The Resistance Thinks This Is Appropriate Political Humor. This Tells Us All We Need To Know About The Resistance [UPDATED]

After the shooting of  Rep. Giffords in Tucson, Democrats and the news media attempted to blame the tragedy on the “eliminationist rhetoric” used by Republicans, citing Sarah Palin’s use of cross-hairs on an electoral map to point to Democrats being targeted for defeat. At one point, CNN’s John King even chastised a guest for using the term ‘”in the crosshairs” in talking about the candidates. “We’re trying, we’re trying to get away from that language,” King solemnly inveighed.  “Andy is a good friend, he’s covered politics for a long time, but we’re trying to get away from that kind of language.”

Eighteen months later, the producers of “Game of Thrones” thought it was a hilarious inside joke to place a model of George W. Bush’s head  on a pike in one scene showing multiple severed heads.. Alluding to his beheading was wonderful, at least to Hollywood liberals. Putting Obama’s head on a pike would have been, of course, unthinkable, and proof of racism.

I wrote at the time,

“Criticism, satire and humor regarding any U.S. President, living or dead, is fair, ethical and within the realm of the freedom of expression that makes America great. Incivility, disrespect, denigration, hate and incitements to violence directed against any President, living or dead, is wrong. However any of these men performed in office, whether their policies were popular or not and whatever the consequences, good or bad, of their decisions were, every one of them was a patriot and a public servant who made significant sacrifices to attempt to meet the challenges of the most difficult job in the nation, and to do what he thought was in the best interests of the nation. Eight of the 44—that’s 18%—were shot at. Five of the 44—-11%—were shot, and four of them died.  The acceptance of the responsibility of the President is itself an act of courage. Evoking the intentional killing of a U.S. President in any context is irresponsible, and to mock a former and living President in the manner of barbarians and terrorists of other lands, to treat him as the terrorists treated Nick Berg, is as offensive an act of disrespect as I can imagine.”

Now Kathy Griffin, who hosts New Year’s Eve for CNN, has posed for the photograph above. I’m sure the “resistance”—you know, like Hillary—thinks it’s just hilarious, and that Griffin is getting high-fives from her pals at the network and Hollywood.

These are objectively hateful, ugly, irresponsible people, and their depravity becomes deeper and sicker almost daily. They really think behaving this way toward the nation’s elected leader will return them to power. In that belief, they are insulting all of us.

UPDATE: I almost forgot: this is the second controversy over beheaded Trump art. In half of one year in one term, Trump has been graphically murdered twice, while no other President since Lincoln had been beheaded in any high profile forum once.

240 thoughts on “The Resistance Thinks This Is Appropriate Political Humor. This Tells Us All We Need To Know About The Resistance [UPDATED]

  1. This comment is a little late, as it should have come after 5 comments rather than 165, but let me be clear: The fact that few have endorsed Griffin’s visual attack and threat to the President doesn’t change the accuracy of the title at all. The members of the so-called “resistance” aren’t stupid—not all of them, anyway. They were smart enough to know instinctively that as much as they enjoyed seeing the President reduced to a bloody head, most American still have sufficient decency and respect for the Office to find the gesture repugnant enough to make them doubt the values of anyone who would not recoil. So the resistance sort-of kind-of pretends to be repulsed. Smart, but unconvincing.

    This is a group that cheered naked statues stripping Trump of all dignity; that has tweeted in the thousands about his death, that have declared him a menace to our children and the continued existence of the very Earth, that has claimed that he wants to eliminate civil rights laws and send Muslims, gays and critics to camps, that called him a rapist, a monster, and comparable to Hitler, that implies in their offensive title that he is a usurping despot who should be overthrown, by violence if necessary, and they are indeed trying to overthrow him.

    Why would the traditional image of a tyrant beheaded bother these people? It wouldn’t, and it doesn’t.

    I am 100% certain of it. They simply know that denying that they support the gory image and its message is good politics. Griffin went “too far” because she exposed the ugliest side of their ugly movement. She apologized to the resistance, not to Trump.

    Some in the resistance aren’t that smart, like Rosie O’Donnell and the others who have mocked the fact that Trump’s little boy was freaked out by the photo. But they all have already proven that hate rules them. If a hateful image was going to bother the resistance, it is only because it revealed too much.

    The defenders of the resistance here don’t know the kind of people they are siding with.

    At least I hope not.

    • I’ll say it outright; I think the initial reaction of the vast majority, if not 100%, in the anti-Trump morally bankrupt resistance was exactly the reaction of laughter that I got from some of my friends that I talked about in my May 31, 2017 at 9:14 pm comment. Some of them are not completely politically ignorant and chose to delete or not share their initial approval of the photos and jump on the condemnation band-wagon for political reasons which I also talked more about in my June 1, 2017 at 9:53 am comment. There is somewhat of a historical air-brushing going on right now with previously stated opinions.

      Most of the people I know that consider themselves part of the resistance are being 100% silent on the issue which is also a tell.

      • Zoltar, I obviously can’t speak for every member of the Resistance, but I honestly can’t imagine looking at that image and laughing at it. Is it supposed to be funny? I understand it was supposed to be “shocking…” but there’s nothing humorous about it.

      • I’m sorry, your presumption is BS. I am liberal and have NEVER felt that way. I am against violence of any sort, a pacifist. I don’t wish he would die, I just wish he was not the president. There was nothing, nothing at all funny about it and I don’t think it was meant to be funny. It was meant to be shocking and serious as a heart attack. I have several friends that count themselves among the “Resistance”, they have marched and demonstrated. Both are vegans and don’t think violence of any kind is the answer for any problem. They didn’t find it funny in the least. Are there some that did, I suppose. Just like there are some who call themselves “Conservatives” who yelled “Damn Right!!!” hearing Randy John Best’s remarks when apprehended and in court. It certainly does not mean the majority, the sane, the compassionate of either side think it is right, funny, justified or the way to bring about change. But I have FB friends who are among those who consider themselves patriots who felt that Randy John Best did the world a favor and agree with his ramblings. But that is Facebook and Facebook gives every idiot with an idea or opinion a bullhorn that gives people the impression that they somehow represent mainstream liberal or conservative thought. Most of the people who truly represent the majority of each party are too busy with real lives and jobs to be bothered with Facebook posts and useless arguments with people who will not reason themselves out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into to begin with.

        For Colbert, it is much easier to argue Jester’s Privilege, and the humor is there, I will admit he is a guilty pleasure of mine – but the cockholster joke went way over the line. He is a comedian and I don’t hold him to the same accuracy standards as the news or politicians. It doesn’t matter if Trump IS in bed (literally or figuratively) with Putin, I just think a line of human decency was crossed and he lost the respect of many people. There is a certain respect, due the POTUS no matter how much you feel he or she does not deserve it.

        • Lisa Weber wrote, “I am liberal and have NEVER felt that way. I am against violence of any sort, a pacifist. I don’t wish he would die”

          Where did I say Liberals condone “violence”, where? You’re reading what’s not there. I really don’t mind you disagreeing with me but please don’t imply what I haven’t said or implied.

          If I’m reading you right, you don’t consider yourself as being part of the anti-Trump active resistance, so you are outside of the movement looking in, just as I am, and that view is colored by your perception of those you see and what their words and actions are – we clearly have different perceptions of those we see.

          As for those that consider thing like this issue as humorous…

          “Nothing shows a man’s character more than what he laughs at.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

    • Jack,

      Thank you for finally addressing the headline and providing a plausible defense of its accuracy.

      I say plausible, not convincing, because I think your defense rests on a degree of mind-reading that you have previously decried as unfair. When I concluded that Trump fired Comey because he was angry over the Russia investigation into Trump’s campaign and Comey’s refusal to defend his wiretapping lie, you said my conclusion was unfair, biased, and possibly a result of derangement. Yet my conclusion (which I always made sure to state as opinion, not fact) was based on Trump’s past behavior, just as your opinion on the Resistance’s thoughts on Griffin’s display is based on their past behavior.

      I don’t see the difference.

    • Lots of mind reading going on in your analysis Jack.

      And by the way, I don’t know of anyone who isn’t repulsed by the naked Trump statues.

      • Oooh, I could finger at least 25 or so Facebook friends who would admit that they cheer the sentiment that photo expressed, and their friends would be even worse. How do I know this? I read wishes for doom regarding the President on a regular basis on their walls. The unhinged hatred is amazing. I haven’t yet checked the mouth-foaming over the decision to ditch the Paris accord, but I bet its a flood.

        • I haven’t yet checked the mouth-foaming over the decision to ditch the Paris accord, but I bet its a flood

          No pun intended, I’m sure.

            • Now I have seen the foaming. I’ve been tempted to point out how stupid my friends sound, but have not. People are actually writing that “we’re doomed!” because the US isn’t supporting a PR stunt that wasn’t enforceable, wasn’t based on reliable data, pledging measures nobody knows what they may cost or whether they will work, in response to models and predictions that almost certainly are inaccurate.

              They sound like a cult.

              • Go ahead, Jack. Stand with Syria. And against science. Sad. If you’re right, we lose a few jobs. If Scientistic consensus is right, major parts of our country will be underwater. I have children and I’m not willing to take that risk, and neither was a large swath of the ruling party (Todd Whitman; his SOS; his daughter). What appalls me about Trump is that he is taking radical measures against decades of bipartisan consensus, basically opposing not just a minority agenda on a largely resistant populace, but the agenda of a minority of a minority. He hasn’t established a mandate for this disuprtion, and this is not North Korea. We don’t all fall behind our dear leader. We respect the office, but the holder must earn respect, and he hasn’t. I disagree with you because I feel that resistance is not because of coverage or antipathy, but because he is ruling devisely and squandered his opportunity to unite and heal this country’s divides. I resist his agenda and do so as an ethical person and a patriot, and we deserve respect, and not the broad-brush dismissals and calumnies we receive on this web-site. Thanks you Chris, sorry my moniker irks you– you are thoughtful clear and and you put up with a lot of unfortunate nastiness. We are patriotic Americans and we have a Constitutinal right to petition our government for redress of grievances, and that right is not subject to approval or policing by Jack Marshall or anyone else.

                • Nice rant. Completely counter factual—like when was the President given a chance to unite anyone or anything, since his election was declared illegitimate from the start?—but admirable for the passion if not the logic. Of course he has a mandate—it’s called an election. The web site doesn’t engage in policy, but the method by which policy is debated and implemented. Enforcing immigration laws isn’t radical: ignoring them is. Reducing regulations isn’t radical. Opposing terrorists isn’t radical. Firing an untrustworthy FBI director isn’t radical, and appointing a qualified SCOTUS justice isn’t radical. Radical is trying to overthrow a Presidency using innuendo and unsubstantiated leaks.

                  This is just name calling and venting, Chris, and as always, I wonder how you and the rest justify the rhetoric in the absence of actaul evidence. It’s fascinating, and eventually someone will write a grreat book about it. Maybe you, when you calm down.

                  Oh—Trump BOMBED Syria.

                  • Calling you out, Jack. I just reread my post. It contains opinion, analysis, and certain facts. Nothing is “counter-factual.” You may disagree with my opinions, your right, with my analysis, your right, but you may not accuse me of being counter-factual. Your assertion that Trump had no chance to unite is your opinion, your analysis, but it is not a fact. The stuff you cite is not what I consider the radical swerving from bipartisan consensus. I was thinking of elimination or truncating of programs like support for the arts or environmental protection which were, in fact, initiated by Republicans. An election begins a mandate. A leader follows an election by persuading broader support for an agenda. Please tell me what in my post that is presented as fact, as against opinion or analysis, is wromg, or retract. Who did I call a name? If you don’t think Chris, me, and others on this site don’t get called nasty names, I’m not sure you are reading the site carefully. I pointed out the nastiness of the invective, but called no one a name. If I am wrong, please point out or retract. And, yes, Trump bombed Syria. He also just did a trip swerving decades of bipartisan support for Europe and the NATO alliance focusing instead on his common ground with Russia. His son-in-law did what the ex-CIA director described as espionage. And for some strange reason, no one remembers to include meetings with Russians when they fill out their security clearance forms. And we don’t know about first family business ties because tax info wasn’t shared, as is NORMAL. What makes Comey untrustworthy? That an independent investigator with a tenure that doesn’t coincide with Presidential terms won’t clear the Prez as requested or pledge loyalty? You aren’t bothered, fine. Others are, and we don’t deserve to be called names because there are a lot of questions to which the American people deserve answers. Focus your “venting” on the excesses and not on those of us whose love of our country and are heritage lead us to be deeply troubled by the current administration.

                    • “Your assertion that Trump had no chance to unite is your opinion, your analysis, but it is not a fact.”

                      It is absolutely fact, and the argument that the opposite is true is complete fantasy. The virtually the entire Congressional Black Caucus boycotted the inauguration, and the artistic community bullied performers out of participating: that was Day #1. Before that, a false and unprecedented campaign was mounted, and supported by prominent Democrats, to overturn the election by hijacking the electoral college. I documented this stuff, Chris, you can’t get away with just wishing it away. Those who are in your position now—I have no idea what your stance was at the time—denied President Trump what had been automatically conferred on every other elected President since the Civil War, and that was the credibility, honor and status of being recognized as the nation’s choice to stand in the place of Washington, Lincoln and the rest. That was denied him, and because it was denied him, with immediate claims of illegitimacy and calls to impeach him before he even took office.

                      So he was placed in a position of defending his job and the system that placed him in it from the start. He had a duty to do this, because your opposition was also an attack on the election and our system of government. I have been documenting this from the beginning, and there is no case to be made that it didn’t happen. As the cliche says, you are welcome to your opinion, but not your own facts. Trump would have had a difficult time binding the wounds that he himself was greatly responsible for inflicting during the companion, but he was never accorded a honeymoon, a period of good will, or a chance.

                      I am always willing to be called out, but use something more serious than alternate history next time.

                • The Paris Accord looks to me of ‘copy and paste this to show you care/raise awareness’. Countries make voluntary pledges of how much they will lower their carbon emissions and that becomes their working standard no matter how low or unrealistic it might be (not decreed or recommended by the Accord); no baseline is stipulated…there is no time limit given within which they have to reach the goals they stated. In addition, there are no penalties whatsoever for not reaching the self-declared goal. What kind of an agreement is that?

                  What exactly do we lose by not taking part?

                  • The illusion of virtue by swearing fealty to climate change orthodoxy.

                    The President should not commit the United States to treaties, which this is, without formal submission and approval to Congress. Simple as that.

                    • I see! I did not know that it would need Congressional approval. Thank you.

                      The way people are going on about the US backing out, you’d think Doomsday was just moved up to this week. I was wondering what, if any, ramifications it will have for the US to withdraw. Upon reading about it, it doesn’t seem to have any real power to enforce any kind of change. Another overreaction, because Trump? The way people howl at everything he does,it’s getting hard to differentiate real issues from hysterics.

                    • Dear Jack, I’ve calmed down a little; perhaps you have, too. We both got pretty worked up. I’m not a lawyer, you are, and I defer to you on questions such as the definition of fact. I don’t dispute the facts you marshal in support of your conclusion, and forgive my apparent lay error in presuming your conclusion not to be demonstrably factual. That said, I have three critiques of your analysis, respectfully offered:
                      1) It presumes DJT capable of behaving as a unifying leader, and that is not a quality I have observed over the course of his campaign, the transition, or the Presidency. I believe that the last months could have been quite different had that quality of leadership been present.
                      2) It places almost, if not the entire, onus on the media and the left, and less on the unprecedentedly polarizing behavior of the candidate, President-elect, and then President. I respectfully disagree wth that allocation of responsibility.
                      3) Your focus on “the left” leaves out the significant anti-Trump Republican cohort. I think a fair analysis has to acknowledge that, even though it is a minority of resistance to Trump and certainly a minority of the party, it exists, and it speaks to a unique aspect to the antipathy toward Trump. (The only thing near to it in my lifetime was the Democratic hawks in the late 70s/early 80s who migrated right to become the new-conservatives.)
                      I’ll close by asking you and other commenters on your site to be less dismissive and disparaging of citizens who hold differing views to yours, as I hope to do on my side of the spectrum. It can’t help heal the divisions in this country and won’t stop us speaking past each other and inhabiting our own echo-chambers if a discussion can’t be had that doesn’t presume bad faith on the part of the other side, and if serious questions and concerns are met with derision. Just in this thread, my thoughts have been greeted with “fantasy,” “sniveling,” “shit storm,” “foaming,” and “authentic frontier gibberish.” Seriously, my friend, that’s not a level of discourse of which to be proud to have encouraged.

                    • Thanks for this, CB (and it remains weird to communicate with people I know using pseudonyms—it’s like being a spy)—this something I can respond to. By sheer chance, a similar comment from a well-regarded blogger and commenter here raised many of the same issues you do, and I responded to him at length. Please take it as no offense, but just an aversion to typing (I can’t type) that I will rely heavily on that exchange.

                      He wrote in part,

                      Trump is a sociopath, an authoritarian, and a narcissist. Lots of politicians and Presidents have some measure of those traits, but few outside of failing states are as extreme as Trump. He is supported by bigots and shows some of those tendencies himself. He is ignorant of many issues, and he refuses to learn. He wants to tear apart his predecessor’s accomplishments, even though he has no idea how to fix them and shows little interest in trying. He expresses open admiration for strongmen like Putin, and he attacks our institutions, the courts and the free press. He is an unusually bad President, and a threat to the welfare of the American people.

                      And for the most part, since he has taken office, you have been viciously attacking his critics. You are the one watching the nation burn, and you are attacking the people trying to fight the fire.

                      Authoritarians like Trump hate the press, and try at every turn to undermine it so that they, and they alone, become the only source of “truth.” And you, Jack, are helping him, every time you launch your broad attacks against the press. Granted, there have been a lot of stupid things written about Trump, many of them out-and-out factually inaccurate, and those deserve to be called out, and you have done a good job of it. And because I like you, I’d really like to think your anger over the worst incidents by the worst journalists is what’s causing you to launch your overly broad attacks against the entire institution of the press.

                      You accuse some of Trump’s critics of abandoning the normal rules for respecting the President, but I would argue that there’s another rule that applies: Authoritarian sociopaths who want to hurt us must be publicly and vigorously opposed. That rule has always been there, but it takes a guy like Trump to bring it to the forefront.

                      My full response:

                      But you see, this is more of the same. Trump is who he is, and the people elected him President. Unless you accept this as the starting point, you are lost, and you can’t possibly reach a reasonable or logical position.

                      I agree with your entire third paragraph, but it doesn’t justify your position. He’s got the job. Our job is to help him do it as well as he can, not to sabotage someone who is already more challenged and over his head than most. Not only is that the Golden Rule, it’s common sense. If someone who can barely fly is at your plane’s controls, you don’t try to distract him, throw things at him, and mock his every move. That is insane. Do you want to crash? The comparison is the Caine Mutiny exactly. He needs support, not sabotage.

                      I have no problem with critics. But enemies are not critics. People determined to interpret every act negatively are not critics. They are saboteurs and assassins. As I must have written a hundred times, it’s easy finding legitimate things to criticize Trump for. But he deserves and needs good will, the benefit of the doubt, and occasional praise, like everyone else who has ever had to lead anything or anyone.

                      As for the news media, I’ve documented how thoroughly it has abandoned all professionalism years before Trump came along. I wrote about how they made Obama a worse President, hard as that is to imagine, by not holding his performance to previous objective , non-partisan standards. Flipping around and simply repeating every negative rumor, reporting every Trump statement while eye-rolling—this isn’t fair, no matter who is the target. Do you think this is the mark of an ethical; news media?

                      Trump has every reason to distrust the news media, which is no longer practicing journalism. Yes, a free and independent news media is essential, and we don’t have one. The solution isn’t to pretend we do. If I were President, I wouldn’t pretend that’s what we have and enable the fraud. The public hasn’t turned on the press because Trump has attacked it: Nixon was more popular than Trump, and he didn’t make the nation distrust the press. The press has done itself in by being obviously biased, partisan and incompetent, and that is terrible for the US, as I have been saying and documenting for a long, long time. Trump can’t be blamed for that, nor can he be blamed for reacting to the news media that exists, and not treating it as if it is the news media it should be—and I can’t be blamed for pointing out how untrustworthy it has become..

                      If the news media was trustworthy, honest and competent, Trump would have never been nominated or elected.

                      My “rule” is historically correct, absolutely necessary and has been followed right up to November 8, 2016. Yours— “Authoritarian sociopaths who want to hurt us must be publicly and vigorously opposed”— is bats, unjust like a bill of attainder, and manufactured to justify the unjustifiable and unconstitutional as a response to this President and no other. it hasn’t always existed. It doesn’t exist, because the Constitution rules it out, and thank God for that. Otherwise any time a big enough mob decides that an elected leader is “dangerous,” the Democracy is finished. This was what “Seven Days in May” was about.

                      What proof do you have that Trump ‘wants to hurt us”? There is no evidence of that, not in his background, statements, conduct or behavior. The statement is paranoia. How can you even write that? That’s the demonizing and fearmongering that began the second he was elected—and you really think that’s a reasonable conclusion? I’m stunned.

                      Like every other guy who grew up in America, Trump wants to do well for his country and be successful in his job. He wants to be remembered as a good leader. Even sociopaths in the US who become President feel that way. He may have no idea how to do that, and his ideas about what a good leader is may be absurd, and he may not have the skill to even do what he wants to do, but the claim that he wants to hurt us is pure Bond villain stuff, and shouldn’t be part of a serious political calculation. It is fear, hate and emotion without substance—bigotry.

                      Style aside, it is also just flat out incorrect to declare that Trump is a horrible President based n what he has actually done so far. By his first year, JFK had created an international fiasco and sent the Cold War into the red zone. He had appointed his brother to a post he was unqualified for, and was hiding drug addictions while hauling women into the White House so he could screw them. But the news media was fawning, so nobody would write what you just did about Trump. (And talk about a sociopath…)

                      You’re as level-headed as they come, Mark. I’d love to understand how and equally reasonable individuals could come to the point of saying “It’s our duty to pretend this is a banana republic, and to ignore what our fellow citizens decided in our election because we decided that their choice was stupid and insane. That’s not a responsible option. The ethical option is to do what we can to mitigate the threat by helping the President, not sabotaging him.

                      I don’t know how I can get that message across to the crazies, if you are immune to it, but I am ethically bound to try.

                      Now regarding your comment:

                      1. I am 99.9999% certain that you are correct. Trump has not shown the skills nor inclination to be a unifying leader. Nonetheless, he had the right and privilege due him to be permitted the chance. He was not permitted that chance, not when the immediate response to his election saw, in the words of an article published elsewhere yesterday…“respect among many for the election results disappeared faster than a politician’s promise. On social media, in demonstrations, and in other ways never-Trumpers call themselves the “resistance,” declaring Trump is “Not My President,” and speculate, suggest, or insist he resign, be impeached, or that there should be a do-over election.

                      Many of these partisans – as well as Democrats in Washington’s halls of power – a few short months earlier insisted that it’s unpatriotic to disrespect a president, and if someone hopes a president fails they hope America fails. That’s when in Barack Obama they had a president they liked.

                      Those high-minded principles have in many quarters transitioned to it being unpatriotic to not disrespect Trump, and pulling for him to succeed means wanting America to fail.

                      Those are rational reversals only if principles depend on the politics of the moment.

                      I flagged and criticized this from the start, and my position has not changed, One of the obvious results of this phenomenon, which, as I have noted before, was a direct reversal and complete hypocrisy, since “when Clinton and her supporters were confident of winning, Trump’s attitude toward the outcome was big news. Would he and his backers accept the results? Clinton said of Trump, “He became the first person, Republican or Democrat, who refused to say that he would respect the results of this election. Now, that is a direct threat to our democracy.”

                      I agree: it is a direct threat to our democracy, and my making that case since Nov. 8 is no more “suporting Trump” than the same argument was when Hillary made it against Trump. The refusal to accept the results of the election robbed Trump of the power to draw the nation together. Criticizing him for not doing so, even if it is unlikely that he would have, is like the story of the man who killed his parents seeking mercy because he is an orphan.

                      2) It places almost, if not the entire, onus on the media and the left, and less on the unprecedentedly polarizing behavior of the candidate, President-elect, and then President. I respectfully disagree wth that allocation of responsibility.

                      I’m a professional ethics specialist, and the duties of journalists and Presidents are completely different. Journalists, by their own ethics codes, are required to be objective, fair and non-partisan. They have not been, and as a result, they have made coherent democratic government near impossible. They can’t be defended be cause this President is “special”—that was how the NYT tried to justify bias. Their duties and standards are absolute, and the judgment on their breach of ethics has nothing to do with who their unethical conduct supports. I was just as critical of the new media when Obama was President.

                      I don’t see how anyone can argue that a President being polarizing is per se the President’s fault when the public has been already polarized. Trump has exploited the polarizing, yes. I agree that this is short-sighted and wrong, but then it was the polarized public that elected him, and who did the dividing? Who called half the public “deplorables’ for not supporting her? Who claimed that not voting for a corrupt candidate meant one was misogynist? Before that, who said that 48% of the public was committed to getting government handouts? Who has created college courses about “eliminating whiteness”? Whose administration created a culture where now we are having segregated college graduations?

                      Trump was largely elected because one of the groups—the people who weren’t members of the Democratic “base”— that Obama had spent 8 years marginalizing, snubbing, disrespecting and subjecting to contempt decided that they weren’t going to take it any more. Trump exploited that, but he didn’t do the dividing. Meanwhile, who was the unifying figure in contrast to Trump? Not Hillary, with her deplorables remark and gender-baiting. Not Bernie, with his socialist class warfare. Who? Ted Cruz? I find it strange that this is what you would focus on, Trump’s inability to unite what the previous 8 years (and the two administrations before that) had so tragically divided. I blame Trump for running for an office he has neither the skills, experience nor character to do, but he is way down the list of people responsible for the divisions and polarization in the US.

                      I do blame those who are currently exacerbating those divisions by telling the part of the electorate that voted for this President, “We don’t care what you wanted, you are morons. We only respect elections when they go our way.” You want division, just wait until Maxine Waters gets her wish.

                      3) Your focus on “the left” leaves out the significant anti-Trump Republican cohort. I think a fair analysis has to acknowledge that, even though it is a minority of resistance to Trump and certainly a minority of the party, it exists, and it speaks to a unique aspect to the antipathy toward Trump.

                      You are right, and I will work to balance that.

                      Again, thanks for the chance to clarify, CB.

                  • We lost what little respect our country still had from our allies. Trump has been weakening our relationships with allies his whole presidency so far, and refusing to sign the Paris Accord, has further eroded American leadership across the globe. According to Jack, the Accord is pure symbolism, which means not signing it is nothing but a symbolic middle finger to the rest of the world. Jack says this is a good thing because it’s a rejection of Obama’s “one world government” philosophy, but aside from sounding exactly like something Jim Hoft or Alex Jones would write, this is bad because having strong relationships and a leadership role among other countries is actually a good thing for America.

                    (By the way, weakening America’s relationship with Europe is exactly what Putin wants, but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence, along with the decision to reopen Russian compounds and the new evidence of even more secret meetings with Russia.)

                    • 1. “aside from sounding exactly like something Jim Hoft or Alex Jones would write” Cheap shot and a logical fallacy. as IU’m pretty sure you know.
                      2. The United States should show it leadership by following. Hmmmm.
                      3. I would think the “the world has lost respect” argument would have lost its luster by now. It depends what values the world holds, and there are many values the US cannot and should not embrace. Did the world gain or lose respect when Obama drew his red line and then weaseled out of it? Did the world respect or not Trump’s decision to re-draw that line, and use force to show he wasn’t bluffing? Did the world respect giving Iran billions for promises we should know it won’t keep?
                      4. I don’t have respect for showboating agreements that can’t be enforced, unilaterally committed to by a President whose idea of environmentalism is to kill a pipeline that he admits didn’t pose any real climate change danger to “send the right message.”
                      5. That’s right, Trump rejected the Accord to help Russia take over Europe. Eventually people will realize that this relying conspiracy theory makes them the equivalent of tin-foil hat-wearing wackos.

                  • This may be piling on, but…

                    Did anyone know the country leads the known Universe in per capita plant food, I mean <b<EVIL CO2 emission reductions, is NOT a Kyoto Accord signatory?

                    But gosh dang it, they mighta been; then President Clinton signed the treaty but then didn’t lift one pudgy, well-manicured finger to get it through the senate for 800 days.

                    The 801st day happened to be 01/20/2001.

                    To card-carrying members of the feverish hand-wringing, deeply furrowed brow Mother Gaia Protectorate:

                    What have you done, what are doing, and what will you do going forward to address the Global Warming that’s here and worse than the models predicted?

                    Please note flapping yer lips, punishing yer keyboard, and candle-lit vigils contribute to dangerously skyrocketing CO2 levels.

                    And “Look At Me” bumper stickers, “I’m Dialed In” lapel ribbons, and “Gosh I’m Nice” awareness bracelets do nothing but goose your endorphin levels.

                    • “How’s your yard coming along this year,”

                      A visual and olfactory extravaganza thus far, but soon to be burned to a crisp I’m told.

                      “I mean your personal botanical garden?”

                      A newly inspired adherence to The Collective has me committed to abolishing ALL private property ownership. To that end, I’d also like to see the elimination of possessives in English usage.

                      Matters not, seems we’re all going to be warmed to death.

                • Chrissy-Boy wrote, If Scientistic consensus is right, major parts of our country will be underwater.”

                  What’s this “If” stuff Chrissy boy? I see that as a tell. You are arguing as if the global warming alarmist arguments are settled science and then you squeeze in this “if” which shows us that you do not fully trust the science or you don’t understand the science, which is it? Which is it, science skeptic or science ignorance?

                  Chrissy-Boy, some of the global warming alarmist in the past were arguing and spreading fears that between 2010 and 2020 some of the coastal areas of the United States would already be under water. Of course their argument now is “it’s just around the corner”.

                  P.S. I am a Conservative that is all for cleaning up our environment particularly cleaning up the air we breathe. I’ve consciously been reducing my carbon footprint on the planet since the early 80’s and I’ve estimated that I’ve been reasonably effective at a roughly 40%-50% reduction from my previous imprint and I don’t plan to stop my efforts. I refuse use my environmental consciousness as justification to blindly present bad science as propaganda to manipulate the population. I’m all for cleaning up the air we breathe but they need to stop using lies as their major tactic to accomplishing it.

              • “They sound like a cult.”
                Yet another comparison I made some time ago and was roundly chastised for (not by you).

                • joed68 wrote, ” “They sound like a cult.” Yet another comparison I made some time ago and was roundly chastised for (not by you).”

                  Who would chastise someone for saying something similar to “they sound like a cult”?

                  • I may have used too strong a word. If memory serves me, I was simply told that the left doesn’t meet the criteria needed to be considered a cult.

                    • Yup, that was me back in August 2016 that “chastised” you for saying “Progressivism has all the characteristics of a cult.”

                      I disagreed with you assertion using the word “all”. 😉

                      I think we are getting a LOT closer to that “all” when we talk about the anti-Trump resistance.

      • They call themselves “the resistance”. Are you kidding me? What opposition party in the history of America has called itself “the resistance”? Or even called itself close to that?

        For crying out loud, Jack is not incorrect in his assessments. The Left is off the rocker with virulence and hate and intentional divisiveness. It has an almost insurrectionist and secessionist flair to it.

    • Griffin’s attorney is Gloria Allred’s daughter and they contend that it’s the EVIL White Patriarchy that’s conspiring to take her down?

      Hey Zeus Alou, they got some serious stones.

      Sheesh; sometimes this stuff just kinda writes itself!

        • I want credit for not saying that ALL WEEK. You all have no idea the terrible puns and wiseass cracks I filter on this site. My wife, on the other hand, is a saint. Most folks would have killed me by the 5th year of marriage.

          • “You all have no idea the terrible puns and wiseass cracks I filter on this site.”

            Don’t sell yourself short, sounds like yer the Saint.

            All of whom, the eminently quotable Oscar Wilde might add, have a past.

Leave a Reply to Jack Marshall Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.