So Donald Trump has made news again. Anyone who reads this blog has probably heard it by now. But, just so we’re clear on what he said, here’s the quote:
“Hillary wants to abolish — essentially, abolish — the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
He’s imagining a time after Hillary Clinton has been elected, a time when she’s picking judges. At that point, there’s nothing you can do — except (wink, wink) maybe there is! The official line out of the Trump campaign, desperately trying to spin a comment that’s clearly out of bounds is saying he was just talking about political advocacy by Second Amendment enthusiasts. Beat her in the court of public opinion and then at the ballot box, I guess. But to say this is about writing sternly worded letters or going to the ballot box is dishonest. Folks looking at this statement and telling you it’s about anything legitimate to the political process are like the shopkeeper in Python’s “Dead Parrot” sketch.
This is a guy leading rallies where supporters are advocating locking up his political opponent. This is a guy who undermines the political process by — well in advance of the election — claiming it’s rigged. This is a guy who questions the integrity of the judiciary because the Hoosier on the bench is of Latino ancestry. That guy certainly doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt.
And then you have our governor. Governor Pence has not been our best leader, but his flaws are more or less ordinary political flaws. I might disagree with him, but until he embraced Trump, I don’t believe I ever thought his decisions seriously undermined the fabric of our democracy. When Trump’s missteps are of the less serious variety, like throwing shade at a baby and his mother, Pence’s job ends up looking like the Kevin Bacon character in “Animal House,” saying “Remain calm! All is well!!!”
But, he’s made a Faustian bargain. His ambition for higher political office on a national level has caused him to make common cause with Donald Trump, a man whose vision of politics — a vision where any loss has to be because he was stabbed in the back; a vision where “joking” (not joking) about violence as a political tool is acceptable — that vision does threaten our democratic system. And Governor Pence is not only tolerating this vision; he’s trying to give this vision a home in the White House. We’ve been numbed, I think, by political rhetoric where every policy decision with which we disagree is a step on the path to tyranny. But, imprisoning and killing political opponents are hallmarks of tyrannical systems of government. Sure, he or his supporters will say he was “just joking.” But, Trump is not notably a man of good humor. His “jokes” are the same as those of a bully who says something insulting or pushes you around and then, when called on it, tries to avoid responsibility and blame you as someone who “can’t take a joke.”
It’s not funny, and citizens need to speak out and vote against Trump to show this kind of rhetoric is not acceptable in a political candidate.
Update: Paul Waldman has a post that goes into a little more depth on some of the same themes I alluded to above. It’s worth a read in its entirety, but here’s a good paragraph:
[T]this comes after Trump has been trying to delegitimize the results of the election before it actually happens, claiming that the vote will be “rigged.” If you’re arguing to your angry, heavily armed supporters, who already think the federal government is tyrannical, that there’s a conspiracy afoot to steal the election and that your opponent will be sending jackbooted government thugs to confiscate their guns, you don’t get to pretend that when you say that the “Second Amendment people” might be able to stop the next president’s judges from subverting their gun rights that it’s all innocent and you would never contemplate something as irresponsible as encouraging violence.
The gracious and smart thing for Trump would be to leave, but he seems so lacking in self-reflection and so full of himself that he thinks he should hold on. At least I hope so. I don’t want the party to have the time to nominate someone who could actually win this thing against a weak Democrat and leave the dysfunctional Republicans with hope that they may actually govern (or rule,whichever may be the case). I believe that the republic is in dangerous waters.
I’m still hoping for a “two-fer” in November, voting against two incompetents with one pull of the lever.
From a political gamesmanship perspective, I get where you’re coming from. But, ultimately, I think it’s better for the country if it has a legitimate choice about who to elect. If it were Clinton versus Johnson, for example, that might be tougher for Clinton to win, but it would be a healthier situation for the country generally.
I just wish the choice would be about who is best for America, not about who would be less harmful.
When Trump has encouraged political violence, promoted racism, and hinted at giving aid and comfort to Russia, a rouge dictatorship with which Trump has substantial economic interests, any claim that Clinton is somehow “less harmful,” evaporates. The choice is stark. A candidate that presents a clear, self-interested and present danger to the established world order and the nation, or a well qualified and established leader.
My opinion is what we have here is the most qualified candidate in the history of the United States in Hillary Clinton versus the least qualified candidate in the history of the United States, Donald Trump.
You are quite correct, it’s a no brainer.
I was trying to speak to Doug’s and Stuart’s points. Hillary is a weak candidate in an election in which there’s not really a choice between her and another candidate.
That said, Trump’s lead has gone up in each poll taken in this state. Must be the boost that Mike Pence is bringing the campaign. (THAT WAS SARCASM.)
Bullshit.
Hillary is a weak candidate only in the Republican bubble of delusion.
Hillary is the most qualified candidate is the history of the United States..
And she is going to make a terrific President.
She couldn’t defeat Obama in 2008.
Look, I hope she becomes President given the alternative, but I’d vote for Obama over her if I had the choice again. (Voted for Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary and have been generally happy with the Obama administration.)
My opinion is Pence knew he was going to lose the governors thus ending his political career and paychecks.
Pence is running for President in 2020. Not to win but for profit. Then back in the right wing media business but with a much stronger brand.
And I must admit I think he made the best choice. For profits that is.
Unless of course, it goes as badly as it’s going now.
Pence is a really good talker and an absolutely abysmal doer.
I think that if she gets the job, she will be excellent in the office, working with groups to make things happen. Probably excellent problem solver but maybe inclined to come down heavier than necessary. When it comes to schmoozing with the press and doing photo ops, maybe not so good. I suspect Kaine and her husband will give her a lot of good direction in that area. She’s more like the one in the back room who actually runs the place. Trump and Pence would be the worst folks to ever be in that position, impulsive, stubborn, refractive to helpful criticism, vulnerable to manipulators, focused on feathering their nest (especially Trump) or weird social agendas (Pence), both in line ffor impeachment. I heard a guy say that if Trump becomes president, he will leave the world.
Raw Story has an article about Trump’s latest twist on his dangerous and baseless rhetoric. http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/trump-says-he-was-being-sarcastic-about-obama-founding-isis-after-insisting-he-was-deadly-serious/
Despite tripling down on his claim that Obama is the “founder” of ISIS, Trump now claims he was being sarcastic and the press just did not pick it up. Maybe his repeated reassertions of this claim confused the press. The article also states:
It will be interesting to see what happens when Russia invades Estonia and Trump tries to stop them by telling them he was just being “sarcastic” about not defending them as a NATO ally.
Trump than went on an tweeted:
I love watching these poor, pathetic people (pundits) on television working so hard and so seriously to try and figure me out. They can’t!
The article then concludes: Because, you know, saying things whose meanings are hard to decipher is totally a great quality to have as president.
I listened to a Diane Rehm show yesterday about the role of journalists when confronted with a serial liar like Trump. The panel shared that many media outlets have passed that “Murrow” moment and report Trumps lies and incredulous statements as untruths and unsupportable statements.
About damn time. The joke is long over.
Trump’s assertion that he was literally calling Obama the founder followed by his sneering comment about how the media just didn’t get his sarcasm is gaslighting.
Good point, Dog. Sociopaths like Trump would likely be skilled at this having gaslighted people close to him, such as spouses, girlfriends and employees.
It is also a method of giving his sycophants enough planks of reality to stay on his ship in the face of the mendacious maelstrom.
But looking at Trump from a psychological standpoint, he just isn’t that good at it. He’s hamhanded. Someone like Nixon, Cheney, or Huey Long were infinitely more skilled at such mass manipulation.
Adding to your observation about his behavior vis a vis his maladjustment, seriously dysfunctional folks are usually pretty rigid in their behavior and language, as is Mr. Trump. They use the same technique because it has worked, sort of like using a hammer for every project. But that can end badly in a debate when the other side seriously examines his schtick and figures out how to deal with each strategy. I’m sure that the Clinton group has that playbook down cold, and Hillary will be ready for the debates. It may not be pretty. At least I’m hoping for that.
Stuart, presidential candidates spend several hours each week preparing for debates. From what I read about Trump, he is not making meaningful efforts at preparing for the debates.
At one level, Trump is very unpredictable. But there is a matrix of consistency about which flows from his narcissistic personality disorder:
“DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:
Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
Exaggerating your achievements and talents
Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people
Requiring constant admiration
Having a sense of entitlement
Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
Taking advantage of others to get what you want
Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
Being envious of others and believing others envy you
Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner
Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence, it’s not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal and value yourself more than you value others.”
We ought to laminate a few thousand of these symptoms and send them to journalists, and political candidates. It is a roadmap for effective coverage or disparagement of Trump.
Trump may be laying an excuse rationalization for his likely defeat and a dodge for the debates. He is likely working the refs on the debates. He knows that he will be annihilated in a two person debate forum. The outrageous statements that blasted his opponents and generated media attention when there were six or eight participants will not work with one skilled opponent. He cannot deflect among little Marco, lyin’ Ted, mental Ben and Jeb the sloth to hide his lack of sense or knowledge.
And he is also ginning up an excuse for his eventual loss with his statements about the Pennsylvania vote and Hilary’s cheating.
This type of behavior is consistent with his personality type. Like the people that are losing badly in checkers who “accidently” upend the board.
Here is the problem. Will Trump turn the debates into non debates, by constantly using terms such as; lying Hilary, cheating Hilary, etc. If he does that and is allowed to do that, we will have an not a debate, just a verbal battle. If he is not allowed to do that we can then listen to his railing on about the rigged debates. My personal non-scientific poll of 100 people has Trump winning by 81 to 19. He wins though without my vote..