah. Fake news, really? Those words don’t mean what you think they mean. Fake news and gaming out someone’s conspiracy theory, are not the same thing.
Look, if zero people get electoral votes, as the conspiracy theory Zoltar Speaks! suggested, that means no one got 270. The house chooses between the top three vote getters. That would be no one, no one and no one.
With no president chosen, the incommoding vice-president would be acting president until a president was chosen. Except with no electors voting that would be the senate choosing between no one and no one.
When the presidency and the vice presidency are both vacant the next person in the line of succession is the speaker of the house.
Stop it. This is nonsense. The succession list does not, cannot, will not, apply to elections. If there are no electoral votes, then the House votes for whoever it wants to…I guess that theoretically includes the Speaker, or me.
Bad information. Fake News…close enough. You are wrong. That’s all.
No Jack you are wrong. The house can only choose between people who received electoral votes.
The succession list applies when offices are vacant. Think it through. If you have no one to swear in on January 20’th, you keep going down the list. It’d be like if after the electors voted, the president and vice-president elect were in a plane crash and both died. Jan 20’th the dead person would become president, vacate the office due to being dead and pass it on to the new vice-president who would become president and then vacate the office due to being dead. At that point the speaker would be sworn in.
Same principal, except that instead of being dead, there’s just no one who was chosen for the office.
It looks like it would turn into a Constitutional crisis of epic proportions.
Then there’s the scenario where a curse changes the elected President into a slug. Is the slug President? Is he incapacitated? Which amendments apply? We’ve had other slugs in the White House, like George H W Bush, or Franklin Pierce! Let’s argue about this for a while!
Can the slug communicate in terms a human would understand?
Sure! You know, like both Bushes…
If nobody receives electoral votes, then anyone is a top three vote getter. The position of President and VP would never be vacant, because the House would vote before the current President’s term has expired. It’s an idiotic hypo (sorry Zoltar), because there is no way an election would be “nullified.”
Jack said, “It’s an idiotic hypo (sorry Zoltar)”
Apology not needed.
Jack said, “…there is no way an election would be “nullified.”
No way? Isn’t that an open ended statement that directly implies “never”? I’d have to disagree with that one just on the implication of “never”.
I’ll stick with never. A science teacher once pointed out that due to entropy, one could not say with accuracy that a table would never rise on its own accord a millimeter or so, but given the odds, never is accurate enough.
If you look a bit further down the Constitution, to the 20th Amendment, this situation is addressed.
Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
I don’t know whether such a law has been enacted, although I would expect so, nor do I know what the provisions are. It would, however, be a separate statute than the one specifying presidential succession if the president dies or is removed from office.
OK, the middle paragraph was actually a quote from the 20th amendment, apparently I messed up my HTML tags.
“what would actually happen if the Presidential election is nullified because of no confidence in the election process due to wide spread election fraud?”
It wouldn’t be, at some point, like in 2000, a court will say “enough, it is finished, no more lawsuits, so what do the numbers show?”
Now, if there was truly NO CONFIDENCE in the election process, you’re discussing far graver options available to the people.
“The ahistorical and defamatory comparison with Hitler is the prize lie: nothing, and I do mean nothing, Trump has ever done, said or promised either echoes Adolf Hitler or hints of fascism.”
I’ve studied Hitler for over 30 years. Your statement is absolutely correct.
P.S. GWB got compared to Hitler endlessly, although social media only got off the ground in the final 2 years of his presidency. It didn’t apply then, and it sounds like crying wolf now. To many, many on the left, anyone who isn’t liberal is comparable to Hitler.
Making that accusation requires a general ignorance of Hitler and Nazi Germany.
Although more liberals than conservatives TEACH history, more conservatives KNOW history than libs, to whom it was “people who I don’t know who killed other people I don’t know somewhere I have never been.”
Although more liberals than conservatives are in positions to TEACH history.
Fixed that line for you.
“It’s almost like some elements of the political spectrum are actully stewing for a civil war…”
(chambers a round) I say bring it on. Enough is enough, and this kind of talk is way too much. If they want a civil war, once they lose the seat of government in 45 days they will be ill-equipped to fight it against camo-wearing rurals armed with high-powered, long-range rifles. The military and the police sure as hell will not fight it for them with a GOP president and the Democrats completely or partially out of power everywhere that matters much except California.
Seriously, that article doesn’t even merit the title article. It’s a rant, and one that any serious publication should be embarrassed to print. It’s also written from a very seriously flawed assumption: that we non-Democrat voters are a bunch of pantywaists who will crumple, cower, and hang our heads at a barrage of the same rhetoric used during the campaign, with a generous side helping of outrageous profanity, which didn’t stop us from voting in the first place.
Some of the writers of these meltdown pieces are even under the delusion that this rhetoric will shame us into making huge donations to the ACLU or SPLC as reparations for our terrible views and terrible decision. I KNOW my first impulse is to donate my vacation money for next year to an organization that litigates free speech and freedom of religion with gusto – for liberals, and right to bear arms not at all, or one that throws the label “hate group” around like candy at a parade.
Message, lefties who are still in meltdown mode:
1. We on the right are not puppy dogs and you are not our masters. We don’t run and hide when you talk crossly to us.
2. We are not children and you are not our parents. We don’t hang our heads and cry when you raise your voices to us and run when you threaten to throw a snit.
3. We are not your inferiors and you are not our superiors. You aren’t writing our evaluations or signing our checks at the end of the week, so what you think really means very little to us.
4. Nothing makes you inherently better, smarter, wiser, more forward-thinking or in any way more worthy than us, in fact a lot of your ideas are out and out hogwash that sounds good but doesn’t work in practice.
5. We are your equals, and as such we have as much right to demand respect and that civil discourse be just that: discourse. That means a dialogue, not you talk, we listen.
This kind of thinking is what put the left where it is now, which is not a position to call names from, and especially not to hurl vicious insults and accusations at friends and family who voted the other way from. Frankly I would have no problem with us conservatives starting to shut the shrill liberals out of our lives, telling them we’ll consider talking to them once they get a grip again, ignoring their emails and texts, blocking them on social media, not picking up the phone, always being busy if they want to meet. We have enough on our plates at this time of year that we don’t need to open the door to screaming and cursing and vicious attacks.
Oh, and if your curmudgeonly liberal uncle who hasn’t had an original thought since the Carter administration starts to play William O. Douglas to the assembled revelers, there’s nothing wrong with pulling him aside and saying “Uncle John, that’s enough. One more attempt to get anyone upset and you will have to leave.” There’s nothing wrong with telling your unreconstructed bra-burning aunt who keeps going on about how sexism stole the White House from Hillary that “Aunt Lena, I’m sorry, but I think it would be best for all concerned if you went home right now.” There is definitely nothing in the least wrong with grabbing your Bernie-or-bust firebrand nephew who compares you to the Nazis and says you are worse than a child molester by the ears, dragging him to the door, and throwing him headfirst down the concrete steps, telling him in no uncertain terms never to come back.
Let these ranters be alone with their principles and their anger. Principles won’t bake lasagna for them on Sunday, and anger will never invite them to its wedding, and neither of them is much good after a tough day at work. Hatred isn’t a good look, whether it comes from the right or the left.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/11/01/random-thoughts-n2239596
When they look at Trump, they see him reflecting the worst about them.
That is why they hate him.
Trump has used the left’s tactics against them, and that is not fair!
“Principles won’t bake lasagna for them on Sunday, and anger will never invite them to its wedding, and neither of them is much good after a tough day at work”
Good luck convincing them of that.
I wonder how many people will embrace the trope, “Then Let Me Be Racist”.
You are absolutely correct that all of this stuff undermines our ability to BE America and to function as a world leader. But I’m just enough of a “but what if” person that I keep all of this stuff in a mental folder in case any of it turns out to be true. I don’t believe it, but I don’t dismiss it as necessarily impossible. The problems come when you DO believe it AS necessarily true, with no competing information ever informing your entrenched position.
Did I EVER believe that the Clintons had people murdered? No. Is it totally out of the realm of possibility? No. Do I believe that there are political forces in the upcoming administration with ulterior motives? No. Is it EVER out of the realm of possibility? Nope.
The only way IMNSHO to maintain intellectual integrity (and avoid mental toxic shock) is to be informed of the “facts” as best gleaned, but keep your mind ready to accept new information, “facts,” and always be ready for the consequences if possible.
Of course, maybe it’s just because I binge-watched X Files while I was recuperating from my broken arm.
The truth IS out there… Sorry about the broken arm, though.
“I didn’t set out to destroy the world, Mulder. People did.”
Center-left?
Wait, this idiot describes himself as a Jewish atheist? Isn’t that an oxymoron? Judaism is a religion espousing one, omnipotent God, atheism is a religion espousing NO God, omnipotent or otherwise. Thus does he conform his idiocy, as being Jewish is neither a race nor a nationality. Consequently, his idiocy renders him nearly irrelevant, and Steve-O-In-NJ more correct than even he suspects.
Being Jewish can mean culturally as well as religiously. If your mom was Jewish you are automatically considered Jewish, even if you don’t follow the religion. A Jewish atheist, presumably, is someone who is culturally Jewish, but doesn’t follow any religion. Bill Maher, Mark Zuckerberg, Woody Allen, etc., are all examples. Barney Frank almost got onto the list, but actually once described himself as a left-handed gay Jew, to emphasize that he never felt like a member of any majority. This guy is just an idiot.
This means that he is defying HaShem
“Who knew that so many tens of millions of white Americans were thinking unconscionable things about their fellow Americans? Who knew that tens of millions of white men felt so emasculated by women and challenged by minorities? Who knew that after years of seeming progress on race and gender, tens of millions of white Americans lived in seething resentment, waiting for a demagogue to arrive who would legitimize their worst selves and channel them into political power?”
Sometimes I wish I could meet people on the street like this, just to personally tell them to get fucked. Emasculated men, threatened by minorities? As if there were no legitimate grievances, or reasons to vote for anyone other than Hillary. As if only had they been slightly more condescending, they might have been able to embarrass these voters into double-plus-good-think territory.
This Is Why You Lost. You lost because your labels are innefective from overuse. You lost because you lie. You lie like you breathe, to strangers, to your family, to yourself. You’ve lost legitimacy. You lost because you failed, utterly, at any attempt at self appraisal or critical thought. You lost because you deserved to lose. And at the time I hated it, I watched my TV in a strange mixture of incredulity and nervousness, but now, after seeing the reactions from the left, at how piss-poorly you learn your lessons, I’m every day reassured that America made the right choice. And if you don’t learn from this, if you continue to pretend that this was all a basket of deplorable -ists and -phobes, then you’re going to lose again and again until either you figure it out, or a Trump-esque candidate truly fucks something up.
HT, I suspect this guy is gay and has the usual arsenal of axes to grind against heterosexual guys.
As if there were no legitimate grievances, or reasons to vote for anyone other than Hillary.
There were no legitimate reasons to vote for Trump over Hillary, as Jack has spent the past year arguing. That’s what this rant is about. I don’t agree with it, but you’re misrepresenting his point here.
Which does not mean that if someone believes, as I think the vast, vast majority of Trump voters did, that there was a legitmate reason, that reason was necessarily or even probably racism, sexism, or xenophobia. Right?
Which does not mean that if someone believes, as I think the vast, vast majority of Trump voters did, that there was a legitmate reason, that reason was necessarily or even probably racism, sexism, or xenophobia. Right?
Not necessarily. I definitely think those issues played a part. Xenophobia, especially. Trump’s central issue was illegal immigration, which is currently at low levels; anyone who supported him primarily because of his hysterical stance on illegal immigration–which I’d wager includes the majority of his followers–was not operating from a rational worldview based on facts.
Chris, that’s just not a persuasive argument. “Low levels” are a relative term. Obama had announced that non-criminals were more or less welcome: they wouldn’t be deported. The same criminal lack of enforcement that today exists has lead to almost 12 million illegal residents. Not having control of the borders is irresponsible, dangerous and insane, and it’s a huge problem. Nothing hysterical about Trump’s position at all, and law is on his side. Since Trump never criticized legal immigrants—his wife is one, at least now—there is no justification for assuming that support for his immigration stance (I support the stance, but not his isiotic wall and deportation scheme) is xenophobic…since he’s on the right side of the issue.
Since Trump never criticized legal immigrants—his wife is one, at least now—there is no justification for assuming that support for his immigration stance (I support the stance, but not his isiotic wall and deportation scheme)
What? The “idiotic wall and deportation scheme” is his stance! A crucial part of his stance; it’s how he made a name for himself and separated himself from the other Republican candidates on this issue. You can’t say his “scheme” is not his “stance.” That’s like saying “I support Obama’s stance on healthcare, but I don’t support Obamacare.”
And the “idiotic wall and deportation scheme” was also crucial to Trump’s entire tone on this issue. Starting from “they’re rapists,” Trump’s overriding theme has been that immigrants–legal or otherwise–are ruining our country. This falls perfectly in line with his comments about Muslim refugees and other Muslim *legal* immigrants. How many times has he said that certain people “shouldn’t be in our country?” How many times has he used examples of LEGAL immigrants, even natural born citizens, committing acts of terrorism to claim he was “proven right?” You do remember that he started his political career by arguing that the president was a scary lying foreigner, right? To argue that Trump did not run a xenophobic campaign is as absurd as arguing that he’s not sexist.
His stance is that illegal immigrants should not be allowed to come here or receive benefits or praise for doing so, and that we need to address the problem by making it harder to breach the border and more difficult to stay.
His solutions to the problem he correctly identifies, however, are irresponsible.
Webster: STANCE: intellectual or emotional attitude
That’s how I use the word–you are welcome to use it differently. Trump’s stance is that he’s anti-illegal immigration.
His stance is that illegal immigrants should be allowed to come here or receive benefits or praise for doing so, and that we need to address the problem by making it harder to breach the border and more difficult to stay.
I assume you mean “should not be.” I appreciate you clarifying what you mean by “stance.” What you’re describing here is the stance of every Republican candidate. But of course, as you know, Trump was much more aggressively anti-immigration than any of them, so I’m not sure what the point of this diversion was.
I would describe Trump’s stance on immigration as “Illegal immigrants are primarily criminals, including murderers and rapists, though some are good people. We need to let fewer people in because illegal immigrants are taking our job and causing crime rates to increase. We can and should deport every single illegal immigrant here. We should build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. We should not accept any Syrian refugees because many will be terrorists. We need to either ban Muslim immigration or closely monitor all Muslim immigrants on a list.”
Whether you would describe that as a “stance” or not, I think my point was very clear.
His solutions to the problem he correctly identifies, however, are irresponsible.
They’re not just irresponsible. They are xenophobic. They are completely irrational, and that irrationality is motivated by fear of immigrants. Whether those immigrants are legal or not doesn’t make the fear any more rational, since most illegal immigrants or no danger to anyone.
How can you deny that Trump has based his campaign off of questioning the “American-ness” of even natural born citizens, from President Obama to the many American Muslims he has smeared? When he falsely claimed that he watched thousands of Muslims cheering after 9/11 in New Jersey, was that not a xenophobic lie meant to “otherize” American Muslims and set them apart from Good Americans? He started his political career fearmongering about scary foreigners and never stopped. This was overt, Jack.
Right: “not.” Fixed. Thanks.
“But of course, as you know, Trump was much more aggressively anti-ILLEGAL immigration than any of them, so I’m not sure what the point of this diversion was.”
There. Fixed that for you.
No, other Republicans give lip-service to being anti-illegal immigration, but most of them have been too cowardly to actually see remedies. And not all: Jeb Bush’s kinder, gentler approach was notable, and wrong.
Let’s see:
“Illegal immigrants are primarily criminals”
Trump never said that. Big Lie. He said they included criminals, and they do. And , of course, they are scofflaws by definition, and that’s not trivial.
including murderers and rapists,
He said that. It’s true.
We need to let fewer people in
Sneaky! He has never advocated reducing the number of immigrants, just illegals.
“because illegal immigrants are taking our job and causing crime rates to increase.”
That. and the fact that they broke the law to get here and stay. You don’t need the rest.
“We can..”
Agreed: stupid.
“and should deport every single illegal immigrant here.”
Impossible, ergo irresponsible.
We should build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.
Silly and dishonest.
We should not accept any Syrian refugees
Never said that. He said that there should be a halt until we “figure it out.” Not a ridiculous suggestion.
because many will be terrorists.
Good point.
We need to either ban Muslim immigration or closely monitor all Muslim immigrants on a list.”
Nope. He talked about monitoring new Muslim immigrants. Not irresponsible. Maybe not a policy I’d advocate, but not inherently wrong, either.
But his stance was that we should stop illegal immigration. Correctamundo.
Classic conflation of “vision” and “tactics” OR “attitudes” and “action”.
Two people can both be guided by the exact same attitude towards the exact same vision but go about realizing that vision through entirely different means.
“There were no legitimate reasons to vote for Trump over Hillary, as Jack has spent the past year arguing. That’s what this rant is about.”
That’s what his rant was about? I’m not sure we read the same rant then… in no way does his temper tantrum seek to make a single argument similar to Jack’s. No, he EVEN identifies that people may have had reasons to do so, and then immediately de-legitimizes them as “excuses” so they could really vote because they were racists.
Man, talk about bold spin. Sorry, YOU are misrepresenting his point.
Looks likes Justin Rosario is turning out to be the Julius Streicher of the left. His ranting and foaming at the mouth and attempt to convince ignorant people that anybody that supported Trump is one of Satan’s minions would be laughable except some of the credulous will believe him.
Because it’s not only him.
Justin Rosario is one of those kind of brazen idiots that would certainly call anyone that didn’t vote for Clinton a traitor to the Republic and humanity.
Let me get this straight — the left wants a civil war against a better-armed opponent for whom the armed forces are, in majority, more sympathetic?
What you’re really saying, by implication, is that these authors want to incite mass suicide. That’s the only conclusion I can reach. For the left to attempt a civil war against the rest of the country would likely result in job lots of dead leftists, assuming their snowflake asses can overcome the trauma of actually trying to use an effective weapon. I think most of them would faint at the very thought of pointing a firearm at anyone, let alone disengaging the safety and pulling the trigger. Picking up a knife and going one-on-one? More likely, they would curl up into a fetal position at the very suggestion.
The only fighting they’d want is ambush-style, and it’s hard to ambush somebody who knows you’re coming.
Leaving all that aside, you’re right to condemn such inflammatory garbage. The authors of these insensate screeds need to be mocked more than Fisked, though. I understand that’s not quite your style on this blog, but only by pointing fingers and laughing uproariously at these self-deluded cretins can we possibly shame them into stopping. Logic and reason has been tried over and over, and it has no discernible effect on them. Mockery hurts their feelz. That’s what it’s going to take, because if there is one thing the left has plenty of, it’s feelz.
If any of my family members want to disown me for my political views, I’ll make their lives a living hell by making fun of them. Of course, my family is way too classy for that, thank God. Even our black sheep are not that black.
Well, let me retrench some. The only end point of one half of the country demonizing the other like this is some kind of conflict and division. Actions have consequences. Does this idiot intend this, or is he just irresponsible, like the fools who start fires and say, “Gee, we didn’t want anyone to get hurt!”?
Isn’t conflict and division what we have now? Not armed combat, perhaps, but we have violence breaking out in anti-Trump protests, cops being ambushed by BLM sycophants, and similar.
So what you’re saying is these guys are squirting hydrogen into that fire, I suppose, and apologies if I’ve put words into your mouth.
If that’s the right sentiment, no doubt it’s true.
I think that this duffus really believes that by convincing all the progressives to unfriend their family members this will shame some of the deplorables to admit the errors of their ways. This is true narcissism: He is functioning at an angry two year old level.
“Let me get this straight — the left wants a civil war against a better-armed opponent for whom the armed forces are, in majority, more sympathetic?”
I think some elements out there would love for the right kinds of “deplorables” to take up pitch forks and have a go at an insurrection, so those same elements can then justify a usurpation of protected liberties and a general increase in policing power of the central government as “necessary” to end the unrest. Then just never relinquish those powers and have the kind of central command government that is more commensurate with the ideology.
And those elements recognize they just need to keep goading the “deplorables” just a little more.
I think this falls under the rubric of, “be careful what you wish for.”
I think this piece dovetails very nicely with your commentary, Jack.
Yahtzee: “[T]raveling together is an impossibility when you are going in opposite directions.”
I wish this Rosario-gram was only an isolated representation of crybully-ism.
(since it’s all “-isms” and “-ists,” now, in Ameri-la-la-la-la-la-rica)
To condense the pre-election demand, and the post-election reaction
(CB = crybully; TV = Trump voter) – it’s the Clash of LA!-LA!-LA!-LA!-LA!s:
CB (the pre-election demand): “You’d better vote like I tell you you should, for Hillary, or else, you’re a LYING ASSHOLE!”
(after the election)
TV: “I didn’t vote for whom you said I should vote. I voted for Trump.”
CB: “YOU INTOLERANT ASSHOLE! LIAR! MISOGYNIST! RACIST! NAZI! YOU WANT ME PUT IN A BOXCAR AND SHIPPED TO AN OVEN!”
TV: “Fuck off and grow up! You need to stop lying to yourself.”
Right after the election, I thought a hug and some reassurance was the right answer. After two Obama elections, I knew what post-loss funk felt like. Now I think some violent shaking or a casual bitch-slap upside the face is more appropriate.
“Anyone who seriously thinks Donald Trump is a “monster” doesn’t know what a monster is”. Maybe. It would seem sensible to withhold judgment to see what he does – time will tell. But his comments at least on ‘torture’ are highly disturbing. Torture is wrong and anyone torturing captives or promoting their torturing surely qualifies for the ‘monster list’.
I am four-square with that, Andrew. But the entire Bush Administration, the CIA for much of the past 50 years, and many other misguided but otherwise sturdy Americans more or less have practices what Trump so bar has only talked about. That takes the topic out the “monster” realm.
Ever heard of blanket parties in the U.S. military?
Yes…
I hear it violates the UCMJ.
Come to think of it, so does torture.
I wonder if there is a connection between acceptance of blanket parties and acceptance of torture.