“Pssst…is that HITLER in the audience?”
Jan Chamberlin, a singer for the 360 member Mormon Tabernacle Choir, sent a resignation letter to the choir president and choir members. Who is Jan Chamberlin, and why is this by any stretch of the imagination news? She is no one of special note, except that she crafted her resignation an insult to the President Elect of the United States, ignorantly and absurdly. That, according to the news media, and that alone, makes her today’s 15 minute star. She wrote in part:
“Since ‘the announcement,’ [ that is, the cataclysmic announcement that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir would perform as part of America’s celebration of Inauguration Day on January 20 ] I have spent several sleepless nights and days in turmoil and agony. I have reflected carefully on both sides of the issue, prayed a lot, talked with family and friends, and searched my soul . I’ve tried to tell myself that by not going to the inauguration, that I would be able to stay in the choir for all the other good reasons. I’ve tried to tell myself that it will be all right and that I can continue in good conscience before God and man.”
But Jan is thoroughly infected by whatever virus it is that has led so many left-leaning Americans to conclude that all previous standards of respect, honesty, decorum, fairness, civility, common sense and civic duty have been suspended because a manipulative, corrupt and incompetent Democratic Party nominee for President defending the awful record of the current Democratic President somehow managed to lose an election. Thus the singer concluded that a sensible course was to make a play for historical footnote status, and metaphorically spit on the country, the public and its chosen leader before he has spent a second in the Oval Office.
Naturally, the news media, bidding to be even more roundly distrusted and reviled than its performance during the last year has made it, responds like Sea World seals.
“I only know I could never throw roses to Hitler. And I certainly could never sing for him,” says Jan. This is signature significance for derangement and ignorance. Donald Trump is Hitler. Any person, be it the most rabid MSNBC bloviator or your dumbest Facebook friend, who equates Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler has placed a large, boldly printed “My brains fell out and I can’t find them anywhere” sign on her head. A declaration that Trump is Jimmy Durante, Hedy Lamar or a rutabaga is just as fair and rational. Why should any man, woman or 8-year-old child who is willing to write such utter stupidity for public consumption (Jan posted her letter on her Facebook page, now down, perhaps because it perished of embarrassment) be deemed worthy of attention, except as a sad example of what unrestrained hysteria and fear-mongering produces?
This is a choir. It sings in churches. Its mission is to use music to inspire all human beings, regardless of their faults or character issues, to find spirituality, salvation and peace. The woman has sung for the choir for years, and it is certain that her audiences have included all manner of awful people whose deeds and character would make Donald Trump seem like St. Francis of Assisi. Yet Jan can’t justify singing at a “demonstration of… support for freedom, civility and the peaceful transition of power,” as Mormon church spokesman Eric Hawkins said in a statement as clear as it is true. Jan says she can’t justify it even after praying, thus making God look as stupid as she is.
Is Jan Chamberlain’s idiocy deemed newsworthy because, against all odds, she has made a more self-righteously ignorant statement than the rebellious Rockettes? That I could understand. That’s at least an impressively ridiculous accomplishment, like eating a hundred hot dogs or marrying a guppy.
The question of why this grandstanding show of disrespect for the office of the President of the United States and the nation watching as is reaffirms its process of choosing its leaders has no ethical answer, just this one: the news media thinks that its great when somebody who hasn’t previously done anything to distinguish themselves as an expert, an authority or a citizen of special wisdom or virtue chooses to call the President Elect names. This was why the two faithless Republican electors received a forum in the media to announce that because they had decided that the new President wasn’t fit to serve, a conclusion the election itself definitively rejected, Their pronouncements about Donald Trump were suddenly essential to the public’s daily news briefing because the news media will use any means at its disposal to undermine everything related to his ensuing Presidency—him, his party, his appointments, his likely policies. That is what the post-election assault on Trump by Democrats and the Obama Administration has been designed to accomplish, and that is what the vast majority of journalists. Although the real news is that this dangerous and irresponsible assault on democracy is being attempted, an unprecedented attempt by a major party and the supporters of its losing candidate to sabotage a new administration, the foolish choices and civically ignorant reasoning of Rockettes and choir members are being publicized instead.
Consider this: would a member of a marching band appearing at the 2008 Inaugural parade who announced that he couldn’t march for a President as obviously unqualified for office as Barack Obama have been given this kind of attention? If such a musician received any attention at all, it would be out of scorn, and perhaps to show the lingering racism of some benighted citizens unprepared for a black President. When before in our history have individual citizens who insult a President Elect of the United States warranted news figure status?
Never is the answer. Of course, never before has the news media joined a political party in an effort to deliberately undermine our political institutions and our unity as a people.
Ethics Alarms 
How many legs does a dog have if you count the tail as a leg?
I could name for you one left-wing mormon. I couldn’t name two. But for mormons in general, they do have feelings about gambling and adultery, along with the use of certain language and the treatment of women who are mothers, which they think is a woman’s highest calling. And do I even need to mention what they think about singling out religious minorities as the enemy? Trunp’s what TBMs hate.
1) I have no idea what your first bon mot is supposed to mean. Obama was completely unqualified, arguably even more so than Trump, who at least has management and leadership experience. Obama’s record overseeing the various departments and agencies has proven doomsayers on THAT score correct.
2) I said she was infected by the same virus…you know, like people get infected by bird flu. Meanwhile, there were 0ver 310,600 votes for Hillary on Nov. 8. Wait, you weren’t saying you’ve met everybody in Utah, were you?
Obama was completely unqualified, arguably even more so than Trump, who at least has management and leadership experience.
That’s ridiculous. Obama had government experience. Trump’s business experience is not a qualification for the presidency, as I believe you yourself wrote here before.
And this singer’s objections were not in response to Trump’s lack of qualifications. Valkygrrl laid out a nice summary, the most relevant part of which is Trump’s targeting of a religious minority for unequal treatment, fear, and lies. He has also irresponsibly called for an increase in nuclear weapons, advocated war crimes such as killing family members of terrorists, and sided with a foreign dictator over our own intelligence agencies and the current president.
The Hitler comparison is extreme, but I can understand why she made it.
She is no one of special note,
You keep saying things like this to describe Trump’s dissenters, and I don’t know why. It’s elitist. Where are you getting this idea that citizens need to have any kind of special education, qualifications or status in order to speak out against our social betters?
“He has also irresponsibly called for an increase in nuclear weapons, advocated war crimes such as killing family members of terrorists, and sided with a foreign dictator over our own intelligence agencies…”
If this is your case against Trump, then you just won Mr. Marshall’s argument for him. Trump may be CALLING for these things, but Obama HAS increased the nuclear arsenal more than there was any justifiable need for; his drone program, with a failure to strike the target rate upwards of 80-90% has obviously killed many family members of terrorists; and there were plenty of his generals and other intelligence sources who warned him not to destabilize Libya. Granted, the advice he followed on that one didn’t come from a Foreign dictator…Hillary’s American. Either way, he proved himself to be at least AS incompetent and reckless as Donald Trump Might be.
Obama HAS increased the nuclear arsenal
This is not true. Who told you this?
his drone program, with a failure to strike the target rate upwards of 80-90% has obviously killed many family members of terrorists
Collateral damage is not the same as targeting family members of terrorists as a matter of policy. I have issues with the drone program, but what you’re describing does not constitute a war crime; Trump’s proposal, if implemented, would.
Obama HAS increased the nuclear arsenal.
Obama has reduced the nuclear stockpile, though not as much as some people might have wished.
Throughout his presidency, Obama has reduced our nuclear weapons stockpile each year. While stockpile numbers diminished more drastically under President Clinton and President Bush, President Obama took on the job when the stockpile was the smallest in decades.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-hasnt-fulifilled-his-promises-on-nuclear-reduction-2014-10
Here is one source that dates back to the beginning of the year from the Boston Globe, https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/01/24/beware-obama-nuclear-weapons-plan/IJP9E48w3cjLPlTqMhZdFL/story.html, and I can recommend you to another piece, that actually has Hillary as the main subject, but includes enough information inside the article to more than support my contention that President Obama has for some time now been spending a great deal of American tax-payer money on increasing the size of the nuclear arsenal. However, that article is inside the bi-monthly subscription article of Counterpunch Magazine volume 23 number 5 2016. It’s entitled, “How Clinton Could Make a Nuclear War”, by Alan Nasser. I only recommend it because I think you would find it interesting (there are plenty of other articles you can find on your own by simple searching Obama’s expansion of the nuclear arsenal. As for your claim that Mr. Obama’s killing of terrorist’s family members not being a war-crime, I would ask you if you said that to me seriously on a blog-site that deals with the topic of ethics. Even if those failure rates have been inflated (I have no reason to believe they were), I think once it had been ascertained that on more occasions than nought, innocent people were being massacred by this program, the actual enemy was going free, and the amount of ill-will towards the country caused by the deaths of these innocents was probably making the USA a less safe place to live, rather than safe, than any President who didn’t just simply cancel the entire drone program-and now we come all the way back to the original point of this entire discussion-would undoubtedly be the worst President, the United States of America ever had the misfortune of voting into office.
He has “government experience.” You know, he knows “stuff.” He can do, “things.”
We’ve never elected any less qualified.
“That’s ridiculous. Obama had government experience. Trump’s business experience is not a qualification for the presidency, as I believe you yourself wrote here before.”
If Obama was such an experienced politician (forever lowering the bar for THAT term, but the way, if we include junior senators halfway through their first term as *experienced*.) ((Yes, yes Illinois senate *snort*)), and that’s the only kind of experience that matters then why was he such a massive fucking colossal failure?
“You keep saying things like this to describe Trump’s dissenters, and I don’t know why. It’s elitist. ”
I bet that Jack would have said the same thing about people who did this when Obama was elected, but I just cant think of any examples to check against. And if there were, they certainly didn’t get the traction from media outlets and idiots clapping like seals from the sidelines. This constant stream of pissing and moaning coming from a group of people that go through life operating like a raw exposed nerve has GOT to be reaching the end of its life cycle (please God, let that be true), but even if it isn’t, there’s no way in HELL that any of it is newsworthy anymore. “Person Protests Trump” COULD be printed in the daily newspaper alongside “Sky Is Blue” with as much meaning, and all the various of protest become no more meaningful that the millions of shades of blue.
If Obama was such an experienced politician (forever lowering the bar for THAT term, but the way, if we include junior senators halfway through their first term as *experienced*.) ((Yes, yes Illinois senate *snort*)), and that’s the only kind of experience that matters then why was he such a massive fucking colossal failure?
Even if I accept the premise, this is a totally illogical argument, bordering on moral luck. If one person with minimal qualifications does a bad job at something, that is not an argument that the next person should have *no* qualifications.
And anyway, I was responding to the assertion that Trump is arguably more qualified than Obama was, which is nakedly false.
It depends what you consider a qualification. From my point of view, running a government has more parallels with running a large business than it does dissimilarities. And so I DO think that Trump has a certain amount of qualifications for the job. The problem is that the qualifications are apples and oranges. Sure, Obama may have had more political experience, but he had less management experience, and his learning curve was so flat that it showed up to and including today.
Also remember, if was Liberal America that paraded Obama’s lack of political experience as a plus, Google it, the accolades were that he was going to “Change” DC, and that he had not been in politics long enough to be corrupted. (Meaning that Hillary lot twice to a narcissistic populist riding the coattails of Change and Outsiderism.)
To be frank, I’m less skeptical of Trump’s ability to do the right thing, and more skeptical of his willingness to do it. Which in the end still isn’t some kind of glorious ringing endorsement, but it’s the reality we live in. In a lot of ways Trump IS more qualified than Obama was.
valkygrrl said, “I could name for you one left-wing mormon. I couldn’t name two.”
That’s completely irrelevant. It’s Trump Derangement Syndrome that has consumed these people not necessarily leftness. Jan Chamberlin may be a left-wing mormon and she may be a right-wing mormon; but what is significant is that she is a Trump Derangement Syndrome MORON!
Let’s focus on the morons not the Mormons.
I can literally name dozens and dozens of left-wing morons that have revealed their true character since the election; I also know many right-wingers that have done the exact same thing for the exact same reasons. I don’t “like” Trump either and I didn’t vote for the man; however, going toe-to-toe with full blown Trump Derangement Syndrome (lefties and righties) every single day for two months has been a real eye opening experience, to say the least. People that I considered intelligent have shown just how illogically consumed they can get and how ignorant they really are. Like it or not, morons is a really good description of these Trump Derangement Syndrome people.
Now if we are going to talk about morons we certainly can’t leave out the really wing-nut Trump supporters that crawled out from under their rocks; and these wing-nuts have come from both sides of the political aisle – yes there are life-long Democrats that are now supporting Trump for wing-nut reasons. They too are morons; going toe-to-toe with them has also been a real eye opening experience!
The real problem, valkygrrl, is there has been a society wide
Ethical Flush. We can debate for a week of Tuesdays why there has been an ethical flush but I can tell you one thing for sure; it’s been growing since the early 1990’s and since Obama was elected his administration, in conjunction with the lock-step Liberal leaning media, have figuratively pushed this ethical flush to the brink of chaos and they did it strictly for political reasons – it’s all been about power grabbing and control. The levels of blatantly misleading propaganda from the political left since Obama took office has been absolutely astounding! That’s not to say that the right wasn’t dabbling in it too, heck Trump dove-in head first and used the same kind of unethical propaganda political tactics that the political left has been using and put them on a continuous feed of steroids. Trump’s popularity growth and this intellectually dishonest propaganda driven election we just went through is a direct result of the ethical flush that our society has been going through.
This IS the “change we can believe in” as promised by Obama in 2007 and fully ushered in by the Obama administration and the media. Every action has a reaction, every word has repercussions, every election has consequences, no “good deed” goes unpunished; Trump IS the reaction, repercussion, consequence, and punishment brought to you by the years of overreaching unethical behaviors of the political left.
Yup valkygrrl, I got all that from those 13 words of yours. 😉
Happy New Year everyone!!!
The founder of the Mormon religion had over 30 wives, and invented a doctrine of polygamy because he wanted to have sex with his teenage maid. He taught that women would be eternally pregnant and give birth to spirit children for all eternity on their own planet in the afterlife. He also invented the doctrine that Black people were cursed because of decisions they made in the spirit world before they were born, and therefore should not be church members. His entire reign over his followers was filled with insanity, violence, and sordid affairs, ending in him declaring himself President of the United States, announcing martial law in Nauvoo, Illinois, and ordering his personal militia to smash up the offices of a newspaper that he didn’t like.
Mormons believe that all humans will be judged by a panel of God, Jesus, and Joseph Smith. But yeah, this Trump guy is a bridge too far.
And they wear magic underwear. Are you trying to condemn the choir for what went on a century and a half ago, or for their beliefs? If you are, I won’t feel so bad about condemning the Democratic party for putting forth the Muslim Keith Ellison as chair, since Mohammed was a pedophile bandit who claimed he heard voices, and the Muslims are OK with gender apartheid, mutilation as punishment, and murder, and believe that if you die for Allah you get to spend eternity with 72 virgins at your absolute beck and call.
“But Jan is thoroughly infected by whatever virus it is that has led so many left-leaning Americans to conclude that all previous standards of respect, honesty, decorum, fairness, civility, common sense and civic duty have been suspended because a manipulative, corrupt and incompetent Democratic Party nominee for President defending the awful record of the current Democratic President somehow managed to lose an election.”
Jack; were there a Pulitzer Prize given for in the “one sentence” category, I’d recommend you dust off a place on your shelf.
And were you to channel Jan, you’d be getting all snitty right about now with me presuming you don’t keep your shelves dustless.
I’ve been trying to deal with my ambivalence about this issue. On the one hand, I stand by what I wrote several blogposts before about the necessity of honoring the ritual. I also understand the necessity of uniting the country rather than maintaining the divisions. On the other hand…
So I put a supposition before myself that could have actually happened to me. When Pope Benedict came to the U.S., I was not in the least interested in seeing him. He represented an ecclesiology that I did not, and do not, embrace. If, however, I had been asked to participate as a singer/musician in a papal Mass during his visit, I think that I would have agreed to do it. Why? Because we believe that the earthly manifestation of hierarchical “power” is spiritually superior to any one human being. Grace will happen, regardless.
That said, I have come to think of the folks who have declined to participate in the inauguration as an offshoot of civil disobedience. They aren’t actually disobeying anything, but they are using their actions to show their disagreement with something — namely Trump and his self-evident horribleness.
Blame it on Obama if you must. Blame it on the DNC and the liberals/progressives if you must. But don’t try to tell me or anyone else who is horrified that this man who will take the reins of this country shortly is doing anything now to try to try to unify the country. After such a campaign and election, one would have hoped that the PE would try to mend some of the damage done to this country (by both sides). That might have been enough for us to be able to think of his inauguration as something from which we could derive some kind of patriotic spiritual satisfaction.
I have seen nothing. If I’ve missed something, please enlighten me.
You mean this isn’t unifying?
That should unify everyone who thinks he has no class.
Well, duh! Of COURSE! That should totally suffice.
Not.
1) I didn’t try to tell you or anyone anything in this post related to Trump. His election is supposed to be unifying. His inaugeration is a traditional and effective ritual of unification. The way he is being treated by the media and Democrats, the only way he could be unifying is to turn into someone else. The current President is going out of his way to an unprecedented extent to be divisive. In fact, the only individuals who could genuinely do what you (and I) want would be for a Democratic leader to say, “Stop this nonsense now. You’re embarrassing me, the party, the nation and yourselves.” As the target of the deliberately divisive abuse, Trump can’t do that.
He COULD exercise some self-discipline and judgment by not tweeting stupid things like valkygrrl noted. Why keep inflaming things? Because the other side is doing it? You yourself know that this is not a good excuse but merely a rationalization.
There is no Democratic leadership at the moment (and I don’t mean the DNC). So who could say it? Hillary?! Get real. Obama? Not gonna happen. Biden? Not important enough. Pelosi?!?! The only Democrat who currently might be able to claim statesman status is Sanders, and he lost, so no one will listen. Jimmy Carter IS making the statement by announcing that he will attend the inauguration. If he came out and said something about it, that would ruin the statement (IMNSHO).
Missing the point. Trump’s not going to change that, and especially while eveyone from Obama to ex-lawyer to the MORMON TABERNACLE CHOIR is taking gratuitous cheap shots as jerks send out #notmypresident tweets. He’s a jerk. The Presidency, however, hasn’t changed. At the inaugeration, he’s the President, and its the office people are respecting. Assuming he doesn’t moon the crowd, he’s not harming the Presidency by his presence. I expect to be busy once Trump takes office, but based on conduct, not bias, not hate, not intentional disruption. Trump will probably be a jerk President, and then will deserve criticism.
Incidentally, Obama saying that he would have won is as jerkish as anything Trump has tweeted…insulting to Hillary, Trump, narcissistic, cocky, and infuriatingly clueless for such a crummy leader. Equally bad was his blaming the loss of the midwest on the fact that those poor, stupid farmers don’t realize how good they have it. I’m not looking forward to Trump, but Obama can’t get out of Dodge fast enough. Nothing’s worse than a sub-par performer who’s cocky about it.
Unity is a scam. Oh, when it happens it’s a good thing. But when you hear it in a political context, it’s usually the winners trying to leverage unity’s good reputation to beat the losers into shutting up and falling in line. That’s just not a good reason for the losers to comply. And it’s no excuse that we have to behave because he’s never going to, because that’s just surrendering to whomever is firmest in their lack of ethics.
“He’s a jerk. The Presidency, however, hasn’t changed.”
Well maybe it’s time it does. Maybe the rise of Trumpism is a sign of signature significance. Maybe it’s about time we realize that the President is just a man — often an ignorant, arrogant, selfish, power-hungry man — and start treating him like one. It’s time we tear down the pedestal, melt down the throne, and get out from under these jerks as much as we can. Starting with this one. Granted, refusing to sing for him doesn’t accomplish much. But it’s the right attitude.
Comment of the Day, and should be copied and pasted in response to every call for “unity” from here on out.
If it can be retro posted to every call for unity under every President before this.
Comparing Trump to Hitler shows zero knowledge of history. Trump never invaded another nation, set the majority against a despised minority while the emergency services stood down, or sent 12 million to the gas chambers. Comparing him to Hitler spits on the memory of Hitler’s actual victims.
This talk of tearing down the pedestal, melting down the throne, and so forth, sounds like another period in history, which I don’t think we need to experience here. It is unethical to stir up a rebellion based only on hate. If there were actual tyranny that would be something else. We’re not there yet. This is dangerous rhetoric.
Honestly, I don’t understand the abject literalism that is being hurled at anyone who mentions Hitler as a comparison to Trump. No, of course, Trump is not Hitler, unless we believe in reincarnation or transmigration of souls or bringing a dead person back to life or whatever. If I compare West Side Story to Romeo and Juliet, they are NOT identical, but they are comparable in many ways, and one is based upon the other. When I compare a mourning dove to a pigeon, they are NOT identical, but very similar in many ways. When I compare not Trump but the circumstances around the rise of Trump and his followers and yes, what Trump says and does so far, to Nazi Germany and Hitler, no, they are NOT identical, but even Holocaust survivors are seeing the similarities.
For myself, I prefer to wait and see what happens, because you can’t prevent something that isn’t a 100% sure thing, even when there are indicators. But I’m ready, having weighed the possibilities of what might happen.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the rest of the 25 most evil people in history are serious business. History is serious business. It’s not just a few names and dates you memorize and then forget after the test. The evil these men did could fill ten books apiece, and it sure as the devil is and was a lot more than a few rude remarks and some policies the left doesn’t agree with. You don’t get to throw those accusations and comparisons lightly and then tell someone who calls you out on it not to take it literally.
Adolf Hitler didn’t murder 12 million people on his first day, and those ultimate horrors were preceded by many lesser horrors. Hitler was active in German politics for over a decade before becoming Chancellor, and it took roughly another decade before the Final Solution. So while it’s correct to say that Trump is not Hitler, it’s also reasonable to point out that for the first fifty years of his life, neither was Hitler. It would be best to spot these things before they get out of hand.
“Trump never invaded another nation, set the majority against a despised minority while the emergency services stood down, or sent 12 million to the gas chambers.”
No one has ever been foolish enough to give him the opportunity to do those things. Granted, that last one seems highly unlikely, but invading other nations has been pretty common in this century, and that middle one is a reasonable analog to the height of American white supremacy for black people. And can we really rule out something like that for American Muslims? If some cities start rioting against Muslims, do you think Trump will stand up for them? Trump has never done that either.
“It is unethical to stir up a rebellion based only on hate. If there were actual tyranny that would be something else. We’re not there yet.”
It’s not based on hate. It’s based on our observations of everything Donald Trump has said, everything he’s done, and everything he’s said he’s going to do. (The hate, if you wish, follows naturally from that.) I understand your point about waiting until we have proof, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt is for criminal court, not politics. I think I have proof enough, and if we literally wait until we have “actual tyranny,” that’s way too late.
Good points. I’d add that Trump absolutely *has* attempted to set the majority against a despised minority–his disgusting comments about Muslims, including the blood libel that he saw thousands celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey, absolutely falls into that category, and that’s where the Hitler comparisons mostly stem from. No, he hasn’t killed millions of Muslims, and I doubt he plans to–but this is how those things start.
While he is nowhere as bad as Hitler, he is absolutely a fascist, and fascists should be opposed. Refusing to perform at an inauguration for a fascist is a fairly mild form of expressing dissent, and if *that* is just too much for some people, I have no idea what forms of dissent they think are appropriate.
He is not “absolutely a fascist,” and that is an unsupportable contention. He’s not even clearly a conservative. That’s only slightly less ignorant than calling him Hitler. Slightly. We judge fascism on conduct and policies. Based on that, it’s easier to justify calling Obama a fascist.
The government meddling in private enterprise in a arbitrary, unequitable manner is fascistic behavior. People conflate racism and nationalism with fascism. But that’s not all it was.
The GM bailout arguably comes closest the US has come… and that was started by Bush and enthusiastically extended by Obama. The bankruptcy was conducted in a fashion to award the select few cronies awards and leave out others.
He’s not a conservative. He is a fascist.
We judge fascism on conduct and policies.
What do you think I’m basing this on? His conduct and policies are those of a fascist. He is obsessed with outsiders, deeming an entire religion a foreign threat to our nation. He proposes building unsustainable giant walls and banning members of one religion from immigrating. He says “I alone can fix it,” and takes credit for things like He calls dissenting Americans his “enemies.” He uses his position to funnel money to his own pocket. He sows confusion and chaos; his Twitter feed is a case study in how fascists use gaslighting and unpredictability to constantly test the boundaries of the nation. He heaps praise on fascist dictators, in some cases siding with them over our own intelligence community and current president. He threatened to jail the opposing candidate. He advocates war crimes and torture. His entire ethos is “dominance.”
All of these are signs of a fascist, and those who have studied fascism have said so. What makes you more qualified on this subject than historians who have spent decades studying fascism, and who say Trump fulfills nearly every criteria? How can you constantly ignore all of the aspects of fascism I’ve listed above and continue to insist Democrats are just mad because they “lost an election?”
What do you think I’m basing this on? His conduct and policies are those of a fascist.
He has no policies yet. You have no idea what his policies will be. He says he’s deporting illegals, but maybe not. He said we needed to “consider” halting Syrian refugee acceptance and Muslim immigration. Half the policies people are “scared’ about are imagined, and the other half is speculative.
He is obsessed with outsiders, deeming an entire religion a foreign threat to our nation.
Ridiculous. Saying that illegal immigrants are illegal and don’t belong here is called stating facts. Saying that Muslim extremeism is sufficient reason to be wary of European-style Islamic immigration is common sense.
He proposes building unsustainable giant walls and banning members of one religion from immigrating.
There will be no wall, and he has never proposed a Muslim ban.
He says “I alone can fix it,” and takes credit for things
Exactly like Obama. I don’t like the tendency, but that isn’t fascism, it’s narcissism.
He calls dissenting Americans his “enemies.”
Covered in the other comment.
He uses his position to funnel money to his own pocket.
He hasn’t used his position because he hasn’t been in the position. That is certainly not fascism.
He sows confusion and chaos;
That’s because he has the attention span of a mayfly, not because he’s a fascist. The business community and consumer confidence have soared since he was elected. Obama was the one who couldn’t be depended upon. With Trump: we shall see.
his Twitter feed is a case study in how fascists use gaslighting and unpredictability to constantly test the boundaries of the nation
This is actually funny. You cannot possibly be this hysterical. This is the old “He’s a fool/he’s an evil genius” dichotomy. (PS: he’s a fool.)
Here’s what a real fascist is like. American has never had one, and won’t. By the way, Mark Levin thought Obama was a fascist. It’s like tribes calling other tribes “cannibals.”
Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of national or racial rebirth after a period of decline or destruction. To this end, fascism calls for a “spiritual revolution” against signs of moral decay such as individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge “alien” forces and groups that threaten the organic community. Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence. Often, but not always, it promotes racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. At the same time, fascists may embrace a form of internationalism based on either racial or ideological solidarity across national boundaries. Usually fascism espouses open male supremacy, though sometimes it may also promote female solidarity and new opportunities for women of the privileged nation or race.
Fascism’s approach to politics is both populist–in that it seeks to activate “the people” as a whole against perceived oppressors or enemies–and elitist–in that it treats the people’s will as embodied in a select group, or often one supreme leader, from whom authority proceeds downward. Fascism seeks to organize a cadre-led mass movement in a drive to seize state power. It seeks to forcibly subordinate all spheres of society to its ideological vision of organic community, usually through a totalitarian state. Both as a movement and a regime, fascism uses mass organizations as a system of integration and control, and uses organized violence to suppress opposition, although the scale of violence varies widely.
Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three. Fascism rejects the principles of class struggle and workers’ internationalism as threats to national or racial unity, yet it often exploits real grievances against capitalists and landowners through ethnic scapegoating or radical-sounding conspiracy theories. Fascism rejects the liberal doctrines of individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism, and representative government, yet it advocates broad popular participation in politics and may use parliamentary channels in its drive to power. Its vision of a “new order” clashes with the conservative attachment to tradition-based institutions and hierarchies, yet fascism often romanticizes the past as inspiration for national rebirth.
Fascism has a complex relationship with established elites and the non-fascist right. It is never a mere puppet of the ruling class, but an autonomous movement with its own social base. In practice, fascism defends capitalism against instability and the left, but also pursues an agenda that sometimes clashes with capitalist interests in significant ways. There has been much cooperation, competition, and interaction between fascism and other sections of the right, producing various hybrid movements and regimes.
– See more at: http://www.politicalresearch.org/2016/12/12/what-is-fascism-2/#sthash.TXwHLz8V.dpuf
He has no policies yet.
Nonsense.
You have no idea what his policies will be. He says he’s deporting illegals, but maybe not. He said we needed to “consider” halting Syrian refugee acceptance and Muslim immigration.
The fact that he changes his mind at will on his fascist policies does not make him any less of a fascist–you are aware that this is a thing fascists do, right? Unpredictability is a powerful weapon.
Ridiculous. Saying that illegal immigrants are illegal and don’t belong here is called stating facts. Saying that Muslim extremeism is sufficient reason to be wary of European-style Islamic immigration is common sense.
You know he has said more than this. I just gave a far more accurate summary of what he has said about immigration than this. Your constant attempts to downplay his wild, extremist statements on immigration are nothing short of dishonest, Jack.
There will be no wall,
I know that. Trump doesn’t. That he will be an unsuccessful fascist doesn’t make him any less of a fascist.
and he has never proposed a Muslim ban.
Yes, he has. A temporary halt on Muslim immigration is a ban on Muslim immigration. That’s what a ban is.
Exactly like Obama.
When did Obama say “I alone can fix it?”
He hasn’t used his position because he hasn’t been in the position.
My god. His current position is president elect. He absolutely HAS used that position to make money for himself:
Trump’s children met with the Phillippines’ special envoy to the U.S. — who is also a developer working with the business. The New York Times reported that Jose Antonio, recently named as special envoy to the United States, met with the Trump children after the election. Antonio partnered with Trump on a building in Manila and is working on further projects with the Trump Organization. The Times article also lists other potential points of conflict stemming from Trump’s business dealings overseas, including in India, Turkey, Ireland and Scotland.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/21/a-running-list-of-how-donald-trumps-new-position-is-helping-his-business-interests/?utm_term=.a21a9b99f10f
There is zero reason to believe that he will stop doing this once he is president.
This is actually funny. You cannot possibly be this hysterical. This is the old “He’s a fool/he’s an evil genius” dichotomy. (PS: he’s a fool.)
One does not have to be a genius to use fascist tactics. Trump is a fool, but he’s also a fool who has been constantly rewarded for his foolishness his entire life. Don’t tell me there isn’t at least an element of calculation in his decisions; being unpredictable works for him, and he knows it.
As for your definition of fascism, let me go through and just bold every section that applies to Trump:
Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of national or racial rebirth after a period of decline or destruction. To this end, fascism calls for a “spiritual revolution” against signs of moral decay such as individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge “alien” forces and groups that threaten the organic community. Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence. Often, but not always, it promotes racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. At the same time, fascists may embrace a form of internationalism based on either racial or ideological solidarity across national boundaries. Usually fascism espouses open male supremacy, though sometimes it may also promote female solidarity and new opportunities for women of the privileged nation or race.
Fascism’s approach to politics is both populist–in that it seeks to activate “the people” as a whole against perceived oppressors or enemies–and elitist–in that it treats the people’s will as embodied in a select group, or often one supreme leader, from whom authority proceeds downward. Fascism seeks to organize a cadre-led mass movement in a drive to seize state power. It seeks to forcibly subordinate all spheres of society to its ideological vision of organic community, usually through a totalitarian state. Both as a movement and a regime, fascism uses mass organizations as a system of integration and control, and uses organized violence to suppress opposition, although the scale of violence varies widely.
Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three. Fascism rejects the principles of class struggle and workers’ internationalism as threats to national or racial unity, yet it often exploits real grievances against capitalists and landowners through ethnic scapegoating or radical-sounding conspiracy theories. Fascism rejects the liberal doctrines of individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism, and representative government, yet it advocates broad popular participation in politics and may use parliamentary channels in its drive to power. Its vision of a “new order” clashes with the conservative attachment to tradition-based institutions and hierarchies, yet fascism often romanticizes the past as inspiration for national rebirth.
Fascism has a complex relationship with established elites and the non-fascist right. It is never a mere puppet of the ruling class, but an autonomous movement with its own social base. In practice, fascism defends capitalism against instability and the left, but also pursues an agenda that sometimes clashes with capitalist interests in significant ways. There has been much cooperation, competition, and interaction between fascism and other sections of the right, producing various hybrid movements and regimes.
Of course Trump doesn’t meet every aspect of a fascist. Most fascists don’t; Hitler wouldn’t meet every criteria on this list. But Trump meets a disturbing number of them, to the point where I almost can’t believe you tried to use this as evidence that he isn’t a fascist.
Explain what is wrong with fascism.
Chris said, “…he is absolutely a fascist…”
I’m really tired of this Hitler and fascism bull shit from people like you. If you think it’s fine for you and your fascism comparators to cherry pick, then you won’t mind if others do it too – right?
Here’s the deal Chris; I’ll give you and your fascism comparators what you want and openly state that Trump is a fascist (even thought he hasn’t actually done a damn thing to justify earning the hateful title) as long as you all openly state right here and right now that Obama is a Marxist Communist and a lying piece of shit. Here is a cherry picking video to go along with the Obama is a Marxist lying piece of shit.
Now Chris, if you really don’t like this kind of hateful cherry picking bull shit when it’s used against your side of the political aisle, then stop this horse shit nonsense now and stand against it like a civil human being or just remain a political hack if you like.
Anyone that says that Trump compares to Hitler or that he’s a fascist is fucking political moron.
So far all I am reading here are a lot of what ifs and maybes. On the basis of rhetoric, supposition, projection, and not a little partisanship, you want to go full on war against a duly elected president before he even takes the oath of office? If the partisan allegiances were reversed, and I were calling for a full on war against a duly elected president Hillary, you would call that fearmongering. What’s more, you would be right. However, because it’s Trump, all rules of fair behavior are suspended.
Who is calling for a “full on war?” Who is saying “all rules of fair behavior are suspended?” Refusing to perform at a fascist’s inauguration is not “war,” and it’s more than fair.
You know, posting silly things that repeat the “he’s a fascist” line without any ability to prove it, and in fact after having been educated in the opposite by brighter lights than you are pretending to be, only wears away at what little credibility you had remaining.
Please stop.
Please take a breath.
I’m literally embarrassed for you.
Chris,
Anyone that says that Trump compares to Hitler or that he’s a fascist is fucking political moron.
We prefer the phrase: “Inexplicably historically ignorant”…
Until he actually has the power to do things, “what ifs and maybes” are all we have. That may not be enough to justify a “full on war,” but Jack’s original post is about a singer who refuses to perform at Trump’s inauguration ceremony. That’s a purely symbolic act. Do we really need much more than “what ifs and maybes” to justify a symbolic act? Actually, justification is a bit strong. I don’t expect you or Jack to agree that her act is justified, but given the purely symbolic nature, can you really claim it’s unethical without devolving the concept of “unethical” to “things I disagree with”?
For the record, and I know I can’t prove it, if there were performers who refused to perform for Hillary Clinton I might disagree with their reasons, but I don’t think I would disagree with their decision to exercise their right not to attend. Nor would I accuse them of jumping to conclusions for assuming her behavior in office would be consistent with her prior behavior and statements.
Finally, I may have gotten a little, er, flowery in my prose, when I spoke of tearing down pedestals and melting down thrones, which might have obscured my point. The inauguration of Donald Trump’s presidency begins and ends with his taking the oath of office, and disrupting that lawful inauguration would be unethical (and probably a crime), Everything else, however, is just a really big ceremony. I think it would be better if we had a lot less ceremony. That sort of thing just goes to their heads.
“Until he actually has the power to do things, “what ifs and maybes” are all we have.”
Which is why people rightly mock the “literally shakening” and the Hitler comparisons. This is like responding to Schrodinger’s Cat by digging a grave, and buying a new cat. If you don’t know, the right thing to do is prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and wait.
“Do we really need much more than “what ifs and maybes” to justify a symbolic act?”
The act of resigning from the choir? Naw, that’s fine. .Jack said as much with the Rockettes, if they couldn’t perform, quit. But this isn’t just the act of quitting. It’s the petulant whining, the penning of open letters, and the sick fervor with which they’re disseminated. If you think the resignation was the problem, you’ve missed the boat.
“For the record, […] if there were performers who refused to perform for Hillary Clinton, […] I don’t think I would disagree with their decision to exercise their right not to attend.”
Which makes you ideologically consistent, and therefore gives you a better position than a whole slew of ideological demographics, but it doesn’t make you right.
“I think it would be better if we had a lot less ceremony. That sort of thing just goes to their heads.”
Agree, actually… And as an outsider looking in (From Canada) (Right now I want to build a wall), it AMAZES me how much of your system is held up by tradition and how little of it is prescribed by law. The reason that Trump has been able to do some of the things he does is because the system is ill equipped to deal with someone who gives so few shits about tradition. And to be frank, pulling the fig leaf away from some of the ways DC operates might be one of the best things Trump does.
Trump is cutting back from Obama’s 8 and 9 inaugural balls (and Clinton’s absurd 14 ) to three. Good for him. I’ve been to one: it was ridiculous…opulent and over-crowded and yechhh. One was enough for a lifetime.
My view from Australia is similar. I also think we ain’t seen nuthin yet.
Pretty weak, WP. There are no similarities between Hitler’s background, family, class, interests or character and Trump. He’s not angry or resentment. His country has been very good to him. He’s not the orator Hitler was, and he’s not as smart as Hitler. If Hitler had been as clumsy as Trump, he would have never reached power. He’s not a little guy, compensating for insecurity. He’s had kids. Trump became President by accident and is over his head: he didn’t have any grand plan. Not has he picked any native ethnic group to blame for America’s problems. He believes in strong leadership—as do I, while a lot of the left fears authority even as they wield it ruthlessly. He believes in entrpreneurism, which is not a Fascist position.
This smear, which has been used regularly against other GOP Presidents, just expresses the biases of the left. They detest the military, so anyone who doesn’t is a fascist. They think war can be wished away, so any leader who is prepared to use American military power is a warmonger, a fascist. Patriotism? “Make America Great?” ARRGH! Toxic nationalism! A lot of liberals don’t like America when it acts like America—bold, confident, assertive…you know, FASCIST. The Democrats exist on creating victimized groups, so anyone who preaches personal responsibility is just trying to keep victimizing them…you know, like fascists. Rule of law? Fascist. Support for police? Fascists. Old liberals were calling college Presidents fascists in the Sixties.
They didn’t know or care what the word meant then, and they haven’t learned. Talking tough and promising strong rather than feckless leadership isn’t being a Fascist nor is it foreboding fascism. The trope is embarrassing. It’s either ignorance, or it is the worst kind of character assassination.
Not has he picked any native ethnic group to blame for America’s problems.
What does “native ethnic group” mean? Trump absolutely has blamed both Muslims and illegal immigrants for the nation’s problems. Muslims are a religion, not an ethnic group, but I’m not sure why that makes it better. One can argue that we need stronger borders and less illegal immigration, but blaming illegal immigrants for national crime and job loss is fundamentally irrational, and counter to the facts.
Those who claim that opposing illegal aliens is wrong are traitors to our country.
Did you notice that only a percentage of the choir is even attending? Size restrictions means they’re taking requests to perform, and Jan could have easily avoided her moral dilemma by merely not requesting to attend.
Not only that, why make her resignation public? All signs point to mere grandstanding. Whether it’s for virtue signaling or political reasons, she certainly isn’t being straightforward in her motivations.
Lastly, how can she reconcile her behavior with the scriptures she most undoubtedly learned on Sunday in Matthew 9? How can she not see herself as a Pharisee, whining about Jesus eating with sinners?
Yes, I almost got into that, and should have. That makes it pure grandstanding. She wasn’t just declining to perform, she was resigning because she thinks a church choir has a moral obligation not to sing for sinners, or something.
Sadly, the concept of “bowing out gracefully” seems to have been lost in the 21st century. Don’t enjoy a restaurant? Write a scathing Yelp review! A speaker you disagree with is coming to your college? Time to protest! You’re offended by a commentator? Start a Twitter war!
The options of: 1. Not going back to the restaurant.; 2.Not attending the speaker’s presentation.; 3. No longer paying attention to the commentator., are SO unsatisfying compared to making a big deal out of it, if possible with full media coverage. Nothing says ME! ME! ME! like well covered virtue signaling.
Good point, Joe.
Whatever happened to the concept of “newsworthiness?” If the mainstream, legacy media are so upset about the emergence of the internet, why do they keep reporting things that appear on the internet? This woman’s grandstanding verges on “fake news.”
The fact that so many grownups are out of control and being publicized for it bodes ill for the up and coming generations.
Rewrite: The fact that so many people over 21 (31? 81?) are cockeyed wackos and being praised for it (just like Real ones on teevee!) says today’s kids are already becoming emotionally unstable, and it’s going to get worse.
The fact that so many grownups are out of control and being publicized for it bodes ill for the up and coming generations.
Rewrite: The fact that so many people over 21 (31? 81?) are cockeyed wackos and being praised for it (just like Real ones on teevee!) says today’s kids are already becoming emotionally unstable, and it’s going to get worse.
If by “today’s kids,” you mean “70-year-old millionaires, sure.
Jack, since Trump was elected in November I’d guesstimate that you’ve written at least three times as many blog posts here condemning Trump’s dissenters for “further dividing our nation” and hurting our national “unity” than you have written about Trump himself doing the same. In many of those, you have written that these people are “irrelevant” and “nothing special.”
If that’s the case, why are you focusing so much time and energy writing about their “divisive” actions and so little time and energy writing about the president elect’s? Do you really feel like Trump’s dissenters are doing more to divide our nation than the president elect, who calls other Americans his “enemies,” breaks thirty-year precedent by calling for a new nuclear arms race, lashes out at political satire shows for doing their job, and mocks and trolls the entire intelligence community by continuing to heap praise on Putin and appoint Putin-associated people to his cabinet even after the accusations of Russian influence on our election?
Don’t you think such actions are far more significant and harmful to our nation than some random choir singer refusing to perform at Trump’s inauguration? I realize you want to give our next president the benefit of the doubt, but this noble impulse is solidifying into a bias, one which is causing you to turn a blind eye to Trump’s many unethical actions and divisive nature since the election.
If that’s the case, why are you focusing so much time and energy writing about their “divisive” actions and so little time and energy writing about the president elect’s?
The President elect has taken no “divisive actions” beyond making appointments,which are always attacked by the opposite party. He has not varied from acceptable President Elect conduct other than doing what he can to counter one of the most blatant examples of a lame duck trying to cut off governing options that should be a nw President’s to consider. Tweets aren’t conduct. They are words. Yes, his words have been, as usual, often irresponsible. Calling out a biased media and Democrat efforts to delegitimize his term before it has begun isn’t divisive. It is condemning efforts to divide.
Do you really feel like Trump’s dissenters are doing more to divide our nation than the president elect
Of course. Calling for fake recounts? Attacking the system? Rioting? Claiming that a duly elected President is “notmypresident”? Calling on electors to violate law and oaths? Otherizing a President elect as a murderous dictator? Educators treating an election as just cause for panic and grieving? Hysterical fearmongering? States and cities mouthing nullification theories from the 1830s? If I didn’t know better, I would conclude that progressives were trying to seed a civil war. Yes, that’s worth a few extra posts. It’s the most disgraceful political conduct of my lifetime. Redbaiting was almost as bad, but that was before my time.
who calls other Americans his “enemies,”
You mean like both Clintons and Obama? Yes, divisive, but hardly freak-out worthy.
breaks thirty-year precedent by calling for a new nuclear arms race,
How is that divisive? Oh–as in”any policy that progressives like is unifying, and any they don’t is divisive”? It’s words, used to frame negotiation. He’s succeeding a weakling whom nobody fears or respects. A President can’t launch an arms race by himself or by a tweet. Obama has done multiple ACTS in the last two weeks that are more divisive.
lashes out at political satire shows for doing their job
BADLY, and gee, that’s so divisive! No, it’s just undignified and stupid…and much less material than Obama attacking Fox News and Sean Hannity. I don’t see a constitutional crisis coming out of calling biased satire biased. Harry Truman attacked a Post music critic for doing HIS job.
and mocks and trolls the entire intelligence community by continuing to heap praise on Putin
Hyperbole, don’t you think, on your part? Saying’s he’s smart is “heaping praise”?
and appoint Putin-associated people to his cabinet even after the accusations of Russian influence on our election?
Like the SOS? A canard, and a lame one. As for the “the mean Russians let the public know how slimy the Dempocratic Party, Donna Brazile, and the Clintons were,” cry me a river. They also proved how lazy and incompetent Obama cyber-security was, and how how being careless with e-mail has consequences. There isn’t a shred of proof that the Russians had any impact on the election at all.
Don’t you think such actions are far more significant and harmful to our nation than some random choir singer refusing to perform at Trump’s inauguration?
Straw man. The post is about the media assisting the Left’s scheme by giving this junk publicity.
I realize you want to give our next president the benefit of the doubt, but this noble impulse is solidifying into a bias, one which is causing you to turn a blind eye to Trump’s many unethical actions and divisive nature since the election.
Right, like criticizing SNL. I’m rightly focusing on the most dangerous and irresponsible attack on our systems, democracy and national unity since the 1850s. Yeah, I think that’s a tiny bit more pressing than tweets.
The President elect has taken no “divisive actions” beyond making appointments,which are always attacked by the opposite party.
I literally just explained several more divisive actions than this. Why are you pretending I did not? This is gaslighting, Jack.
He has not varied from acceptable President Elect conduct
Bonkers, Jack.
Tweets aren’t conduct. They are words.
Words are the only thing we have to judge him on at this point, since he does not yet have the power to engage in the “conduct” of a president. His words are scary enough, and indicate his conduct will be equally scary.
Of course. Calling for fake recounts? Attacking the system? Rioting? Claiming that a duly elected President is “notmypresident”? Calling on electors to violate law and oaths? Otherizing a President elect as a murderous dictator? Educators treating an election as just cause for panic and grieving? Hysterical fearmongering? States and cities mouthing nullification theories from the 1830s?
None of the people who have done this have as much power as Donald Trump is about to have.
You mean like both Clintons and Obama?
Examples, please?
How is that divisive? Oh–as in”any policy that progressives like is unifying, and any they don’t is divisive”?
Stop pretending only progressives have criticized this! Trump’s saber rattling about an arms race has been condemned on the right as well. This goes beyond partisanship and into basic responsibility and maturity.
It’s words, used to frame negotiation.
I seriously cannot believe the way you are minimizing this.
He’s succeeding a weakling whom nobody fears or respects.
Obama’s current approval rating at home is higher than Trump’s approval rating going into the office. As far as I know, that’s unprecedented. Obama’s approval ratings around the world are much higher than his predecessor’s. You have no evidence for this assertion.
BADLY, and gee, that’s so divisive! No, it’s just undignified and stupid…
Undignified and stupid presidents are by their very nature divisive, Jack.
Hyperbole, don’t you think, on your part? Saying’s he’s smart is “heaping praise”?
Constantly calling him smarter than our own leaders is heaping praise, yes. Doing so after Putin has already been accused by our intelligence agencies of interfering in the election on behalf of Trump is disgusting, and shows that Trump has zero respect for our intelligence community or the millions of Americans who are concerned about this serious issue.
As for the “the mean Russians let the public know how slimy the Dempocratic Party, Donna Brazile, and the Clintons were,” cry me a river. They also proved how lazy and incompetent Obama cyber-security was, and how how being careless with e-mail has consequences.
So it is now your belief that the Russian government conducted the hacks? Good. That’s more than Trump has conceded–he continues to deny this even after multiple briefings where he was told that this happened.
The President elect has taken no “divisive actions” beyond making appointments,which are always attacked by the opposite party.
I literally just explained several more divisive actions than this. Why are you pretending I did not? This is gaslighting, Jack.
Which I addressed later. No gaslighting—the perils of answering a reply before reading the whole thing. Happens to me too. I forgive you.
He has not varied from acceptable President Elect conduct
Bonkers, Jack.
Traditional conduct, yes. Acceptable? With a few stumbles, pretty much.
Tweets aren’t conduct. They are words.
Words are the only thing we have to judge him on at this point, since he does not yet have the power to engage in the “conduct” of a president. His words are scary enough, and indicate his conduct will be equally scary.
You just conceded my point! Exactly. You do not have any grounds to make the extreme accusations you are making. When Trump has power, and abuses it, we will presumably be in agreement.
Of course. Calling for fake recounts? Attacking the system? Rioting? Claiming that a duly elected President is “notmypresident”? Calling on electors to violate law and oaths? Otherizing a President elect as a murderous dictator? Educators treating an election as just cause for panic and grieving? Hysterical fearmongering? States and cities mouthing nullification theories from the 1830s?
None of the people who have done this have as much power as Donald Trump is about to have.
!!!!! We’re talking about NOW. Those people have the power now to undermine the system NOW. That one of their victim’s will have more power eventually doesn’t make things even. Wowsers. Talk about a tortured defense!
You mean like both Clintons and Obama?
Examples, please?
Obama, especially during the 2012 campaign, used his websiet to attack individual GOP donors and others as “betting against America.” “…By calling out private citizens by name on his website, he was alerting and siccing every part of his government on Republican donors. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict people), the SEC (which can fine people), and the IRS (which can audit people) was clear: Donate money to Romney, and you are fair government game.”
Hillary: (You remember her list of people she was “proud o have as enemies” debate answer, no?)
How is that divisive? Oh–as in”any policy that progressives like is unifying, and any they don’t is divisive”?
Stop pretending only progressives have criticized this! Trump’s saber rattling about an arms race has been condemned on the right as well. This goes beyond partisanship and into basic responsibility and maturity.
No, it doesn’t. It’s an alternative to conventional wisdom, as dominated by Obama and the left. The arms race is what brought down the Iron Curtain. Just because you disagree with it doesn’t make the position per se unutterable.
It’s words, used to frame negotiation.
I seriously cannot believe the way you are minimizing this.
I minimize that which is minimal. There is no evidence that a tweet indicates actual policy, or even policy intent.
He’s succeeding a weakling whom nobody fears or respects.
Obama’s current approval rating at home is higher than Trump’s approval rating going into the office. As far as I know, that’s unprecedented. Obama’s approval ratings around the world are much higher than his predecessor’s. You have no evidence for this assertion.
Oh, be serious. Approval is personal approval, not respect. Look at Syria. Look at the Crimea. Look at Israel. Look at Cuba. It’s not even within debate that Obama has been weak, is regarded as weak, and that no power fears the US under his leadership in any way. Polls have nothing to do with respect. And no, it’s not unprecedented. Bush did not enter office more popular the Clinton, and his father did not enter more popular than Reagan. Nor has any President elect had to endure a full time assault on his character and legitimacy between the election and searing in. That’s what the issue is! Welcome to circular reasoning! Progressives are justified in denigrating the President Elect, because they’ve made him unpopular. Again, Wow.
BADLY, and gee, that’s so divisive! No, it’s just undignified and stupid…
Undignified and stupid presidents are by their very nature divisive, Jack.
Trump isn’t President yet, Chris.
Hyperbole, don’t you think, on your part? Saying’s he’s smart is “heaping praise”?
Constantly calling him smarter than our own leaders is heaping praise, yes. Doing so after Putin has already been accused by our intelligence agencies of interfering in the election on behalf of Trump is disgusting, and shows that Trump has zero respect for our intelligence community or the millions of Americans who are concerned about this serious issue.
Right. The issue is being manipulated as part of the Democrat delegitimizng scheme. There is no reason to believe or trust the CIA about anything, ever. Who knows what their game is? Is there any question in your mind that the CIA, as we discuss this, is engaged in block ops against Russia that make having poor, dumb John Podesta’s e-mail laughable? If not, then read some books. I’ve taught ethics to the CIA. I’ve toured their facillity. They deal in lies. Trump distrusts the CIA? Good. Best place to start. The CIA is mucking with the election. Here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439
As for the “the mean Russians let the public know how slimy the Dempocratic Party, Donna Brazile, and the Clintons were,” cry me a river. They also proved how lazy and incompetent Obama cyber-security was, and how how being careless with e-mail has consequences.
So it is now your belief that the Russian government conducted the hacks? Good. That’s more than Trump has conceded–he continues to deny this even after multiple briefings where he was told that this happened.
I’m not sure, but I am sure Trump is reacting to the false “Hacked the election” narrative, of which there is no evidence at all.
How is what Russia accused of doing (revealing hacked e-mails) any different in nature than what NBC actually did (revealing a leaked recording of a private conversation) or what CBS did in 2004 (releasing old memos allegedly from the 1970’s?)
Um, maybe because Russia is a foreign government with possible motives of undermining our sovereignty?
How does releasing truthful information undermine our sovereignty?
By selectively revealing some of the truth, and carefully concealing or even falsifying other parts.
That means that the network broadcast and print media are undermining our sovereignty.
Dan Rather tried to undermine our sovereignty.
Candy Crowley undermined our eovereignty.
If your position is that Trump should not trust the CIA, then tell me: whom should he trust when making major foreign policy decisions?
The Bush administration didn’t listen to the CIA when they expressed doubts about WMDs in Iraq. They thought they knew better. Were they right or wrong, Jack?
I see no reason to disbelieve the CIA on this issue. The CIA has never, as far as I know, jumped into a political dispute like this one. They prefer to stay behind the scenes. What could they possibly stand to gain by falsely claiming Russia hacked the DNC to help elect Trump? Why would they lie about this?
Explain how hacking the DNC could possibly help Trump?
“Words are the only thing we have to judge him on at this point, since he does not yet have the power to engage in the “conduct” of a president.”
This is really as far as you have to go. You’re in hysterics. Over. Words.
Maybe you should take your cues from Clinton’s feminist supporters in the 80’s: “We know he’s a cad, but his policies benefit women, so we support him.” (Google it, that’s not a direct quote, but they were really frank about it, even back then.)
People, like you, have spent eight years explaining Obama’s words away, saying people on the right were oversensitive, misinterpreting, or outright lying, and at least the Obama critics could point to Obama’s track record as proof. You know nothing at this point, other than that he says things you don’t like. Excuse me while I attempt to care.
Nope. I don’t think it’s happening tonight, babe.
Google Clinton :”one free grope”
Did you mean to write, “Donald Trump is NOT Hitler.”?
I just realized, since I hadn’t seen it before, that Chris’s repeated mention of Trump’s use of the term “enemies” in this thread referred to his tweet, which I’m posting on right now. The more I think of that context, the funnier it becomes. Yeah, that totally reads like something Hitler would send out.in 1936. The “LOL” rises in my gorge, but I am suppressing it…suppressing it…
“Trump’s not going to stop being divisive and immature, so everyone better unite behind him” is not exactly an encouraging message.
Whose message was that?
Or is this an incredibly
dishonestspun misconstruction of what others have said?It’s a fair and accurate summary of this, from Jack:
Missing the point. Trump’s not going to change that, and especially while eveyone from Obama to ex-lawyer to the MORMON TABERNACLE CHOIR is taking gratuitous cheap shots as jerks send out #notmypresident tweets. He’s a jerk. The Presidency, however, hasn’t changed. At the inaugeration, he’s the President, and its the office people are respecting.
“Trump’s not going to stop being divisive and immature, so everyone better unite behind him” is, in fact, not at all a fair summary, since it leaves out the object of the statement! The Inauguration. Nobody who doesn’t want to support Trump’s policies or plans once he’s working is just being the loyal opposition, as long as they have the integrity to support responsible or necessary policies and actions, and not obstruct just to obstruct. I did not say that everyone had an obligation to unite behind Trump. They do have an obligation to be respectful to the process and the office no matter how much they oppose Trump, which means tempering their rhetoric within responsible boundaries, and not sabotaging ceremonies and traditional rituals involving the Presidency. This is common sense, but apparently common sense and common interests are beyond the Trump Unhinged.
Accordiong to Occupy Democrats, opposition is treasonous.
If they change their mind on January 29th, will it be due to a neutral principle?
Fair and accurate. What a load of tripe.
You’ve completely ignored that Jack is focused purely on the office of the Presidency and a necessary ceremony of state. Not the man involved.
Chris said, “Trump’s not going to stop being divisive and immature, so everyone better unite behind him” is not exactly an encouraging message” and then had the audacity to judge that his statement was “It’s a fair and accurate summary of this, from Jack”.
Your first quote (as you worded it) was saying that because Trump isn’t going to stop being divisive and immature we should unite behind him; that sir is not just spin a bald faced LIE and you know it!
Then you had the balls to openly LIE again stating that your original quote was a “a fair and accurate summary”. You’re full of shit Chris.
Willful liars are not worthy of any respect from me. You’re a political hack in every sense of the phrase.