"... and a big embrace from the Democrat Party. Horrible anti-Israel, anti-USA, pro-terrorist & public..... .... .....shouting of the F...word, among many other terrible things, and the petrified Dems run for the hills. Why isn’t the House voting to rebuke the filthy and hate laced things they have said? Because they are the Radical Left, and the Democrats are afraid to take them on. Sad!"
Tweeted Trump, just now.
1. He's a master of Tweet-talk — he's tweet-talking us — but he makes language mistakes that I would edit out. He writes, "the petrified Dems run for the hills," but if you are petrified — the dead metaphor is turned to stone — you can't move, so you can't run. (The OED gives this example from Jack London's "White Fang": "The cub was in a frenzy of terror, yet he lay without movement or sound, frozen, petrified into immobility, to all appearances dead.")
2. But "petrified" is a slightly unusual word, so it works as a stimulant.
3. The implicit subject is that Nancy Pelosi is going forward with a vote to condemn Trump for his "Why don't they go back..." tweets (which we discussed here yesterday). Trump is certainly not backing down. He doesn't do that, and how could that possibly work? If he ever withdrew a remark and apologized, his antagonists would react by demanding another concession. So he plunges forward, in attack mode: "Why isn’t the House voting to rebuke the filthy and hate laced things they have said?" You don't like what I said, look at what you said. And on and on.
4. A return of the iconic "Sad!"
5. The key line is: "Because they are the Radical Left, and the Democrats are afraid to take them on." He's tying all the Democrats to a small, vocal group that the Democrats don't want as their brand. He's taunting them: You can't even distance yourself from this small group, within your own party, for your own sake. Implied: How can you be trusted to defend America?
6. Look at the arc of emotion in Trump's brief statement: It begins with hate (the "spewing" of "vile, hateful, and disgusting things") and proceeds to love ("a big embrace") and then to anger ("shouting of the F...word") and then to fear ("petrified Dems... afraid to take them on"), and finally sadness ("Sad!"). The hate and anger are projected outward from the small subgroup of Democrats. The love and fear are experienced within the fragile body of mainstream Democrats. And the sadness is Trump's idea of the appropriate reaction from anyone watching.
7. Look at the narrative of action: the small subgroup of Democrats spews. The more sensible Democrats have one strong action — the big hug — and the rest is weakness — frozen into immobility or running. Yes, there's that implied activity, voting to condemn Trump, but he doesn't mention it. His defense is to go on the offense. Yet he assumes the position of standing back and observing and finding it sad.
July 16, 2019
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
244 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 244 of 244Ok got the last comment on the old page, do I get the first one on the new one?
Winning!!!!!
Bruce Hayden re Minnesota: "...too many Dems know that the Somalis there really haven’t assimilated that well."
I nominate Bruce Hayden for the Understatement Award for this thread.
Do I have a second?
"To make room for our civilization, we killed a lot of their civilization, and put the rest into reservations."
Ever wonder where the Neanderthals disappeared?
This has been going on since humans first started accumulating in groups larger than single families. The denser living population inevitably pushed the less densely living population out. Our history is filled with mass migrations, where population density is the driving force. Esp with the Indians living on the Great Plains and west of there, it was the much denser white population density that drove this. Remember, the average Indian tribe size on the Great Plains was typically a couple thousand and they would effectively control major portions of what are now moderately large states, now home to many hundreds of thousands, if not millions. All because farming and ranching can support much more population density than the hunting and gathering of the Indians they disposed.
Also, note, that Indians did this to each other too. Even in recent times. The first Whites in this area to build permanent settlements were fur traders around 1810. The trading post a dozen or so miles from here was closed within a decade or so because the friendly Salish and Kootenai tribes were pushed out by the less friendly Blackfoot, who were being pushed west by the even more aggressive Sioux.
He forced her to defend them, by bringing in Ayanna Pressley and writing "Country" in relation to an African American born women from Cincinnati.
He didn't mention Pressley. Democrats brought her into it because otherwise they could not use this justification to call him racist. She is by far the least known and identifiable of the 4 so it's reveling the left focuses their defense on her.
Again 4w invents her own "facts" to advance attacks that aren't supportable with facts.
"Why? I think your take here on the latest tweet brawl is worthwhile, and apropos of the original topic."
Thanks I appreciate that. (1) I'm taking up too much space. Other people should say their thoughts and ideas. I need to stop repeating myself. I've said what I think the strategy is, and what it will be going into Nov 2020. (2) And, because my comments have begun to draw comments that are about totally different thread topics (Kavanaugh or SCOTUS). When this has happened in the past, the off-thread comments tend to continue. Or my ideas are misrepresented and the temptation is to respond to correct the misrepresentation rather then ignoring it and letting it stand. ie: I'm pro-life and supported Comey Barrett. Should I say that in response to the comments about SCOTUS on this thread? No, it would dislocate everything away from the thread topic. And yet, there are comments that misrepresent my views. It's better to leave the thread at that point, or the temptation grows to correct the misrepresentation. Or my further comments draw more off topic comments that further dislocate the thread. At that point my it ruins the thread topic for everyone else.
Thread destruction thoughts: People get angry at Chuck and I can understand why. But when people misrepresent stuff you've said the temptation is to correct it. I get why he responds to the bait. Especially when stuff gets personal. It's hard not to take bait. It's one of the dangers of internet anonymity. People say stuff they'd never say in person, both as bait and in response. The people who are baiting him should take some responsibility for thread destruction. But Chuck could stop it too. So could the others. It takes 2 (or more) to fight. One of the two can be the peacemaker and stop it cold.
"To make room for our civilization, we killed a lot of their civilization, and put the rest into reservations."
And every civilization before ours (including the ones before us in the Americas) would have either completely killed off all of the Indians, or else enslaved them.
wwww said...
Or my ideas are misrepresented
The self awareness is not strong with this one.
4W was/is using one of the main weapons from the "fake news" arsenal. Take something (x) Trump said; infer something else from it (y, which may be a valid inference); and then claim that Trump said y — in quotes.
Remember when nominee Gorsuch was put on the spot by Blumenthal with questions about Trump's criticism of judges? Gorsuch was repeatedly quoted as having said y (something specific) when he actually said x (something more general). 4W's use of this technique here is less defensible than the reporting on Blumenthal/Gorsuch because 4W's inference is probably invalid.
Here are Trump's tweets (from Althouse's post a couple of days ago).
Notice that Pressley is not mentioned. So it's pretty revealing 4w insists she must be the subject to the exclusion of all other possibilities when the target is obviously Omar and Somalia. She mischaracterizes this because doing so would make her attack more effective if only it were true.
But whining about other people mischaracterizing her while doing this shows amazing chutzpah.
Tweet Storm 1
So interesting to see 'Progressive' Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly........and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how.... ....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!
Althouse:
That's from 22 hours ago. He got a lot of pushback — including Power Line's "A Blunder of Epic Proportions" — but he didn't walk it back. He's Donald Trump; he doubled down. From 11 hours ago — a 2-part tweet (1, 2):
Tweet Storm 2:
So sad to see the Democrats sticking up for people who speak so badly of our Country and who, in addition, hate Israel with a true and unbridled passion. Whenever confronted, they call their adversaries, including Nancy Pelosi, “RACIST.” Their disgusting language..... ....and the many terrible things they say about the United States must not be allowed to go unchallenged. If the Democrat Party wants to continue to condone such disgraceful behavior, then we look even more forward to seeing you at the ballot box in 2020!
The "Squad of 4" forgot the 'first rule of holes' in this press conference. But instead unleashed a torrent of anti-American, anti-Semitic racialist bilge that, while disgusting to have to witness, nevertheless had the effect of making them and what they spewed the face of the Democrat Party. I don't know if President Trump is a marketing genius, but this is one hell of a bait [even by accident] action. Whatever he did, he forced Nancy Palsi who was desperate to try and keep a lid on these freaks to publicly support them and call for a censure of Trump. That is, he forced the Democrat House Majority Leader to publicly rise to the defense of anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, racialism and global socialism before the entirety of the American people. The end result, either by plan or accident, was astounding.
Glad to see my "Jihad Squad" designation stuck!
That shall be my legacy.
I am at peace.
I wave royalty fees for the next 24 hours.
You are welcome.
Screw you, wwww. All you do is misrepresent what others say, President Trump in particular. You are the biggest hypocrite here.
Go clutch your pearls back in your own country.
For heaven's sake stop responding to me. Write your own comments about the topic. Stop dislocating the thread.
I responded to a single person who asked a specific question. Don't let it disrupt the thread!
Or, if you're gonna dislocate the thread...I'm gonna start posting poetry. Your choice!
I missed it. Who shouted "fuck"? Is that worse than saying "shithole" in an official meeting with members of Congress? - Freder
Maybe he should call it a big, fucking deal at the next bill signing.
"Petrified by fear, not stoned. But you are still right."
Petrified means (as I said in the post) turned to stone. What turned the cub to stone was fear.
wwww: "But when people misrepresent stuff you've said ...."
LOLOLOL
In the very thread where wwww did precisely that AND conjured up future-thought-crime hoax Trump quotes!!
One simply marvels at it all.....
pacwest, I probably wasn't clear. I meant despise Trump and the "squad". Just terrible people all around.
I was unsure about Trump's comments at first but seeing how they are playing out, I think he is correct for how it will play to the voters. It puts the Dems on the defensive. I wish congressional Republicans would swallow their pride and just admit to themselves that Trump is better at politics than them, and start backing his media plays. At least as far as messaging goes.
Also, I'm starting to view the Democrats as America's abusive boyfriend. They constantly run-down and abuse America, all the while claiming they wish they didn't have to but America is just so awful it makes them do it. Meanwhile Americans just wait for the next screaming harangue or black-eye, some of them thinking they do deserve it.
It was stupidly put by the President since all but one of the Squaddles is foreign born.
He made it too easy to pounce on. Dumb.
Blogger PM said...
It was stupidly put by the President since all but one of the Squaddles is foreign born.
He made it too easy to pounce on. Dumb.
I don't think that hurts him at all. In fact, while I'm generally not a fan of the 3d chess gimmick, I do think he includes things like this to rope-a-dope people. While technically correct that only 1 is foreign born, if the left's defense to the comments is "Sorry Trump, only 1 is foreign born not all 4!" It seems like a counter-attack that just whiffs. It is not a very good defense at all.
Also as far as Trump's use of Petrification I think it works emotionally, pretty well. Petrification would mean inaction, and while literally running away is an action, it is also kind of an inaction, as it is avoiding taking a stance on something. And he wants the Dems to take the stand and stick up for the Squad. I suppose they could also denounce them, but hat would never happen and if they did, it would still be a win for Trump.
Blogger The Vault Dweller said..."Also, I'm starting to view the Democrats as America's abusive boyfriend. They constantly run-down and abuse America, all the while claiming they wish they didn't have to but America is just so awful it makes them do it. Meanwhile Americans just wait for the next screaming harangue or black-eye, some of them thinking they do deserve it."
That's brilliant.
"Petrified by fear, not stoned. But you are still right."
Petrified means (as I said in the post) turned to stone. What turned the cub to stone was fear.
Well. Ok.
In my defense I hadn't had coffee yet.
www: No, it would dislocate everything away from the thread topic. And yet, there are comments that misrepresent my views. It's better to leave the thread at that point, or the temptation grows to correct the misrepresentation. Or my further comments draw more off topic comments that further dislocate the thread. At that point my it ruins the thread topic for everyone else.
You're overthinking it.
If you feel your remarks have been misrepresented, correct the record.
Truth is the medium, the blog is just the canvas. Don't sacrifice yourself just to avoid disturbing someone else's rhythm. Or I'll falsely accuse you of false modesty, just to run with scissors through the brass and percussion sections and make the Conductor howl.
I suspect that AOC will be primaried and may not win. But if she does, I think the Republicans should run a serious candidate against her and jump in with both feet. Progressives/fascists will be so disappointed they won't come out for her.
A Republican might just win the seat.
Which is one of the reasons for my theory that PDJT secretly supported her candidacy.
Not mutually exclusive with my theory of Jeff Bezos supporting her too. He won't support her in 2020. No need to get involved at all. He's got what he wanted she is now irrelvant to Amazon.
John Henry
Blogger PM said...
It was stupidly put by the President since all but one of the Squaddles is foreign born.
I thought only one of the squaddies was foreign born?
John Henry
Wow, 228 so far! Apologies if this has already been said.
Trump is certainly not backing down. He doesn't do that, and how could that possibly work? If he ever withdrew a remark and apologized, his antagonists would react by demanding another concession."
This approach convinces me that he tweets this stuff with a purpose, according to a plan, and expectations of a certain outcome. The tweets are often emotional and evocative, but that is by design not because he is angry and emotional.
And his opponents take the bait, every single time.
"I missed it. Who shouted "fuck"? Is that worse than saying "shithole" in an official meeting with members of Congress? - "
You know this, but Talib shouted "We're gonna impeach this motherfucker!" at a MoveOn.org event.
I noticed on another blog that Country lie. They got their talking points and it’s goong around.
Going
"Omar’s Somali ancestors were selling black slaves mostly into the Islamic world. And probably did so well into the 20th Century"
What makes you think her family ever stopped selling slaves, or simply using them for labor?
Oregon went to vote by mail in 1996. In the 24 years since then two (2) non-Democrats have won state-wide elections, both for the office of Commissioner of the state agency Bureau of Labor & Industries. When it comes to all other state-wide electoral races, i.e., Governor, US Senate races, etc., those are now the exclusive domain of the Democrats. Before 1996 Republicans sometimes won those seats, but after 1996, never again.
Whoa! That's wrong. Oregon Democrat because Californians sold their homes, quit their jobs, left friends and family behind and moved to Oregon in order drive up property prices and to turn a red state blue.
Not only Oregon, but every other state in the country. Or, so I have been told, repeatedly.
Disclaimer: This Kalli's husband speaks
The SQUABS should have cried when the got on camera
Women would have asked "who hurt them so".
Men would have felt the need to protect them.
Instead the bitches decided to Captain Marvel it. Who liked Captain Marvel?
They did not use their superpower
Female Tears.
We are conditioned to "do something" when women cry.
Secondary genius level wins are materializing
- The house condemnation food fight is a trail run for impeachment - how does it play - how does any food fight play?
- The name calling response to Trump sounds like a repeat of "deplorables"
Instead the bitches decided to Captain Marvel it. Who liked Captain Marvel?
The Toxic Avenger.
You know who I wish had been cast instead? She would have been perfect. Bad ass pilot, cocky attitude, good acting range, swaggers without overcompensating.
> You know who I wish had been cast instead?
Wow, she has great... "range" (huge tracts of land)
all you said was true - a guys girl.
Anything would be better than "Mary Sue SJW who ate a rocket engine and can turn Goku on Mean Menz" - two snaps up.
wwww said...
How in the world did u get that out of the tweet?
That's the messaging. "Go Back to Africa." Pressley is an African American women
--
She has a lot of catching up to do in the "squad" recognition reality. So when she says no more blacks who don't speak in a black voice, where should they go?
This is pigfucker redux. If I recall correctly, LBJ directed an aide to have the rumor spread that his opponent copulated with swine. Kevin Drum tells the tale thusly:
Did He Or Didn’t He?
by Kevin Drum September 25, 2006
POLITICS
DID HE OR DIDN’T HE?….This story may or may not be true, but legend has it that during one of Lyndon Johnson’s congressional campaigns he decided to spread a rumor that his opponent was a pig-fucker. LBJ’s campaign manager said, “Lyndon, you know he doesn’t do that!” Johnson replied, “I know. I just want to make him deny it.”
The D response has been on the level of "but I use condoms every time!"
Wwww, you say he named Pressley. He named no one. That said, if the shoe fits, wear it! Ayanna Pressley is the American's American who saw fit to speak thusly:
“We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice,” Pressley said. “We don’t need anymore black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need any more Muslim faces who don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need any more queers that don’t want to be a queer voice.”
You express frustration that we don't see it your way. How do you see Pressley's words?
Post a Comment