This one is short and simple.
We are told that President Biden called Trump to express his sympathies, or something, and that the call was “brief and respectful.”
If I were Trump, I would not have accepted the call, or, perhaps, only accepted it long enough to say, “Bite me, asshole.” (Or, “dickhead.” I’m flexible.)
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Would my response be unethical?
I supposed Trump’s by the book response is ethical, sort-of: grace, forgiveness, consideration, reciprocity, and so on. To me, accepting an obviously insincere expression of concern and sympathy aids and abets unethical conduct.
Biden is the ostensible leader of a political party that has set out to vilify, demonize and smear Trump while advancing the theme that he is an American Hitler and, as Biden said in his fascist 2022 “Soul of the Nation” speech, an existential threat to America. Just this week, Biden placed a rhetorical “bullseye” on Trump’s back: the would be assassin missed and hit his ear instead of the bullseye.
Why should Biden be able to publicly absolve himself and his totalitarian party from responsibility by a pro forma phone call? To hell with that. If I were Trump, I not only would reject the call, but I would be very clear in a public statement why I rejected the call.
I believe it would be the right thing to do.
Ethics Alarms 
Eh, this is a tough.one. Biden didn’t pull the trigger, or course, but, going by his own logic, he put this crazy 20 year old on the path that ended with this failed attack.i say that because every time some crazy person uses a gun in a criminal manner, Biden and his minions blame law-abiding gun owners who have nothing to do with it. I think Trump would have been within his rights to refuse, but I think if he has he might have ceded the moral high ground in a lot of people’s eyes, who reflexively think you should always accept apologies and shake hands. It isn’t worth doing that now to whack Biden harder in the RNC later.
I tend to agree, Steve. He took the call, accepted the sentiments, and hanging up probably said, “yeah, right, jerk. See you in November.”
jvb
Would that Trump were able to catalogue the reasons for his not taking the call if he chose not to. Of course, had he refused to take the call, he would have been accused and immediately determined to be breaking the longstanding and normal tradition requiring a candidate to take the president’s phone call when you’ve just miraculously survived an assassination attempt.
But again, I think the root cause analysis will show this is a mental health issue. Plain and simple.
It’s shaping up that there may have been a mental health element. The guy was a bullied loner who was super into video games and hunting.
Gee what a surprise…
I see Biden is scheduled to address the nation at 1:30PM.
Personally, I DGAF what he has to say.
Should be interesting to see how feeble he appears while reading the teleprompter.
I’d take the call, graciously accept his well-wishes, but then remind him of his own and his party’s rhetoric, and finish with something like “I think it’s time dial it back.”
Or maybe “I think it’s time you dial it back.”
Reading some Althouse posts earlier and she commented that maybe Trump is working on being the normal candidate this cycle as opposed to Biden.
It would be a good choice.
“Just calling to tell you what a nice campaign you have there. Shame if something else were to happen to it.”
Click bzzzzzzzzzzzz
I’m really disappointed in this piece.
The call was pro forma. So was the response. Either or both might have been utterly sincere, but partisans on both sides don’t believe it. This is how far we have devolved.
Indeed, my leftie friends are virtually unanimous in proclaiming that had the situation been reversed, Trump would not have called. I think that’s a distinct possibility. He gloated when Paul Pelosi was attacked, after all.
What I’m seeing at this point is that no one knows the shooter’s motives. The shooting was declared an assassination attempt, but whereas that is the most likely scenario, we don’t really know even that. He was killed and as far as I can determine didn’t actually say anything to indicate his intentions. He could have been aiming at someone else–even the rally attendee who was killed. This could have been his version of suicide by cop. Or he could have been this year’s version of James Holmes or Squeaky Fromme. We don’t know.
I’m also reading that Trump wasn’t struck by a bullet, but by flying glass from a shattered teleprompter, and that the shooter was a registered Republican. It might also be worth noting that the weapon involved would have been a lot harder to end up in the hands of a prospective assassin had the GOP not rallied so hard against even the most minimal of gun control legislation. Was this, then, an own goal? It’s possible, but I’m not proclaiming that as truth.
Could the negativity towards Trump have been (largely) responsible for yesterday’s events? Sure. But just as it was unreasonable to accuse Sarah Palin for “targeting” Democrats (I said so at the time. You can, as Casey Stengel would say, look it up.), it’s irresponsible at best to accuse anyone but the gunman himself, especially before we know even the basic facts. And Trump has certainly said enough horrible things about Biden (and virtually anyone else who disagrees with him on practically anything) that the poisoned climate is hardly a one-way street.
If you want to speculate, that’s fine. But hurling accusations as if they were truth and encouraging Trump to be even more boorish than he already is: not a good look.
1. Sometimes boorishness is called for. How could Biden’s phone call be sincere, given what he’s said about Trump? Of course Biden had to make the call, but Trump had no obligation to play along.
2. Yikes. If you’re reading that Trump was hit by glass, you’re reading the wrong sources. That was the early spin by the “it isn’t what it is” clan, and it has been thoroughly debunked.
3. The idea that the guy was shooting at someone else and happened to hit Trump’s ear—good heavens! Surely you don’t think that’s even a plausible theory, do you? Quite a coincidence. There are easier times and places to kill people other than when the Secret Service is around.
4. The poisonous rhetoric case doesn’t flow both ways. The news media uncritically reports the “Trump is Hitler” trope. Biden’s Reichstag speech was made as a national, live TV event, calling Trump’s supporters an “existential threat.” Palin never told anyone to “put a bullseye” on Gabby Giffords. I don’t think the pox on bother their houses approach works here, Curmie. I’ve been writing the demonizing Trump was dangerous and irresponsible since he was elected.
5. After the Russian Collusion investigation, the two partisan impeachments, the lawfare cases, with Biden sinking because the cover-up of his mental state has been revealed and the Axis in full panic, what would be the obvious remaining alternative for a Trump-Deranged wacko? This was entirely predictable. In contrast, who would shoot Biden?
6. Meanwhile, the attempt was a gift to Biden: nobody is talking about removing him right now. I can’t bring myself to think or even suspect that this was a government hit, but as with the Lincoln and JFK assassinations, there are some weird features. How was that obvious sniper spot left open? What great timing for Biden, when some were saying that this weekend was when the pressure to quit would be at its maximum.
BUT, you will note that this is a QUIZ, meaning I’m open to convincing arguments that my position is wrong. “It might not have been an assassination attempt,” however, isn’t going to do it. Nor is the “Trump’s rhetoric” jujitsu. Martha Raddatz even used the fake “blood bath” comment to make that argument this morning on ABC. “Sleepy Joe” and “Crooked Joe” are a long, long way from “Hitler.” No?
Are you seriously incapable of distinguishing between “I hate your politics” and “I want you dead”? Would I ever, and I do mean ever, vote for Donald Trump? Not if he was running against the Sauron/Voldemort ticket. Do I think he’s an existential threat to democracy? Probably not, but there’s too much distance between that response and a simple “no.” Do I want him to be assassinated? Of course not!
You think the same about Joe Biden that I think about Trump. Do you want him to be shot? I’m guessing not, and I even suspect you’d be sympathetic were such an event to happen. Yet, you’re not saying that Biden might be insincere in wishing good health to a political adversary; you’re saying that he unquestionably is. I think that is irresponsible.
I also suspect that if Biden didn’t make the call you’d be criticizing him for that. Biden Derangement, and all that…
As for someone else being the target: yes, it’s more than a little unlikely. On the other hand, who’s dead and who isn’t?
“Meanwhile, the attempt was a gift to Biden: nobody is talking about removing him right now.” Seriously? This will last for a couple of news cycles. Trump will be able to strut his defiance to the crazies who disagree with him and near-martyrdom in the cause of truth, justice, and the American way throughout the campaign. More to the point, the likelihood that the shooter thought about the repercussions of his actions in political terms is about as close to zero as it’s possible to get.
Is the shooter a “Trump-Deranged wacko”? Possibly. But he’s also a registered Republican who had access to a semi-automatic weapon. Yes, there are Republicans who are “Trump-Deranged,” and Thomas Crooks made a very modest contribution to a progressive cause last year. I think it’s safe to say he’s a wacko; whether his motive was in any way political or if he just saw this as a way to get his name in the paper (a la James Holmes, which is why I mentioned him earlier), no one knows, at least yet.
I’ll grant that the Secret Service doesn’t look good in this. That’s about all we agree on.
One complete side note… When I was born, then-President Eisenhower had just suffered a heart attack. The woman sharing my mom’s room in the maternity ward proclaimed that she hoped he died. I don’t remember how old I was when my parents told me that story, but it has chilled me to the bone ever since. How could anyone want a President (or a contender for that position) dead? I’ll never figure that one out.
Do you think stating repeatedly that an individual is an existential threat to the nation is just “I hate your politics”? I don’t, Curmie. Saying, “His policies, I am convinced, would be an existential danger to the nation …” is within the margins. “HE is an existential threat” is very different. One is policy and politics, the other is personal.
As I will eventually re-post for discussion’s sake, I posted about a Trump assassination attempt in 2016. My last note in the post was that I would not have been sorry if the attempt had succeeded. This was in my NeverTrump period. I didn’t approve of violence as the means of removing him from the scene, but I admitted that I believed it would be better for everyone—except him, of course—if he just disappeared.
“You think the same about Joe Biden that I think about Trump.” No, I really don’t. My concern is the totalitarian drift of the entire Democratic Party. I would have voted for Biden if he had run in 2016. He wasn’t demented then, just dumb, and he had been a relatively moderate liberal. I do think that in his current crippled state, voting for Biden is irresponsible beyond words.
I told my sister yesterday that I wouldn’t be shocked if the shooter was a Republican. Why do you think that matters? There are plenty of Trump-Deranged Republicans who think he’s Satan and Hitler. This kid was a gullible, politically naive loner who was about to cast his first vote in a Presidential election. The issue is how much he was influenced by “Trump is going to end democracy.” He didn’t know that was just “Hate his politics.” I think he took it to mean, “Hate and fear HIM.”
I also don’t see the relevance of the semi-automatic weapon. A simple high-powered rifle from that distance would have done the job if he hadn’t missed. Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t need an AR-15. How does an assassination attempt become a gun-control discussion?
Isn’t it fair to say that if someone tries to kill someone, the shooter doesn’t like the target very much? And that relentless propaganda about why the target is badlikely plays a large part in the decision? Well…maybe not. I know you’re channeling “Assassins” a bit here, and you have a point: very few of the Presidential assassination attempts or successful ones have been based on personal hate, not even Booth’s. Reagan was shot to impress an actress. I’ll conceded that we may well learn that this wacko took a shot at Trump for some reason completely divorced from the “Fear the Walking Trump!” message.
I think a salient point here is this: How many people, on both sides of the political party, would secretly (or even not so secretly) think the world a better place if this shooter had succeeded in killing Trump?
Honestly, I cannot decide whether my own estimate of 40%+ of the citizens of the United States breathing a sigh of relief upon hearing that Trump was dead is a symptom of spending too much time online or whether it’s a reasonable guess.
But yes, I cannot but agree with Jack that the repeated calls of “existential threat” and “the United States will cease to exist if Trump wins” is unacceptable rhetoric and likely pushed this event.
And there’s nothing near that being said about Biden.
Here is the problem I see with that. For all the rhetoric from the left, Trump governed mainly as a moderate, and we can hope he will again.
If Trump had died yesterday, do you have any doubt that the GOP convention next week would have nominated a radical? I don’t, and whoever it was would’ve had a good chance of winning. If we actually elected someone like what the left wing thinks Trump is or like Biden wants to be, heaven help the United States.
That’s what I think and why I think we dodged a humungous bullet (sic) yesterday.
If it were about hating someone’s politics and not the person then we would hear about the policy differences and the the person. I really do not think the progressive’s number 1 issue, abortion, rises to the level of being a threat to democracy more so than calls to repeal the 2nd amendment is or its euphemism “common sense gun control”.
This notion that it is about Republican policies either from Trump, the RNC, or the Heritage Foundation destroying the fundamental fabric of our nation is merely a ploy to deflect actual intentions.
I just have to ask, on balance, which party is inclines to reduced individual liberty through government regulation of behavior?
Do you think stating repeatedly that an individual is an existential threat to the nation is just “I hate your politics”?
That’s one of the milder versions, but it means the same as “It will be the end of America as we know it.” “This will be the last election we ever have.” “Trump will install himself as a dictator, and have all his opponents imprisoned.” All of these, and more are constantly bandied about in the twittersphere and leftist media. Irrational people are different from merely angry people; they don’t know how to set aside or process irrational information, so this is scary stuff to them. They also don’t know how to properly respond to it, so we get violent confused madmen when they’re fed a constant overwhelming diet of ridiculously hyperbolic threatening scenarios.
Why do you think the fact that the rifle was semi-automatic had anything to do with this? If the shooter had had a good, single-shot rifle in a full-power rifle cartridge and a decent scope, things might have turned out much worse for Trump. Semi-automatic is the action. It doesn’t determine how powerful, accurate, or reliable the rifle is. AR-15’s are the most popular rifle right now, but most of them are chambered in 5.56 (which doesn’t count as a full-powered rifle cartridge) and are of mediocre quality and accuracy. ‘Scary’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘effective’.
Look at the ‘Street Sweeper’ Shotgun, so scary it was labelled as a ‘destructive device’
https://www.pewpewtactical.com/streetsweeper-shotgun-review/
and it’s non-banned relative, the ‘Ladies’ Home Companion’.
https://bayoushooter.com/threads/the-ladys-home-companion-45-70-double-action-revolver.139080/
They are scary-looking, but basically awful. Basically, anything from Cobray is awful,
The only thing the semi-automatic capability allowed was to spray the crowd while the Secret Service decided what to do.
‘Ladies’ Home Companion’ Jeez, that makes my wrist hurt just looking the picture (Though a son-in-law has a revolver in .454 Cassull that I’ve never wanted to try, either). To get even farther off-track, at one point the Marlin catalog had a T-Rex included in the little icons of suitable game for its 1895SBL 45-70…a sort of Easter egg reference to that rifle being used by Chris Pratt’s character in Jurassic World.
It might also be worth noting that the weapon involved would have been a lot harder to end up in the hands of a prospective assassin had the GOP not rallied so hard against even the most minimal of gun control legislation
Gangbangers have no issue obtaining guns.
Paul Harding explains it.
https://www.quora.com/Wont-curbs-on-gun-ownership-make-police-work-safer-in-the-US/answer/Paul-Harding-14
Of course, the people who are responsible for the largest percentage of our murders and “gun violence” also tend to be involved with vast operations which are so proficient at smuggling that they can turn a major city right in the middle of North America, like Chicago, IL, into a major distribution hub for illegal drugs produced half a world away. Think about that. They have the expertise to get literally tons of dope across the world and all the way to the very center of the US despite the strongest efforts of entire federal agencies plus local cops who are fanatical about trying to stop them. For them to get literally tons of guns and ammo into the US is as simple as hiding the guns inside that big shipment of cocaine or heroin!
To reinforce Harding’s point, murders still happen despite the existence of the following laws.
– 1934 National Firearms Act
– 1968 Gun Control Act
– 1986 Hughes Amendment
– 1996 Lautenberg Amendment
No one can say with a straight face that these laws eliminated murder.
If you really want a gun, you can just go up to an unattended police car, grab the patrol rifle in the front seat, and uses a magnet to remove it. Now, you have a machine gun. Much easier than going to a gun store, going through a 1-year background check, paying $200 for a tax stamp, and being on a registry list.
While the shooter registered Republican, he donated his money to hard-Left causes such as “Code Blue”, dedicated to defeating Republicans. It’s likely he registered to have input into the Republican primaries. Leftist activists in several states have advocated that in order to support the most extreme and unlikable Republican candidates in local races, thinking they will be more readily defeated in the general election.
He also donated only $15 dollars, which is so nominal amount as to be meaningless. He could just as easily done it out of politeness, or to get rid of a pushy solicitor.
Or……the kid was 20. It is certainly possible that $15 was a significant amount of money for him. I’ve been there.
We cannot know, at least not yet.
As for the shooter being a registered Republican – which will be used a lot by the media – I respond with the following:
If a person tells me he/she is an astronaut but has never been to space, has never worked for NASA or SpaceX, has no knowledge of the history of space exploration, and no understanding of astrophysics, then the person’s profession that “I’m an astronaut” means absolutely nothing.
The same holds for political party affiliation. You may consider yourself a Republican and you may be registered as such, but that profession means nothing when you don’t act and live like one.
I had a person who claims to be a Republican tell me recently that:
All abortion needs to be legal
No abortions after the 1st trimester have EVER been performed in the US. All 2nd and 3rd trimester ‘abortions’ were really emergency C-sections where the infant didn’t survive. No Democrats and no states have nor want abortions after the 1st trimester.
No teachers can sexually assault their students because there are cameras everywhere.
All charter and private schools have poorer educational outcomes than public schools, so charter schools should be banned.
We need to press Ukraine to attack Russia more.
We don’t need to worry about Russia because their missiles can’t reach us.
Russia has never been able to reach space and ICBM’s are a myth.
We have nothing to worry about from Russia because nuclear weapons are a myth. Neither we nor the Russians have nuclear weapons.
This is from someone who claims to be a ‘Republican’, but who hates Donald Trump and has a leftist Democrat wife. He voted for Clinton and Biden in the last 2 elections. Oh yeah, this person is a ‘Republican’ public school teacher.
Maybe they don’t like government spending or regulations? I’m less worried about this person calling themselves a Republican and more worried about this person being a teacher. I’m not sure whether or not it’s a good idea to dispel their belief that teachers are always on camera, but where on Earth does a person get the idea that nuclear weapons don’t exist? Wishful thinking?
I don’t know if you are aware, but Democrats have been pushing the idea that we don’t need to worry about nuclear war with Russia. I had a class of students come in a few years ago saying we definitely should start a nuclear war with Russia to get rid of them. When I explained the reality to them, they wanted to know why the media made is sound like such a good idea. This teacher’s wife is a loony Democrat and my suspicion is that this is what she is being fed from her ‘reliable sources’. Our actions in Ukraine are undoubtedly pushing us closer to nuclear war and the media is pushing back against that with dismissiveness.
It is frightening, this guy and a whole class of students think there is nothing to be afraid of in nuclear war.
Sounds like they’re “science deniers.” What happened to all the Democrats who wanted to get rid of nuclear weapons to prevent nuclear war at any cost?
The italics might have prevented this last sentence from being visible: Do we need to host a public screening of Dr. Strangelove?
P.S. Do they favor nuclear power plants, at least?
“…the weapon involved would have been a lot harder to end up in the hands of a prospective assassin had the GOP not rallied so hard against even the most minimal of gun control legislation.“
There aren’t enough gun laws among the existing hundreds, …thousands? Which new gun law would have prevented this formerly non-criminal citizen from obtaining a low-powered (but scary-looking!) common semi-automatic rifle, not considered particularly accurate, or powerful enough to be suitable for even moderate-sized game?
Mark Glaze, former executive director of one of Michael Bloomberg’s Astroturf organizations, Mayors Against Illegal Guns: “Is it a messaging problem when a mass shooting happens and nothing that we have to offer would have stopped that mass shooting? Sure it’s a challenge in this issue.“
The perp himself was gunned down.
We have a criminal justice system which locks away murderers.
How can anyone say we do nothing.
I agree with Curmie, to a point.
You respect the office of the President. You take the call. You be polite. Maybe even gracious.
But you can still be forceful without saying “Bite Me.” You can still tell the President that he is part of the cause of the problem.
-Jut
What I’m seeing at this point is that no one knows the shooter’s motives.
Maybe he was just trying to reduce Trump to Biden’s level of cognition to even the playing field?
Curmie you are better than this.
“Indeed, my leftie friends are virtually unanimous in proclaiming that had the situation been reversed, Trump would not have called. I think that’s a distinct possibility. He gloated when Paul Pelosi was attacked, after all.”
Posting to his social media platform, Truth Social, on Saturday, Trump’s first reaction to the footage was far from the mockery and conspiracy-mongering of other right-wing figures, with the former president seeming to express outrage at the “nasty” footage. Newsweek Jan 28,2023.
Trump was not president at the time so the comparison is faulty. I did not call Pelosi either. Did any of your friends call him with well-wishes at the time?
I believe there is a substantial difference between using the term crosshairs in a statement about targeting a congressional district and rhetoric that tells voters that Trump will end our democracy and take away your rights as a dictator who is worsen than Hitler or Mussolini. A president that may kill your children and make homosexuals
“disappear”. I recall one pundit state that someone needs to put a bullet in him.”
You have to be joking. The only person he could have known where he would be is Trump. To suggest that he did this for any other reason is ludicrous. All he needed to do to be suicide by cop was to point a weapon at any police officer.
It might also be worth noting that the weapon involved would have been a lot harder to end up in the hands of a prospective assassin had the GOP not rallied so hard against even the most minimal of gun control legislation.
Again you blame the inanimate object. It could have been prevented if his mother had had a DnC 20 years earlier too. You want to blame the dad as well for allowing his adult son access to a weapon he purchased for his own use? It could have been prevented had Mayorkis given his Secret Service detail more resources they requested so that an officer could be on that ARG roof as well as the other elevated points. That is not speculation, an officer on that roof or a drone in the air as an aerial observation platform would have eliminated the threat before someone was killed.
The only thing Biden is sincere about is maintaining power.
What is not a good look is obfuscating reality to absolve any potential rhetorical responsibility. Especially from an academic.
indeed. I didn’t believe the post was by Curmie and had to scroll back up to confirm.
Several “breaking” sources have dropped a couple rungs down my”generally trustful” scale for taking bad takes. Several are teetering for takes that I’m not sure about yet. Curmie, I recommended abandoning forever whatever sources these takes came from.
https://x.com/seanagnew/status/1812532286098653507?s=46&t=hYBRdyKc75ixaD6bBbzJZw
To get this out: that link is to a tweet sent under Biden’s name about two weeks ago that says, “Donald Trump is a genuine threat to the nation. He’s a threat to our freedom. He’s a threat to our democracy. He’s literally a threat to everything America stands for.”
I want to hear an argument that the President of the United States saying that a private citizen threatened freedom, democracy and LITERALLY everything America stand for isn’t either negligently or deliberately planting the seeds of violence.
As far as the phone call goes: who among you would accept as sincere a call from a major political figure who said that about you, in public, repeatedly, unless the call began, “I apologize, and I will say so in public”?
According to Norah O’Donnell and her cohorts on CBS News, it is incumbent on Trump, the Republican party, and the RNC to dial down the anti-Biden rhetoric, because Trump will use this attempt to bludgeon Biden and the Democrats because he is walking, talking evil.
jvb
Of course.
I also think Biden having the gall to call for turning down the rhetoric after his Soul of the Nation “MAGA will destroy us all” speech is beyond the pale.
It’s not even a matter of gall. It’s a matter of credibility. I read that in light of the earlier “soul” speech and my first thought was not “how dare he?” but more like “you gotta be fucking kidding me.” The guy who turned the temperature up and then doubled down on it, probably leading to this incident, now wants the guy who almost got killed to turn down the temperature? Does he think everyone on the other side is an idiot?
Hence my undiplomatic “Bite me” response.
And this is precisely what the Curmie’s of the world and their far-more-radical counterparts – as smart and as well-spoken as they may be – continue to gloss over.
An “existential threat” is a threat to one’s ability to exist. It has a binary outcome: either the threat is destroyed and one lives, or the one is destroyed and the threat lives. There are no other options.
So, as AM Golden and Chris Marschner mentioned in response to another piece on this subject, things that are truly “existential threats’ must be destroyed…MUST be.
That tweet you noted, sent out under President Biden’s name, paints Donald Trump as an “existential threat.” It does not explicitly read “existential”, but it is absolutely implied. President Trump is branded as a threat not only to me as an individual, but to the nation corporately. And there are hundreds of thousands – maybe millions – of Americans who have said it…explicitly…with their mouths, written it in newspapers, posted it on their Facebook and Twitter accounts, and broadcast it any other place where there might be an audience.
And they’ve been saying it for years. This goes all the way back to Kathy Griffin’s bloodied, decapitated head of President Trump. You think she considered him an existential threat? In fact, Ms. Griffin’s despicable image actually got it right. That’s precisely how you deal with existential threats. They are terminated with extreme prejudice.
So Curmie, and anyone else of that ilk, is President Trump THAT kind of threat to you? Curmie asked, “Are you seriously incapable of distinguishing between ‘I hate your politics’ and ‘I want you dead’?” I will respond with, “Clearly, people on your side are NOT capable of making the distinction, because one of them tried to go all “Kathy Griffin” on President Trump.”
It’s time for YOUR side to back down. It’s time for YOUR side to temper its language. It’s time for YOUR side to show a little restraint. It’s time for YOUR side to shut off the constant flow of extreme language. It’s time for YOUR President – and he’s my President as well – to take a step back and speak with a little more caution and a little more courtesy.
If President Trump is not an existential threat, then STOP saying it!!! STOP implying it!!! STOP suggesting it!!! STOP hinting at it!!! Because there’s only one course of action when dealing with threats like that.
Let me agree with you with one caveat: I know Curmie well, and “ilk” does not describe him. The reason he has a column here (as does Mrs. Q, though it is currently dormant) is that I have found him to be relentlessly and reliably rational and fair, despite often approaching ethics issues from a different perspective from mine.(Is “prespective” the same as bias? I question for nother day.) In the last couple days I have found a depressing number of people I respect and admire in what I can only call denial. Hence the immediate claims that Trump wasn’t really hit by a bullet, that the whole thing was staged, that it was the fault of Republicans for opposing gun control, and that Trump’s own rhetoric was the catalyst for the attack, not his opposition’s 8+ years insistence that he is an American Hitler. Curmie does not typically fall into these habits and traps, and I found it enlightening that in this rare instance he did—-that’s valuable intelligence, and I’m grateful for it. It does seem to signal a defensive circling of the wagons, but still, Curmie does not really have a wagon in that train.
I’ll see you a Curmie and raise:
Democrat mayor of Washington city makes stunning claims about Trump assassination attempt | Daily Mail Online
What kind of hypnotic power does Trump have over people? No wonder he was a successful developer. He must be able to mesmerize his equity partners and lenders. He seems to be able to turn people’s brains into mush. Uncanny.
This Douglas Orr seems to have Stage 4 mental retardation. The percentage of idiots (< 25 IQ) being elected to office is disturbing to say the least.
“It was staged!” seems to be almost a talking point. Althouse has expounded on it in her mealy mouthed way.
VERY mealy-mouthed.
According to the Westboro Baptist Church, it was staged by God.
Jack,
Thank you for the callout and I appreciate the correction.
Curmie, I directly addressed you and your earlier statements, but no slight was intended in my post and I apologize if I offended you.
I’m going to say that Trump’s response was the correct one. Polarization is huge and had the assassin succeeded we’d be very close to a civil war… so far only one side has resorted to violence, but if the other gets enough motivation (and yesterday came very close to that) because it’s clear violence is the only response that gives results, we end up with armed squads walking around the streets to make sure everyone stays safe. I saw that happen in lefty WA during the pandemic/Floyd riots, people armed with rifles closing access to their cul-de-sacs for anyone not living there.
I think Trump was responsible by taking the call… if his response did not lower the heat, at least it did not add more fuel to the fire. Imagine if he rejected the call and used a slogan like “They’re not coming for me. They’re coming for you. I’m just in the way.” We’d have – partially justified – armed squads out there making sure citizens were not targeted for having a Trump 2024 sign in their yards. (Which I hope does not become necessary, but won’t be totally surprised if it is.)
While a courteous and gracious reply may not be particularly deserved, attempts to be reasonable, courteous and tactful are still a classy and ethical choice.
That approach is also tactically wise: The Democrats would love to have some deranged right-winger commit an act of violence: They could then claim that Trump’s angry response inspired him.
I didn’t say it had to be angry. It just has to be honest. When does someone who’s put a target on your head deserve graciousness? I wouldn’t expect it from someone I treated like that unless I at least apologized profusely. Do you think Biden apologized to Trump? I would rate the chances as zero. A courteous reply simply says, “Kick me again.”
I think telling Biden to “bite me” would be self-defeating. It would appear to contradict Trump’s statements calling for national unity, and give the Axis some basis for criticism while he has an aura of a martyr attempt.
Trump is far too good at handing his opponents weapons with sloppy rhetoric. As satisfying as it might be sock it to Biden, Trump has not the skill to say it in a way that won’t look borish and reflect unsympathetically on him.
I fear there’s some shark jumping going on. I don’t think this was political violence attributable to anyone. This was a severe mental illness episode befalling a fairly good shot combined with an explicable and colossal failure by the Secret Service and their fellow organizations. Snipers are on-site to execute perpetrators once they’re done?
This reminds me of one of the most annoying lyrics of the entire ‘sixties: “Sympathy for the Devil.” “Who shot the Kennedys? After all, it was you and me.” Oh, fuck you, Mick, and fuck Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley and all the other schmucks who orchestrated a never-ending guilt fest because some goofy former Marine who’d been to the Soviet Union (in that era? how was that even possible?) shot Kennedy for who knows what reason. None of us had a damned thing to do with that.
Oops. inexplicable
Is it wrong that I hope Trump’s response was “Your guy missed.”