October 12, 2018

"Watching hours of Trump at his rallies, it’s easy to sympathize with the desire to ignore them."

"John Dean tweeted a picture of the crowd waiting in line for the Erie rally and derided it as a 'meaningless show.' For supporters, it’s hyperbole, just rhetoric, entertainment, part of the unvarnished appeal; for opponents, it’s old news painful to watch, maybe, but inconsequential, narrow-casting to his base... But what the President of the United States is actually saying is extraordinary... It’s not just the whoppers or the particular outrage riffs.... It’s the hate, and the sense of actual menace that the President is trying to convey to his supporters. Democrats aren’t just wrong in the manner of traditional partisan differences; they are scary, bad, evil, radical, dangerous. Trump and Trump alone stands between his audiences and disaster. I listen because I think we are making a mistake by dismissing him, by pretending the words of the most powerful man in the world are meaningless...."

From "I Listened to All Six Trump Rallies in October. You Should, Too/It’s not a reality show. It’s real" — by Susan B. Glasser in The New Yorker.

I was just inquiring into who's properly characterized as "exhausted." Supposedly, according to "Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape," it's everybody but the progressive activists, the traditional conservatives, and the devoted conservatives.

But that New Yorker writer sounds powerfully exhausted and she's talking to New Yorker readers who she presumes are exhausted.

By the way, I had to laugh at the line "Democrats aren’t just wrong in the manner of traditional partisan differences; they are scary, bad, evil, radical, dangerous." Glasser is disparaging Trump for saying that. She's paraphrasing. But you could just as well paraphrase the message from Democrats as: Republicans are not just wrong in the manner of traditional partisan differences; they are scary, bad, evil, radical, dangerous. Glasser acts appalled by "the sense of actual menace" that Trump supposedly is "trying to convey to" his audience, but Glasser seems to be trying to convey a sense of actual menace to hers.

I would be exhausted if I were not amused.

229 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 229 of 229
Chuck said...

tim in vermont said...
"People who hear Trump talking about Mexicans coming across the border and are frightened and think that Trump is the strong man to save us."

So the above sentence was written by Life Long "Immigration Hawk" Chuck.


Yeah, because what Trump said was stupid. S-t-o-o-p-i-d.

The immigration fight is difficult and requires skillful advocacy. It is stupid and false, to do the Trump thing. It wasn't just sloppy, it was almost incomprehensible: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best... They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Huh? "[T]hey're bringing those problems with us"[sic.]? It isn't even a good factual summary. Mexico is seeing a lot of cross-migration of Central Americans, not Mexicans, that end up trying to cross our southern border. And of course most of the biggest numbers of illegal aliens (yes, that is a legal term that I quite like) are persons who enter legally and who overstay their visas.

I like the idea of strict enforcement of our immigration laws, and particularly e-verify laws that require employers to check legal status.


Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "I'd be an "immigration hawk" in Washington"

LOLOLOLOL

Drago said...

LLR "Bowe Bergdahl republican" Chuck: "The immigration fight is difficult and requires skillful advocacy."

LOL

Nope.

Step 1: expose all the LLR's who actually side with the dems. We will chalk this one up as complete.

Btw, Chuck is also one of those stupid stooopid LLRs who parroted their lefty masters in saying NAFTA was too complex to unwind and start over.

LOL

LLR Chuck's cucks have been exposedin quite a few areas havent they?

Good news for Chucks Cucks though: they are all still invited to all the fanciest dinner parties being thrown by their lefty pals.

And lets face it, fighting to retain clise access to those jumbo shrimp cocktails is much more rewarding than fighting hard for conservative policies.

Btw, did Chuck ever apologize for being so astonishingly wrong about the trade deals, increased NATO spending and economic growth?

I am going to guess: no.

But then again, neither have any dems.....

Hmmmmmmmm

Drago said...

"Jim Acosta republican" Chuck: "And of course most of the biggest numbers of illegal aliens (yes, that is a legal term that I quite like)"

LOL

Stop it! I'm getting a stitch in my side!

Hey Chuck, whats your boy Kasich been up to lately?

Oh thats right. Lamenting the condition of our national soul for daring to approve the nomination of Kavanaugh!

That is, when Kasich isnt busy kissing the rear end of every dem in sight while attacking republicans.....hey, that sounds very familiar...doesnt it Chuck?

Michael K said...

I'm constantly amazed at how popular their champions remain while representing such unappealing people. They're downright deplorable.

Has it occurred to you that leftist voters are often disorganized themselves and live in a mess ?

Speaking from some experience.

narciso said...

Except those conclusions were what coulters researchers found, bluntly spelled out.

Big Mike said...

I have no idea what Obama or Trump would, or could, say to such people.

@Chuck, how about “change you can believe in”? The thing is, change all by itself is easy. Obama demonstrated that all you needed was a pen and a phone, coupled with total ignorance of how the real world works. Change that benefits people, well that’s much harder. I certainly don’t look for lawyers or academics or professional politicians to understand how things work, and absolutely not some community organizer.

Birkel said...

Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire, has his finger on the pulse of the nation, one racist comment at a time. Who could imagine he hasn't had a meteoric rise through the ranks of political consultants with his intricate knowledge of "dumb fucks" and the like.

What a maroon.

n.n said...

I'm constantly amazed at how popular their champions remain while representing such unappealing people.

We are all human with limited perception living in the near-frame. There is a degree of privilege to stand on principle. So, we need to focus on the three 'R's: Revitalization. Rehabilitation. Reconciliation. Strive.

narciso said...

he does remove all doubt, this step was taken because 'self deportation' was the armadillo, In the middle of the road, didn't satisfy anyone,


https://pjmedia.com/trending/beware-of-media-sourcing-for-jamal-khashoggi-scoops/

Howard said...

Blogger Drago said...

Nixon = Navy = Funds = Poker


BINGO! Best schooling learning to negotiate the Soviets off the Chi Coms

Howard said...

Thanks JH and MK for your perspectives on TR.

narciso said...

oddly neither the times nor the post, sought to get this perspective:

https://twitter.com/Doranimated

tim in vermont said...

he immigration fight is difficult and requires skillful advocacy.

Yes, because the Chamber of Commerce Republicans want nothing to do with cutting off the supply of cheap labor that doesn't necessarily need to be treated with kid gloves on worker protections.

tim in vermont said...

Hey, look what Chuck's anti-Trump allies at British Intelligence were up to!

https://twitter.com/GeorgePapa19/status/1050789682886324224

narciso said...

heck they might be double agents:

https://twitter.com/Nervana_1/status/1050854919518019585

Tom Grey said...

Thanks, Ann, for your clear writing about what I was thinking -- the Dems are acting evil, so they accuse Trump of it.

_____ are not just wrong in the manner of traditional partisan differences; they are scary, bad, evil, radical, dangerous.

Looking at behavior of the last 2 years, there's more evidence for putting anti-Free Speech, pro-False Accusation "Democrats" in the blank description.

I'm NOT going to listen to the Trump rallies, tho I'd be a little more interested in a full transcript.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/white-women-donald-trump-victory

This article says 53% of white women voted for Trump. Trump's statistics exaggerations, don't bother me so much -- I don't take him literally. But I do take him more seriously, but Glassner seems to be missing the point.

Trump is critical of various realities in America, like the angry mob of Dems. Instead of looking for gotcha "lies" that Trump's (far more interesting and newsworthy) exaggerations include, the author should hear about what Trump is criticizing. And try to criticize it, too. Not listen closely to hear what is "wrong" -- but listen to find out what Trump is really saying, really criticizing. And then make a Steelman argument for Trump, rather than a Strawman argument you can blow away.

Michael K said...

In the de Gaulle bio I have not yet gotten to his relationships with Nixon, speaking of Nixon.

From Conrad Black's bio of Nixon, I learned that de Gaulle and Nixon liked each other and got along very well.

Kennedy pissed off de Gaulle by refusing to share nuclear technology. That made sense since the Brits had done a lot of the early work on nuclear and should have been included but Kennedy was no diplomat.

Howard said...

Good recent review of a de Gaulle biog in the New Yorker.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/08/20/how-charles-de-gaulle-rescued-france

narciso said...

Remember it was the pre degaulle govts notably Mendes France and Millet who enabled the Israeli nuclear program, I guess one can see degaulles Arabism somewhat like Obama's apology tour after Algeria. The pied noir and their military supporters Salan challe saw a,kinship with fellow settlers.

Michael K said...

I guess one can see degaulles Arabism somewhat like Obama's apology tour after Algeria.

De Gaulle was very clear that he did not want Muslim immigrants. The Pied Noir ended up poor and without their property but the Algerian Muslims already in France, about 400,000 of them, he did not want to give full citizenship to.

Now into Johnson, who did not know what to do with de Gaulle.

narciso said...

Well the Harkis who fought with the French got the sharp edge of the stick, after 67 the Arabism in gaullism really spiked

Michael K said...

Well the Harkis who fought with the French got the sharp edge of the stick

Yes, he screwed them because he did not want Muslim immigrants.

Sam L. said...

It's The New Yorker. Can I trust it? I think not.

FIDO said...

I take it nobody here ever served on a public board or commission? Because to get shit done, you need to make compromises and tradeoffs with people you don't like. Saying you never submit to a democrat is not only false bravado, it is also pretty stoopid if you want to actually get something accomplished.


Well, Howard, there is this thing called the 'Overton Window'. And negotiation is done in GOOD FAITH.

So when the Dems want to negotiate on things like tax rates, Medicare reimbursements, the number of Federal jobs or the Budget, GREAT. We can do that.

But when your negotiation is 'we want to ignore the rule of law, presumption of innocence and due process while destroying the norm of comity', well, no. That is not a 'negotiation'. That is a dirty trick not in good faith.

When 'negotiating' Obamacare, having Republicans locked out of the room...it isn't good faith. And passing a law against the will of the Republicans AND the people...again, that isn't a negotiation.

Guess whom I have on my side? About 66% of the people on most of my issues. So guess who needs to move?

Hint: it isn't me.

FIDO said...

You know: Caesar was a Progressive...and he ignored laws, and he used mob violence to get his way.

So when I see mobs on the Left burning things, I decide: whomever is on that side, I am against.

Because Caesar became a dictator and his Nephew was worse and it took two civil wars to get there.

I would prefer to avoid that if we could.

And all that is necessary is for the Left to roundly denounce their violent doers and violent talkers. To embrace a few first principles and respect elections.

This is not a high hurdle. It requires no great effort.

I am also not seeing any work on that front.

Big Mike said...

To expand on FIDO’s comment, the Democrats of the 21st century do not negotiate in good faith, and cannot be trusted to keep their side of any agreement reached. Democrats can only be suppressed.

Big Mike said...

And a final word to Chuck. The GOP is Trump’s party now. Reconcile yourself to that reality.

ccscientist said...

I do in fact find the dems scary, dangerous, crazy. Can you watch the recent senate hearings and not find them scary? And Antifa, the US version of the Brown Shirts, encouraged by mayors to do their dirty work, paid by Soros--not scary and evil?

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 229 of 229   Newer› Newest»