MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump's Rhetoric Is Divisive, Contemptible, Un-Presidential. It's Also Not Responsible for the Synagogue Shooting.

Killers are responsible for their actions and the leap from rhetoric to action, along with all the blood they shed, is on their hands alone.

To say that President Donald Trump is the debaser-in-chief of contemporary political discourse is to state the obvious. After a weekend of gruesome, anti-Semitic murder that left 11 dead at a Pennsylvania synagogue, he tweets the above. He should stop this sort of garbage talk.

Yet to hold him responsible for the actions of the shooter is ridiculous. The same goes for holding him responsible for the deeds of alleged mail bomber Cesar Sayoc. Mass killers and criminals are responsible for their actions and the leap from rhetoric to action, along with all the blood they shed, is on their hands alone. That won't stop political opportunists from trying to tie the two together, of course. "Trump's Caravan Hysteria Led to This," argues Adam Serwer at The Atlantic, despite the fact that the shooting suspect actually denounced the president just days before the shooting:

"Trump is a globalist, not a nationalist. There is no #MAGA as long as there is a" — he inserted a slur for Jews — "infestation."

At The Washington Post, ex-conservative Max Boot says "Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media can't escape responsibility" for violence. At The Nation, Sasha Abramsky avers, "The Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting Is the ​Inevitable Result of​ Trump's Vile Nationalism."

No, it isn't, and it's particularly disturbing for journalists to conflate words with deeds and to impute motivation from the texts and ideas that evildoers consume. Who "activated" the shooter of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), who turned out to be a Bernie Sanders volunteer? The short answer: Noboby. Same goes for the shooter of Rep. Gabby Giffords, Jared Loughner, who consumed a lot of left-wing news. Did Fifty Shades of Gray really cause rape and torture? Is The Catcher in the Rye really connected to the killing of John Lennon or Star Wars to the serial murders committed by Jeffrey Dahmer? Of course not.

There is every reason to call out Donald Trump for his fact-free, ugly, divisive rhetoric and, more important still, his often-inhumane and counterproductive policies. But to blame him for all crimes that happen during his tenure as president is not only wrong, it directs attention away from dynamics far larger than him.

We desperately need a reset in contemporary politics, one that allows for conversation and dialogue that goes beyond the shrill, polarized positions invoked by the contemporary Republican and Democratic parties and the conservative and liberal ideologies they generally represent.

One of the worst aspects of the current situation is that it manifestly fails to represent the fact that most Americans actually agree on many issues. It's the partisans in politics and in the media who are more likely to be unrepresentative of where we stand and to rush toward idiotic, unsubstantiated positions (here's a list of various conservatives and Republicans, including the president, who insisted without evidence that the spate of mail bombs sent to liberal politicians and celebrities was a "false flag" operation to discredit Trump). Recognizing that would be a useful first step in having better, smarter conversations about politics and culture.

This Reason interview with political scientist Morris Fiorina is on point:

Photo Credit: Richard B. Levine/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump's Rhetoric Is Divisive, Contemptible, Un-Presidential.

    Says the guy who didnt think Obama or any Lefty politician does that.

    Trump is fighting the Lefties who are trying to silence and send dissidents to gulags. Its why he got elected.

  • damikesc||

    Ive been called racist and Nazi for as long as I can remember for not voting Dem.

    My concern about the coarsening of political dialogue is really low, personally.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I think its great.

    There is a great shift in politics coming to the USA.

    The Democratic Party is dying. Even some black folks are scared to leave the Democratic Party to start their own political party so they are not in a party with a history of slavery. The GOP and LP do not have that moral tarnish.
    Yet thousands of people are fleeing the Democratic Party.

    This is a great opportunity for Libertarians to take back the LP from anarchists and lefties and challenge the GOP. I predict it will be the LP vs the GOP in the years to come.

  • NoVaNick||

    This is a great opportunity for Libertarians to take back the LP from anarchists and lefties and challenge the GOP. I predict it will be the LP vs the GOP in the years to come.

    I just read that the Pittsburgh shooter made some comments about an LP-alt right alliance-again furthering the narrative that we libertarians are part of the vast alt right conspiracy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We Libertarians are part of a conspiracy- The conspiracy to take back the USA from Lefty shitbags and get our civil rights back.

    The conspiracy to shrink government back to the tiny and limited federal power that it was designed as.

  • NoVaNick||

    Its been both parties-not just lefties. Nixon, Bush I and II did a lot to expand the power of the state-esp the War on Drugs and military intervention. The statists, and especially the left, have the most success at the local level regardless of which party controls the federal government, because most people ignore what happens at city hall if it doesn't directly affect them, and by the time it does, its too late.

  • snowhawk||

    I hear a lot of rhetoric here blaming both majority Party's. I hear nothing of the fact that immediately following the assassination of Kennedy the Corporate Giants took, through LBJ, complete control of the Federal Government. The fact that because of the rising costs of campaigning they decide, their money does decide who runs and who wins, who's seated in elected positions and who are then controlled through Lobbyist money. Corporatism also controls the MSM and along with the majority of those seated on both sides of the aisle the Government you fight over. Than while your fighting over the Party's the Corporate Giants just go about business as usual. Want to change it you should be doing all possible to get corporate money out of elections and forcing their media to run honest, truthful, campaign ads.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    How much corporate money did Trump get compared to Hilary? Or his opponents in the primaries?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    How much corporate money did Trump get compared to Hilary? Or his opponents in the primaries?

  • DesigNate||

    That's awfully convenient for all of the shitheads who constantly try to conflate the two.

    Even more so when you consider that some LP nominees have a decent chance of upsetting the apple cart.

  • Fancylad||

    I feel great about it, the people are finally giving back to the clerisy what they've been doing to them for years.

    - Fuck the DNC and their oligarchical corporatist allies.

    - Fuck the champagne left and its race-baiting, its Antisemitism, its hatred of the proletariat, and its raw lust for power over people.

    - Fuck the NYT, WaPo, Buzzfeed, Huffpo, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, Reuters, Slate, NBC, CBS, Salon, Newsweek, Time, etc. for acting as nothing more than DNC house organs, and devolving into purveyors of pure anti-human agitprop.

    - Fuck the Ivy League for abandoning their core mission, and creating a pseudo-religious sociopolitical cult that sows division, suspicion, censorship and hate.

    - Fuck Reason for abandoning libertarianism for a reason as shitty as it isn't currently fashionable with their journalistic peers.

    We may be coarse now, but you started the fight. Asshole bullies don't deserve courtesy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +10000

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And since progtards are ultimately pathetic little pussies, why should we EVER bad down to them? They are weak wretched things who scuttle away when exposed to light or are really challenged face to face.

  • Teddy Pump||

    BINGO-BANGO-BONGO!!!

  • Teddy Pump||

    BINGO-BANGO-BONGO!!!!!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Says the guy who didnt think Obama or any Lefty politician does that.

    There must be a ton of direct quotes of Nick saying this exact thing for you to make the claim so confidently. Weird that you didn't link to any of them.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    It is LovesTrumpsTinyMushroomdick1789 - our resident idiot. He has mastered the free-form lying of his hero so he can't produce an actual quote like you ask for.

  • TuIpa||

    You would know about not being able to produce quotes that say what you claim, having exhibited that same deficiency earlier today when I caught you lying.

    "But you IMPLIED!!!" isn't a quote, justsoyaknow.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    TuIpa|10.29.18 @ 9:57AM|#

    "will trample on human rights, curtail civil liberties and muzzle freedom of speech."

    Brazil elected Google?

    Google is a private company.

    You keep your filthy government-loving authoritarian hands off them.

  • TuIpa||

    Thank you for admitting you had no quote, and were lying.

    That post doesn't even make any sense.

  • TuIpa||

    "You keep your filthy government-loving authoritarian hands off them."

    Who are you directing this to? Certainly not me, as I have never once called for govt intrusion in this sector.

    That's why, when challenged to provide a quote saying I did ask for govt intrusion, you completely failed.

    Are you ok? Did getting caught lying really fuck you up this much?

    Go ahead and run away, it's the right move this time.

  • Sevo||

    Sarah Palin's Buttplug|10.29.18 @ 11:06AM|#
    "Google is a private company.
    You keep your filthy government-loving authoritarian hands off them."

    This from the dimbulb who hopes the gov't determines the price of internet service.
    Number of turd's posts which do not contain lies:
    Zero

  • TuIpa||

    He's apparently to stupid to realize I can criticise Google for their anti-freedom policies (especially in China) but don't want them regulated.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    PB, you should be very afraid of what is to come, Things are going to get really fucking bad for you and your proggie pals.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You didn't cite them, I see.

    Until then, I don't believe you... because...well, you're a liar.

  • Hugh Akston||

    That is every bit as lucid and coherent a response as I have come to expect from you. Thanks for not letting us down.

  • TuIpa||

    Well, Hugh, I'm not sure why you're complaining, you acted like a passive-aggressive little bitch and got treated like one. What's your problem with that?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    LC probably didn't buy him any flowers after he got pounded by him for his stupid comment. So Hugh feels slighted.

  • Fancylad||

    Seems fair to me, you are pretty dishonest.

  • John||

    If Nick attacked Obama for his rethoric, show a link to where he did. 1789 is saying that Nick did not and cannot be expected to prove a negative. You are the one making the positive assertion here. If it happened, then show a link. Otherwise shut the fuck up and stop wasting everyone's time expected us to find your wishful thinking to be convincing.

  • Just Say'n||

    Hey, Hugh, man, Tricky Dick is going down. Right on, brother. It's 1968 forever.

  • sunset||

    I saved Hugh some time and found an article of Nick's that's critical of Obama's rhetoric.

    www.thedailybeast.com/obamas-w.....tional-act

    You other jackasses sound like a bunch of basement dwelling blowhards who help earn the LP the reputation of being alt-right. Keep up the (not so) productive work of waiting for Gillespie and Soave to write articles so you can be the first to try and insult them.

  • Nardz||

    Solid article.
    "Thanks, President Obama, but we don't need no stinking press badges, especially in an age where all sorts of decentralized reporting and unconventional news gathering come online faster than the next second-term scandal. The First Amendment is all the shield law any American needs, especially when it's supplemented by the protections offered by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. What we really need is a president who lives by the Constitution more than he nods to it."
    Real tough guy.
    Wish he was still around.

    Good boy, sunset.
    Go get your treat

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yet Gillespie still did not call Obama unpresidential, divisive, or contemptable.

    Gillespie is mainly discussing obama attacking the media for leaks. Gillespie completely lets Obama off the hook for the other stuff that was done to media.

    2013 Gillespie wishes that the USA had a different president but Obama would have to do.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Trump's Rhetoric Is Divisive, Contemptible, Un-Presidential."

    And also not iota worse in any way whatsoever than the things that various Democrats have been saying for many long years.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    Trump has said he will pay the legal fees for his violent thugs.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The side that has actually produced the most violent thugs is the left.

    They own Antifa -which has practicing violent thuggery for decades - long before Trump ever got into politics.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    Antifa? Those idiots haven't killed anyone.

    The right wing zealots/terrorists are up to 74 killings now just in the USA.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism (Trump's "fine people".)

  • TuIpa||

    Yeah, we covered that before and laughed at how hard you were reaching.

    "2004 Bank robbery Tulsa, Oklahoma 0 1"

    "2001 Post-September 11 shootings Multiple 1 6"

    Lol, and they aren't even cited!!

    Proving you lied aboit what I daid has sent you off the deep end!!!

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Bullshit as usual from you.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Antifa? Those idiots haven't killed anyone.

    Yet.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    And lets' compare and contrast the behavior (and media depictions) of the Tea Party groups and all the various "Occupy" groups.

    The former were depicted as dangerous by the left wing media while actually exhibiting nothing of the sort. And they cleaned up any of the places where they demonstrated and didn't leave mounds of trash behind.

    The latter trashed out every place they went, disrupted private businesses, traffic, etc. and were hailed as heroes by the left wing media for doing it.

  • DesigNate||

    I love that you dishonest pieces of shit leave off the part where the "protestors" were actively starting or trying to instigate a fight so that they could "prove" how violent and angry the Republicans were.

  • JesseAz||

    There are entire political pacs that pay for protestors bail. Antifa also has a legal fund. And the DNC and the left are constantly paying for convinced murderers like assata Shakur and Oscar Rivera Lopez to give speeches.

  • Sigivald||

    From Snopes, no fan of the President, on that:

    "Knock the crap out of him, would you? I promise you, I will pay your legal fees"

    Trump said this at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa in February 2016, although the quotation is truncated. A week earlier, in Iowa City, a protester threw a tomato at the candidate as he was delivering his stump speech.

    When Trump came to Cedar Rapids, he referenced the tomato incident while riffing during a rally of his supporters, and said:

    …If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, ok. Just knock the hell — I promise you I will pay for the legal fees, I promise.

    So ... he's telling people to hit someone who's in process of committing assault*.

    That's "violent thugs".

    That's what you've got?

    Did you ever see the full quote in context?

    Is your assertion based in ignorance or malice, or is there some third option?

    (* Most states, at least, define assault as any sort of unwanted physical contact, without requiring real injury.)

  • soldiermedic76||

    A lot of Trump's most controversial (not all) are the result of selective quoting and editing by those opposed to him.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "fine people on both sides"

  • TuIpa||

    OMFG YOU ACTUALLY BOUGHT THAT NARRATIVE!!!

    AHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA!!!

  • Just Say'n||

    You can't say you support free speech and then pretend like rhetoric impacts violence. You're basically admitting that speech is violence.

    At least woketarians are exposing themselves

  • soldiermedic76||

    And here is example A of misquoting Trump... Good job ChemJeff for continuing to parrot a blatant, deliberate misquote.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    Trump may even pardon the MAGA-bomber.

  • Cy||

    .... you really are a wretched, stanky, old, used, asshole.

    I suppose we'll be seeing you on the news shooting up some republicans while they play softball or some shit.

  • Paulpemb||

    Why shouldn't he? The guy obviously needs help, and it's not like he actually hurt anybody.

    Obama pardoned Oscar Lopez Rivera, and he actually killed people and has never renounced the use of violence in pursuit of his political goals (which is why Clinton kept him in prison when he pardoned the rest of his associates).

  • soldiermedic76||

    Can you provide a source for this assertion? I am curious since I haven't seen anything to indicate this. In fact Trump has been pretty vocal about his disapproval of this and the Synagogue shooting.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Trump probably wants the death Lena,ty for him. But keep spewing your bullshit PB. I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Yeah, whenever Gillespie's hero Mofobama made some despicable comment like calling his grandmother a "typical white person", he dismissed it as being completely irrelevant. Gee, I wonder why that would be?

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    Calling his grandmother a "typical white person".

    So do you avoid a gang of black males when you're strolling down Peachtree looking for hookers?

  • TuIpa||

    Yup, catching you lying about what I said overcame your meds control again.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    You don't live in Georgia, lying dickface Dave Weigel.

    You live at 1435 Euclid Street Apt. #2 in Northwest Washington DC.

  • MasterThief||

    Actual doxxing or false assertion? Mostly asking because I've done work a block from there.

  • Sigivald||

    I mean, of course it's divisive! It's partisan. Democrats are going to hate it.

    And, well, if "presidential" means "like Presidents normally act", it's un-Presidential, sure.

    But I don't care much about either of those critiques, as much as I dislike the President's policy choices (or most of 'em).

    "Contemptible", well, Nick might wanna elaborate on that one a little with some specifics.

  • Sevo||

    "Trump's Rhetoric Is Divisive, Contemptible, Un-Presidential...."

    His actions, OTOH, are a strong net positive, so we're in good shape.
    By comparison, Obo was certainly sweet-talking liar. And a disaster.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    We desperately need a reset in contemporary politics...

    Do we? Do we need a return to polished orators who conceal the fact that they are self-interested dirtbags? I think the opposite is true. Continue to lay bare for the voting public to what they cede their daily decision making.

    But more importantly, why is it he Scalise shooter never gets name checked?

  • Cyto||

    You know you've lost the room when FOE gets direct and pointed.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    I understand a "reset" as being analogous to wiping a computer clean and starting with a fresh OS re-install.

    The constitution is the OS. It's the 240 years of input that needs wiping and replenishment.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Like with a cloth?

  • The Knuckle||

    "Like with a cloth?"

    I LOL'd

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There are a couple critical updates that would need to be reapplied.

  • lafe.long||

    Partisan loyalty is socially disastrous; but for individuals it can be richly rewarding -- more rewarding, in many ways, than even concupiscence or avarice. Whoremongers and money-grubbers find it hard to feel very proud of their activities. But partisanship is a complex passion which permits those who indulge in it to make the best of both worlds. Because they do these things for the sake of a group which is, by definition, good and even sacred, they can admire themselves and loathe their neighbors, they can seek power and money, can enjoy the pleasures of aggression and cruelty, not merely without feeling guilty, but with a positive glow of conscious virtue. Loyalty to their group transforms these pleasant vices into acts of heroism. Partisans are aware of themselves, not as sinners or criminals, but as altruists and idealists. And with certain qualifications, this is in fact what they are. The only trouble is that the ideal, for which they are ready in many cases to lay down their lives, is nothing but the rationalization of corporate interests and party passions.
    ~Aldous Huxley - The Devils of Loudun 1952

  • lap83||

    "divisive, contemptible, unpresidential"

    Just say deplorable, it's easier

  • DesigNate||

    Nick, I don't understand how the same people who pushed the Saddam has WMD narrative, cheered on things like the Patriot Act, gave passes to Obama's NSA for their warrentless wiretapping, and readily misrepresents all kinds of factors in the gun debate AREN'T "fake news" and "the enemy of the People".

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    To be fair, they did suddenly turn the dial up to 11, which in itself is a problem since when Trump does actually do something extraordinarily bad no one will hear the reporting on it through the din. So let's call them the frenemy of the people.

  • Cyto||

    That's the part of the story that keeps nagging at me. Since Trump became the nominee the narrative has pivoted to "literally worse than Hitler" for every little thing he says, does or Tweets.

    I've heard a couple of people comment that there has never been a better time to be an actual racist.... not because Trump is dogwhistling support for racists, but because we've labeled everyone a racist Nazi rape-apologizing misogynists. And so nobody pays attention anymore... when everyone is a racist, no one is.

    So if you are an actual racist, you are safe... who could possibly notice over the din of the fake-racist epithet being tossed at everyone who is to the right of Mao.

  • soldiermedic76||

    They jumped that shark when they said Romney wanted to put blacks back in chains.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    To continue being fair to the journalists, that was Joe Biden.The expectations for the things coming out of his mouth aren't high.

  • AlmightyJB||

    To be sure......

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Wrong excuse-jockey

  • ||

    He should stop this sort of garbage talk.

    Exactly what someone working for the [[[media]]] would say.

  • lap83||

    " After a weekend of gruesome, anti-Semitic murder that left 11 dead at a Pennsylvania synagogue, he tweets the above. He should stop this sort of garbage talk."

    Quick poll, does anyone who isn't a journalist care about Trump critizing the media after a shooting?

    I like how they all react like he violated some sacred etiquette like pissing on a grave at the funeral. It is amazingly self absorbed "you can't criticize us you heathen, people just died!"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    That has been the problem with Trump and news reporting. They seem to have no idea that the rest of the country doesn't care about what they think it should.

  • Cathy L||

    See, I don't get why the Trumpkins are okay with you breeding when more people with your brainpower would obviously affect the composition of the US populace for the worse.

  • lap83||

    Thanks! I'll take that under advisement

  • TuIpa||

    Cry More Cathy appears to have completely come unhinged.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I think Cathy is asking you for a bareback session of deep dicking. She wants her own Lap83 Jr.

  • Nardz||

    Might be tough.
    Lap's a lady

  • TuIpa||

    I don't get why you are constantly crying about everything.

  • DesigNate||

    Aww, it looks like you upset poor Cathy by picking on the media. Did the big mean man hurt your feelings Cathy?

  • Cathy L||

    I'm just using a concrete example to explain to a moron like lap why I think conservaTrumpkins should support requiring abortions for all native-born Americans.

  • TuIpa||

    No, you're crying. A lot.

  • lap83||

    I'm afraid I'm still too dumb to get how your forced abortion policy idea is at all relevant to anything. But insult me a bit more and I'm sure I'll catch on eventually

  • Cathy L||

    Anti-immigrant activists want to stop people from entering the country. Some of them say it's because those people are undesirable in some way. Yet they almost never complain about how undesirable most of the children of their neighbors are.

    Half of all births in the US are to women who can't afford the birth itself, not counting the women who force everyone to pay for "maternity insurance" (as if you can insure against an affirmative choice to have a child). Even more are born to women who can't afford childcare. Where is the Trump supporter movement to stop those births from happening? Why are you not saying there can be no more US births until the welfare state for parents, e.g., government schools, is dismantled?

    Your children are undesirable to me. If they are anything like you, they're making the country worse.

  • TuIpa||

    Holy shit a WALL-O-TEARS from Cathy!!!

  • lap83||

    I'm sure it's not easy going through life as a bitter shrew but rest assured no one would willingly let you have anything to do with their offspring if they knew you or had any say in the matter

  • Kresh the Nofta||

    Nikki was actually the worst. She thought it was a joke but no.

  • Just Say'n||

    I'm sorry that you'll die alone, Cathy

  • Curly4||

    Your first statement may be incorrect. There are some who are anti-immigrant but many times more are ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. There is a proper method that people can come to the US and those who are coming to the US today and if someone disagrees with that method then change the method and not break the law.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Additionally, most everyone agrees there needs to be some control over who enters the country and who becomes legal residents. Even most who call themselves open borders do admit that a sovereign nation can have control over who becomes legal residents and or citizens and that even some border and Visa monitoring is needed. Very few believe in completely open borders.

  • ||

    many times more are ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT.


    And yet the Trump Administration's immigration bill calls for drastically reducing legal immigration.

    It is all well and good to talk about waiting in a queue but the fact is that for unskilled labor that queue does not exist. And yet there is a big demand for such unskilled labor.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Anti-immigrant activists want to stop people from entering the country"

    Are you referring to illegals? Or are you saying there is a movement to keep lawful immigrants out of the US? You use a lot of weasel words and disingenuous phony arguments, so we need to clarify exactly what you mean.

  • ||

    See my comment above.

    < a href="The Trump Administration is calling for reducing legal immigration quotas by a half">The Trump Administration is calling for reducing legal immigration quotas by a half.

    Now I could have linked to a story in the "Jew York Times" but I figured that you would consider that fake news but my link is to the "Washington Times" which, last I heard, was not known for a particularly "Progressive" editorial policy so perhaps you'll pay attention.

  • ||

    See my comment above.

    < a href="The Trump Administration is calling for reducing legal immigration quotas by a half">The Trump Administration is calling for reducing legal immigration quotas by a half.

    Now I could have linked to a story in the "Jew York Times" but I figured that you would consider that fake news but my link is to the "Washington Times" which, last I heard, was not known for a particularly "Progressive" editorial policy so perhaps you'll pay attention.

  • ||

    The Trump Administration is calling for reducing legal immigration quotas by a half.

    Now I could have linked to a story in the "Jew York Times" but I figured that you would consider that fake news but my link is to the "Washington Times" which, last I heard, was not known for a particularly "Progressive" editorial policy so perhaps you'll pay attention.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Nice anti-Semitism there, Isaac. How does it feel to be 100% douchebag? I mean can you being any bigger of an asshole then to make an anti-Semitic joke two days after a synagogue got shot up by an anti-Semite?

  • vek||

    Cathy, I think we SHOULD remove welfare benefits that encourage people who can't afford to have kids from having them! Most libertarians would want that, and most conservatives too. So people ARE in fact in favor of policies that discourage "undesirables" from having kids! But even if they weren't, the fact that we have a problem in our own nation is NOT a good reason to want to IMPORT even MORE problematic people. It's like if somebody ended up with a child that becomes a drug addict... Is that a reason for them to go out and specifically adopt a child that's ALSO a drug addict? Hell no.

    As for Isaac... We DO NOT have a large shortage for unskilled labor. We have a large demand for pushing wages down by big business. But we don't have a shortage. We have the lowest labor force participation rate since the 70s. When that changes, and we get back to more recent norms, THEN we can talk about importing half illiterate peasants from the 3rd world. OR, better yet, we could just automate more... Which would actually improve GDP per capita, which is how you make an ACTUAL successful society, versus just having a larger peasant class. That's the difference between 1st world and 3rd world nations you know...

  • ||

    I feel fine. My joke was anti-anti-Semitic based on a line from "Auntie Mame" by Patrick Dennis.

    I was referring to the fact that some right wingers dismiss the veracity of the "New York Times" because the paper and the city are runs by "the Jews".

    Satire, it's a lost art.

  • soldiermedic76||

    For it to be satire it would actually have to be something that right wingers actually say, however, I have never heard anyone use that phrase except progressive assholes who think they are clever. They use it as a caracture, but there is little evidence that that phrase is common or accepted by the right wing. I grew up in Idaho, was stationed in Texas, Missouri and Virginia, and live in Montana. Not a single person I know (most of whom you would label right wing) would ever even think of using that term.
    I suspect instead your choosing of that term says more about your subconscious thoughts than anything about conservative America. I hypothesize that you got a secret thrill in using that racial epitaph. Further, you were using satire as a means to hide your own personal demons while using others as cover. Since no one ever mentioned the New York times, the very act of mentioning it suggests you were trying to work that despicable phrase into the conversation. If it was trulye meant as satire, it missed the mark by a mile. Just because you say it was a joke, doesn't make it any less racist. What is your next move, calling blacks thr N-word and then claiming it was just a joke?

  • soldiermedic76||

    Also, the fact that you feel fine shows that you are quite comfortable using racial epitaphs. Most moral people would feel some unease at utilizing a racial attack, even if they meant it in satire. You are not Mel Brooks using Blazing Saddles as a commentary on racism. Your sophomoric utilization of anti-Semitism is not amusing, nor are you providing any pertinent critique. And the fact that you felt no disquiet while doing this, no voice in your head saying this may be too much, is very worrying. I suggest you take some time and do some deep self reflection.

  • ||

    Actually, I was quoting something that was actually said by anti-semites but perhaps you are to young or ignorant to know that.

  • Sevo||

    Cathy L|10.29.18 @ 10:53AM|#
    "..the Trumpkins..."

    If lefty ignoramuses can't turn it into a bumper-sticker, it's not a 'policy'.

  • Cathy L||

    I guess you could say making fun of Trump supporters is a policy.

  • TuIpa||

    And I guess YOU would say that incessantly crying about them is too.

  • Sevo||

    "I guess you could say making fun of Trump supporters is a policy."
    Sure seems to be YOUR policy.

  • Ron||

    Trumps tweet was very accurate and should continue until the media realizes they are to blame for the hatred against them not Trump.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    Yes, the media is the enemy of the people.

    You Trumptards recite his propaganda like lemmings.

  • TuIpa||

    And you lie and don't pay your bets. As people, they're probably better than you overall.

  • TuIpa||

    Remeber earlier when I predicted you would fail to any quote that said what you claimed, and that you would flee?

    Yeah, I won.

  • DesigNate||

    Leave it to you defend the people who pushed the WMD narrative and thought the Patriot Act was swell. Never stop being a fucking shill, shrike.

  • Sevo||

    Ask him about his support for gov't price-fixing on the web, and watch the contortions trying to claim it is 'more free' than the alternative.
    Stupid and dishonest; that's our turd!

  • TuIpa||

    He stupidly said earlier that net neutrality would block the internet into openness.

    Yes, he literally said that.

  • DesigNate||

    I mean he said that Obamacare was a free market solution because they set up exchanges (something esurrance had done 10 fucking years earlier mind you), so his idiocy is well documented.

  • Ron||

    The media has been a lying sack of excriment long before Trump hence Trump as president. I saw the republican I wanted to vote for president over the weekend on CNN. makes me glad Trump won

  • JesseAz||

    Can't even help yourself from lying. Trump is always clear that he is referring to the fack news media, ie those agencies constantly pushing gossip as news and have fielded dozens of false reports.

  • SIV||

    Best President since Calvin Coolidge.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    We desperately need a reset in contemporary politics, one that allows for conversation and dialogue that goes beyond the shrill, polarized positions invoked by the contemporary Republican and Democratic parties and the conservative and liberal ideologies they generally represent.

    Yes we do. We need to be able to discuss ideas without having epithets hurled around.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    If you don't support Trump you want to send people to gulags.

    LovesTrumpsTinyMushroomDick1789 said so at the top of the thread.

  • TuIpa||

    Did he say it, or are you lying about that like you did when you said I said something and couldn't provide a quote and so had to flee in shame?

  • TuIpa||

    Let's see here's what you said he said

    "If you don't support Trump you want to send people to gulags"

    Here's what he actually said

    "Trump is fighting the Lefties who are trying to silence and send dissidents to gulags"

    Seems like you were lying once again. Trump is a clown and libertarians shouldn't support him, but that doesn't mean they want people sent to gulags.

  • Seamus||

    Uh, logic doesn't appear to be your strong suit.
    Saying that some of the people Trump is fighting want to send people to the Gulag is not equivalent to saying that all people whom Trump fights--much less all people who don't support Trump--want to send people to the Gulag.

  • Sevo||

    Seamus|10.29.18 @ 1:56PM|#
    "Saying that some of the people Trump is fighting want to send people to the Gulag is not equivalent to saying that all people whom Trump fights--much less all people who don't support Trump--want to send people to the Gulag."

    Reading comprehension and honesty ain't *your* friends.
    Read again, provide apology and STFU

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Oh, Boo Hoo, There's a Republican President who is willing to give as good as he gets from the Left. He's SOOOOOO UnPresidential!

    *spit*

    Trump is never going to be one of my favorite people, but 99.99% of the talk about his 'divisive' and 'contemptible' rhetoric is Leftwing butthurt at being treated as they treat others. They've had Trump, or somebody like him, coming for a long, LONG time.

    And if they manage somehow to get rid of him, what they get next is going to make him look like Tom Freaking Sawyer.

  • Mr. JD||

    This ^

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Would love to see, in context, Trump's "rhetoric" vs Maxine Waters.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    *shudder*

    To borrow from Captain Blackadder; If a hungry cannibal cracked her head open, he wouldn't find enough inside to cover a small water-biscuit.

  • vek||

    Yup. Something that is talked about in ACTUAL hard right circles, is that if the left doesn't wise up and actually accept reasonable compromises on a lot of issues... Think immigration, speech being acceptable (all of it!), gun rights, etc etc etc... Then the guy that comes after Trump is going to end up being a REAL right wing extremist. The kind of guy who will ACTUALLY have right wing goon squads going around curb stomping commies, throwing them in camps, etc.

    It might not be the "perfect world" scenario, but for many compared to going into left wing totalitarianism, it would be preferable. But the left seems to be completely unaware that this is where things will end up going if they keep demanding completely unhinged shit.

    Whatevs. It's their own funeral.

  • Incredulous||

    "Debaser-in-Chief?" "Fact-free, Ugly, Divisive Rhetoric? I'm not Trump fan but get a grip, Nick. Anybody who watched the Kavanaugh circus and has watched the Trump-is-Hitler Left carry on over the past couple years can not seriously single Trump out in this way. You're trashing whatever credibility you have left, Nick.

  • Harvard||

    Nick has credibility left?? The hell you say!

  • ThomasD||

    Sure he does. I suspect he keeps in in a Nine West shoe box hidden under the bed in his guest room/home office.

    Because he surely doesn't display it publicly.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I thought he kept it in a hope chest on the night stand next to his bed, right next to his framed 8x10" glossy of Hillary.

  • Rich||

    Trump's Rhetoric Is Divisive, Contemptible, Un-Presidential. It's Also Not Responsible for the Synagogue Shooting.

    Exactly. It's the rhetoric of this woman that is responsible.

  • lap83||

    "which she made defamatory remarks relating to the Prophet Mohammed's marriage to Aisha, which is usually misrepresented as being to an underage girl."

    1. Can you defame someone who is dead or possibly never even existed?
    2. I guess technically she wasn't underage since they didn't have laws against it
    3. Why is it that every report I've seen about this incident is so sympathetic toward the "prophet" ? Then journalists wonder why anyone would criticize them

  • Cyto||

    He, one question...

    Exactly how is that tweet "garbage talk".

    That's pretty fair criticism. The "fake news" epithet was a DNC talking point, if you recall. He just picked it up. It isn't entirely accurate, but it does point to a serious issue that most people who are not yellow dog democrats have with the media.

    They are fake... not as in "this story is made up from whole cloth", but as in "we are the propaganda wing for one of the major political parties and we will shape the news to serve that cause". He's been the primary target of this since becoming the RNC nominee. 95% negative coverage since the election. 95%. Hell, Charles Manson doesn't get 95% negative coverage.

    When it served their purpose, the media was happy to push Trump to the front. He was on NBC's Today show all the time during the primary. Half of the questions in the RNC debates were to Trump. Because that was the DNC strategy.

    We know this from Podesta's emails. This isn't speculation. They pushed him as a strategy to get Hillary someone she could beat.

  • Cyto||

    I don't know what the word for that is, but "fake news" will do as well as any. We all saw the reaction on the various news sets live when Trump won the election. There were no objective observers. There were not even interested parties... they were shell-shocked partisans who were stunned that they had failed. The coverage was 100% from the point of view of "woe is me, how could *we* have lost". On every network.

    So don't pretend for a second that Trump created this. He's riding the wave, not making it. He's not smart enough to have tricked the media into being so over-the-top negative that even avowed (but disinterested) Trump haters would feel compelled to take his side.

    Blaming Trump for divisive rhetoric is like blaming a mugging victim for calling 911. Sure, he's crass and rude and impolitic. But none of that would work even a little bit if the foundation hadn't already been laid.

    We've all known the media was slanted very much to the left, at least for the last 40+ years. But the Journolist stories made it clear that it wasn't just individual reporters and editors having individual biases.

  • Cyto||

    Then there was the Bush "deserter" story. Dan Rather got the blame for a fake story, but the real story got buried in a hurry.... That all of the major news networks were colluding with the Kerry campaign. Drudge had a story 2 weeks before the Dan Rather story broke... He reported that ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS and CNN would each be running a story about Bush and Vietnam that week.... one network each day. And the Kerry campaign would be doing a coordinated push with appearances and TV advertising pushing his "war hero" angle against Bush the dodger.

    That was the advent of "fake". Every major network actively colluding with each other and the Kerry campaign. Each one taking an assigned story on an assigned day, to maximize impact. There can be no credibility after that.

    And because they were all involved, nobody picked up the story. Instead we got a couple of months of investigations trying to prove that even though the story was fake, it was still true.

    So don't tell me about Trump tweeting "fake news" at somebody being a coarsening of the landscape. He's just a buffoon who happened to be a round peg for a round hole created by a completely corrupted 4th estate.

  • Cyto||

    TLDR:

    Trump didn't create the divisiveness and contempt for the media. The divisiveness and contempt of the media created Trump.

  • John||

    Trump didn't create the divisiveness and contempt for the media. The divisiveness and contempt of the media created Trump.

    Bingo. If attacking the media didn't make Trump more popular with his supporters and the country in general, he wouldn't do it. The media seems incapable of admitting this much less taking any responsibility for why they are so loathed by so much of the country.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1

    Trump is just far better at playing this game than the people who started the game.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    Trump didn't create the divisiveness and contempt for the media. The divisiveness and contempt of the media created Trump.

    To quote Walter White "You're goddamn right!"

    I had a FB friend who worked as a reporter for the WaPo and I went after him hammer and tongs when he started bitching and crying about Trump winning the election. It was the MSM that created the Trump presidency at the behest of the DNC, just as they did by making Romney the front-runner for Obama (over Ron Paul who was the only one who had a chance to beat Chocolate Nixon). The shitbags in the media have had this coming for a LONG time. Blowback is a bitch and they deserve every single last bit of it for their disgusting partisanship.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The Media had gone almost wholly fake long before that. Oh, there was an element of fakery in the News forever; go read H. L. Mencken on the News business at the dawn of the 20th Century if you want details. What has changed is that they got so overconfident and enthralled by their own rhetoric that they lost any believability. That's what really griped Rather about the Bush story; not only did some putz from the internet expose him as a knave and a fool but the general reaction was "Of Course. We knew that!" He's laid the groundwork for his own comeuppance long since.

  • Ron||

    Excelent Cyto

  • John||

    Ben Rhoades said in so many words that the major media would put out whatever message the Obama administration told them to put out. The media acted like a state run media for the Obama Administration.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I just call "fake news" what it is- PROPAGANDA.

    Lefties have been using propaganda effectively for over 100 years.

    The USS Maine and the start of the 20th Century really allowed progressives to hone their trade.

  • NoVaNick||

    This has been going on for a while-Dylan Roof attacked the church in Charleston when Obama was president and Jews have been a favorite target for as long as they have existed. Trump has arguably been more pro-Israeli than most past presidents, so I don't think this is unique to him. The fact that the Pittsburgh attack happened right after the failed mail bombs makes it convenient to conflate it with generic "Its Trump's fault"

  • John||

    Trump has said nothing about the media that is any worse or different than what Obama said about Fox News. And how Trump calling CNN fake news inspired a guy who hates Trump to shoot a bunch Jews is a mystery known only to the major media and something so stupid even Nick won't buy it.

    The media is just butt hurt that Trump isn't rolling over and apologizing to them the way every other Republican has.

  • Cyto||


    The media is just butt hurt that Trump isn't rolling over and apologizing to them the way every other Republican has

    I think this is 90% of Trump's secret sauce.

    The left and the media have been playing this game since the 80's. Create some manufactured controversy and insist on an apology. It deflects from the real issues and creates a negative and weak aura around their enemies.

    They even went so far as to insist, en-mass, that Bush list things he's "sorry for" and things that he considered to be his failings.

    Trump simply refused to play their game, shocking them and everyone else.

    I was shocked that it worked so well. Or at all. I didn't realize that there was such a huge mass of resentment against the press. But whether by design or because of a personality flaw, Trump exploited that resentment expertly.

  • John||

    What other Republicans didn't understand that Trump does is that apologizing for something doesn't win over your critics and just demoralizes your supporters. The GOP before Trump seemed to honestly believe that if they apologized for these things, the left would either like them or stop doing it. That is of course bizzare that they would think that. But that is what they thought.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Exactly, the critics still hate you no matter what you do. The media still hates any non-Lefty.

    They thought Trump was a Lefty and he flipped the script on them. Boy did he ever!

  • vek||

    This is exactly it. You're never going to convince somebody that hates everything about you to like you... So why bother to pander to them? It's better to tell them to go fuck themselves than to even remotely back down.

    The truly mind boggling thing is how many Republicans STILL haven't figured this out. Such friggin' whimps. If the entire Republican party just manned up and went on the offensive, they could eviscerate the left, because so many normal people, including centrists, are sick and tired of having to bow down to lefty pressure on every dumb issue they make a big deal out of.

  • DajjaI||

    I think his rhetoric is largely responsible, because crazies like the PIT shooter think he'll have the public support to spark a revolution, or at least be protected from punishment and become a martyr. However I don't blame Trump so much as the Jews who support him, because this gives Trump the license to spew his antisemitic vitriol. But even so, the fact that the country rallied around the Jews and roundly condemned the shooting will give copycats a reason to think twice. #thankuamerica

  • Mr. JD||

    What antisemitic vitriol? And how did Trump inspire the guy who hates him?

  • Just Say'n||

    Then just admit that you don't support free speech.

    This is a garbage game that is being played here. When you say that someone's words instigate violence then you concede the point that speech is violence.

    So just save some time and just say "I don't support free speech"

  • Sevo||

    "...However I don't blame Trump so much as the Jews who support him, because this gives Trump the license to spew his antisemitic vitriol...."

    I was thinking sarc, but checked the handle: lies and stupidity.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Anti-Semitic? Trump is by far the most pro-Israeli president in decades. His Jewish son-in-law is one of his closest advisors. Can you provide any example of this so called anti-Semitic vitriol.

  • vek||

    LOLOLOLOL

    You're a retard! Trump has been close friends with, business partners with, etc, more Jews than you can shake a stick at his entire life. His son in law is a Jew, and his grand kids are half Jewish. That's TOTALLY the kind of thing a rabid anti-semite would do right? Encourage his daughter to marry a Jew? You're ridiculous.

    Then there's the fact that he's super pro Israel too... It's one thing to pretend Trump is racist against blacks or Mexicans or whatever, because he's willing to call out those groups on problems they have in their communities just a little bit... But to say he hates Jews, with soooooooo much evidence directly contradicting it... It's beyond insane.

  • Mr. JD||

    Trump's Rhetoric Is Divisive, Contemptible, Un-Presidential, and TRUE.

    Trump is the little boy saying that the emperor has no clothes, except he says it like Nelson from the Simpsons.

  • Mr. JD||

    Give me two alternate universes:

    1. Trump never criticizes the media
    2. Democrats aren't violent towards Republicans

    I'll bet you every penny I own that Cesar Sayoc is less likely to mail those packages in Universe 2 than in Universe 1.

    Trumpism is a backlash. That's about the simplest, most obvious fact in current politics. Trump supporters are motivated by the behavior of their OPPONENTS.

  • John||

    Maybe calling yourself the "Resistence" and insisting that the Republicans being in charge will result in the deaths of millions of people, something the Democrats claim on every issue from Obamacare, to Net Nuetrality, to global warming, to taxes, causes some people to take you at your word and conclude violence is the only option?

  • NoVaNick||

    Outright prog hatred/violence towards Republicans goes back to 2008 at least when I saw a lady in our neighborhood have her dog piss on a McCain/Palin yard sign. A neighbor up the street from us put up a Trump sign for 2016 and frankly I'm surprised that it wasn't vandalized

  • John||

    Howard Dean, while he was chairman of the DNC said that it was reasonable to believe George Bush had something to do with 9-11, though there was no proof. They called Bush Hitler pretty much on a daily basis for six years. They claimed that he allowed people to die in New Orleans because he hated black people so much. They claimed he invaded Iraq so his buddies at Haliburton could get rich.

    Then of course, they claimed that Mitt Romney killed a woman with cancer, hated women, and was going to put black people back into slavery. But remember, it was Trump calling them fake news or saying that Hillary was a crook that destroyed civil discourse in this country.

  • ||

    Correction: It was a WHITE lash.

    Lol.

  • vek||

    That's what Van Jones called it!

    And in all honesty, it's kinda true. But it's not unjustified. When you're the majority population in a country... When your group pays most of the taxes... And then your group not only has laws specifically written to hurt them (affirmative action laws, disparate distribution of government resources, etc), but then ALSO gets demonized socially... Why the hell shouldn't you get pissed at the people pushing that stuff?

    It is LITERALLY racism, both in the legal structure, and in social ways. White people SHOULD be pissed, because it's bullshit. And so they are. And if the left doesn't chill out, which I don't think they will, it will only get worse.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Cesar Sayoc Indictment

    The DOJ is really tying this guy to explosives being on those packages. If the "Pipe bombs" were not filled with explosives, I dont see how this guy could not walk free. I have yet to see that these packages had actual explosives int hem or the media would have said it over and over. The MSM and gov are being kind of coy on this point.

    The threats charges might stick but kind of hard to say someone threatened you with a scary looking device that was inert and non-explosive.

  • ThomasD||

    The indictment describes the bomb contents as 'energetic material.' But the footnote states that this term includes both explosives and "material that gives of heat and energy through a rapid exothermic reaction" which is redundantly redundant gobbledygook meant to include the possibility that the bomb did not contain any substance legally considered an actual explosive.

    My WAG is they contained smokeless powder (which makes lousy bombs but can still do serious harm.)

  • Sevo||

    "redundantly redundant gobbledygook meant to include the possibility that the bomb did not contain any substance legally considered an actual explosive."

    Could be wadded-up tissue paper.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If there was gunpowder or smokeless powder in the PVC "pipe bombs" hes fucked.

    The fact that the gov is not identifying the material alleged to be explosive makes me skeptical they even have a good case. The DOJ would be screaming this case "open and shut" if they have good evidence of an explosive.
    They should have some lab results after a few days.

  • ThomasD||

    If the pipes contained powdered sugar, or non dairy creamer he's fucked.

  • ||

    I gotta say, I'm not outraged by Trump's rhetoric or his 'attacks' on the media because a) I don't fool myself into think the leader of a country is some sort of classy person above us. In this way, he's just being who he is and it's kinda refreshing especially considering the disingenuous sociopath ham who preceded him and b) they deserve it in their constant 'facia di culo' and 'coy' manner in which they report on Trump.

    My own experiences with the media hasn't been great. On two occasions the reporters involved took, in one example, information we provided and never attributed it to us. Instead the cunt took credit for it. Another time they completely lied about an incident my buddies witnessed in a parking lot.

    So I learned that they're no different than cops in that you should be on guard with them because they have a narrative to instruct - and you ain't part of it.

    Also Nick. Were we sufficiently upset when Obama made his 'how much is enough' comment despite him cashing in all kinds? Or when he lied about keeping your doctors? Or the 'police acted stupidly' or 'he could look like my son'? Or the infamous 'you didn't built that'? All he did was divide along the lines of class. I took offense from a philosophical perspective every single time he opened his damn progressive mouth. Worse, he's still out there yapping undermining a sitting President.

    Such class and decorum, eh? Fack off.

  • ||

    construct.

    How auto-spell went to 'instruct' is beyond me.

  • NoVaNick||

    So I learned that they're no different than cops in that you should be on guard with them because they have a narrative to instruct - and you ain't part of it.

    I have done some freelance writing for a trade journal and belong to a journalist org. I sometimes visit their online forum and there's a lot of controversy over whether you should allow the people you interviewed for the story to see the draft before its published to make sure it is factually accurate. The "journalist" types all say NO, because only they are allowed to determine what the facts are.

  • ||

    How convenient.

  • ThomasD||

    Hubris is inevitably confronted by nemesis.

    Even if Nick doesn't recognize it.

  • DWB||

    There is a picture running around with Obama hanging with renowned anti-semite Louis Farrakhan and Barak even had Al Sharpton as an advisor -- with many meetings held in the White House.

    Trump, as much as I dislike him, employes divisive rhetoric no more than his predecessor -- a know friend to openly anti-Jewish leaders.

    Anti-semitism knows no party, race or skin color and to pretend differently does more to continue hate and division.

  • DWB||

    There is a picture running around with Obama hanging with renowned anti-semite Louis Farrakhan and Barak even had Al Sharpton as an advisor -- with many meetings held in the White House.

    Trump, as much as I dislike him, employes divisive rhetoric no more than his predecessor -- a know friend to openly anti-Jewish leaders.

    Anti-semitism knows no party, race or skin color and to pretend differently does more to continue hate and division.

  • jello.beyonce||

    I really wish the media and others would stop misusing and abusing the term "rhetoric".

    What Trump is engaging in is more aptly called "empty-rhetoric", that is rhetoric that is devoid of logic or reason, based on poor assumptions and lies.

    The true technical definitions of "Rhetoric" include:

    1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: such as

    a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times

    b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion

    2a : skill in the effective use of speech

    b : a type or mode of language or speech also : insincere or grandiloquent language

    3 : verbal communication : discourse

    Intelligent, enlightened people, like Plato and Aristotle have widely promulgated and used logical rhetoric.

    Dolts like Trump, even Hillary (like most other politicians and shysters) engage in empty-rhetoric.

  • ||

    Obama was the master.

    Good point.

  • vek||

    "2a : skill in the effective use of speech"

    So, a guy who obliterated 16 IIRC of the most powerful politicians in the country during the primaries didn't use his speech effectively? Or when he destroyed Hillary during the election? Or when he has not only staved off utter obliteration from a hostile media, but actually made THEIR approval/trust ratings go down?

    The way he has chosen to speak hasn't been effective in pulling shit off NO OTHER politician in recent memory would have had a chance in hell at doing?

    I think not. Trump is a basic kinda guy, but there is a method to a lot of his madness. I don't know if it's all just his natural personality and having an idiot savant, OR if he taught himself how to act the way he does... But it is a strategy that works for swaying lots of people. While it may not be intellectual, it sure as hell works. I certainly prefer Ron Paul's ideas, and even his demeanor... But if he could have unleashed 1/10th of the fire and brimstone as Trump, he'd have been a far better politician, and done more for liberty.

  • Wearenotperfect||

    I'm not a supporter of Accomplice Liability Laws but until those laws are charged, if individuals like 17 year old Michelle Carter are held responsible for their verbal actions, then we should expect those laws to be applied to their full extent across the board.

  • Just Say'n||

    I'd be surprised if Gillespie didn't just run with the most generic talking point. It's easier to just regurgitate shit than to actually call a moral panic out

  • JesseAz||

    "To say that President Donald Trump is the debaser-in-chief of contemporary political discourse is to state "

    Yes. I too remember the days before trump. Nobody ever called republicans terrorists wirh bombs strapped to their chests. Adds weren't run about sending wheelchair bound grandma off a cliff. Political organizations didn't say pro gun groups wanted children dead. Trump changed everything.

    Fuck off Nick.

  • Curly4||

    Trump may be divisive but no more than the democrats have practiced since the 1980s that I can remember. Back when the candidates stuck more with the issues the democrats started attacking their political opponents personally. It started out mild but then as times passed the attacks grew much more personal and despicable. Even during the 2016 election campaigning season they the democrats started attacking Trump even before he was nominated. Over the last three years it has constantly have grown worse in volume and tone.

  • wearingit||

    Maybe it's because he's a garbage human being, ever think of that?

    And man, your sense of history is quite warped. Step out of the bubble sometime, it might help.

  • vek||

    HE'S the one who needs to step out of the bubble... LOL

  • Cloudbuster||

    To say that President Donald Trump is the debaser-in-chief of contemporary political discourse is to be spouting utter partisan bullshit.

    FTFY. .

  • Echospinner||

    One expects the politicians and the press to exploit something like this. It is not at all about Trump nor the politics of the day.

    Just got an email from our local synagogue. They want to upgrade security and have an armed off duty police officer every day now instead of just Shabbat and special occasions. They have a preschool and Sunday school. So they will need some funds for that.

    The money could be spent on something else but now it must go to protection.

  • vek||

    You should just convince a couple of the guys to get CCPs and call it good. 1 shooting in how many decades, out of how many thousands of synagogues in the country, doesn't mean it makes sense for every one in the country to start having 24/7 security.

    Just sayin'.

  • rmodiz||

    If I throw a stone into a pond, I am not directly responsible for the erosion of the shore caused by the ripples.

    If I'm the butterfly whose wings flutter timidly, I am not directly responsible for the destruction of houses caused by the tornadoes.

    If I knowingly sow discord, hatred, fear; if I am knowingly cruel and order my minions to separate children from their parents; if I knowingly excite my unstable followers to harm others, I am not directly responsible for Bowers and ICE and Sayoc.

    So don't let them use the defense that they were only following orders.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Knowingly sowing discord, hatred and fear... Were you referring to the+3 progressives? Because that has been their modus operandi for at least two decades. My minions... Government employees are minions (well maybe this I can agree with to a degree)? Knowingly cruel... Enforcing the law as written and ordered by a court (and was the same policy as his predecessor)?
    Bowers... Someone who despised Trump... Nice fail at a tie in there.
    Did you really think you were clever?

  • Sevo||

    rmodiz|10.29.18 @ 5:35PM|#
    "If I knowingly sow discord, hatred, fear; if I am knowingly cruel and order my minions to separate children from their parents; if I knowingly excite my unstable followers to harm others, I am not directly responsible for Bowers and ICE and Sayoc.
    So don't let them use the defense that they were only following orders."

    How long did it take to come up with that pile of horseshit and are you really such an ignoramus as to hope that others here would take it seriously?

  • ||

    Let's keep one thing in mind, Trump himself is a product of "fake news" way back (in the before time for most of you) in the 1970s ABC television started promoting Donald Trump as an "up and coming New York" property developer. Pretty soon the oher networks jumped on the bandwagon.

    Trump, they all said, was a genius. And he was good too, because he supported liberal Democratic* causes and policies. Later on he became associated with a certain kind of "conspicuous consumption" but he was OK because he was a "FOB"**

    All the while, he used his inherited wealth and contacts (nothing wrong with that, in and of itself) to borrow money faster than he had to pay it off (again, nothing wrong with that, in and of itself. If you can make it work that is).

    The trouble is that while the donald was fabricating his own myth appropriating his father's wealth as his own etc every so often he found himself caught up with by his bankers. When this happened he simply declared bankruptcy and stiffed some of the very same guys who put him into office.

    I cannot think of a time in the history of our country when two bigger phoneys*** ended up competing for the office of POTUS.

    *Capitalized to refer to the Party.

    **Friend of Bill (Clinton, that is).

    ***Hillary has her own phoney story but i don'r have the time or the room to spell it out.As I have ad elsewher, I as upset that Trump won but that was offset mitigated by the unmitigated joy tat Hillary lost.

  • John||

    Yeah because John MCCain was a real rightwinger and Obama really meant Hope and Change.

  • ||

    Huh?

  • ||

    Sorry, John, I don;t really get what you're driving at.

  • Nardz||

    That's hilarious.
    And not surprising.
    Begone, Isaac

  • ||

    So you didn't really read any of it, right?

  • ||

    Exactly what part of what I wrote is not true?

  • ||

    So, John, where exactly in my comment do the words McCain or Obama appear? Let alone any word of praise for either of them?

  • soldiermedic76||

    If you were able to extrapolate a thought to its logical conclusion, you would have deduced that John was referring to your assertion that no election in the past had bigy phonies. John, however, was interring that Obama and McCain are at least as phony.

  • ||

    I actually agree.

    Yes, Obama had the kind of slim portfolio and limited resume of the slick young whippersnapper that leads his listeners to write whatever they want onto him and hear his every statement as an endorsement of their own beliefs. I believe you have to go a long way back into presidential history to find a candidate less qualified in terms of executive experience. As a phony he is certainly well into Hillary territory, someone whose accomplishments beyond school are not at all impressive.

    McCain, at least had his record of captivity by the North Vietnamese, something I would not wish on anyone nor do I pretend to comprehend how bad it was. Only the shallowest kind of keyboard commando would call McCain an pussy or a coward. OTOH he was the kind of supreme legacy (see also Bush II*, Kennedy, FDR etc) who without merit falls into greatness through events either orchestrated by outside forces either Joe Kennedy's PR machine or NV AA fire.

    *actually, Dubya is only in this list because he did capitalize on the family name but he was, in fact, an able administrator with a record of being the twice elected governor of the second most populous state in the Union. Others will disagree over his policies and actions in office.

  • ||

    Further on this, I believe the case can be made that there are any number of charlatans and phoneys who have held the office of POTUS over the last few centuries. It's probably a tossup on who is the phoniest.

    Part of the issue here is that Trump is an interesting case because not only is he a self-made PR creation fabricated by carefully grooming the media to promote him (JFK was different in the sense that he was largely a puppet on strings being pulled by his father, whereas Donald pulled all the strings himself).

  • Sevo||

    "The trouble is that while the donald was fabricating his own myth appropriating his father's wealth as his own etc every so often he found himself caught up with by his bankers. When this happened he simply declared bankruptcy and stiffed some of the very same guys who put him into office."

    What office did he occupy at the time?
    BTW, a total of 6 of his companies (he owns hundreds) have filed for bankruptcy, typically Chap. 11, meaning a reorg, not a shut down, but that sort of information isn't as interesting as the bogus claim 'HE STIFFED....!'
    Often enough, the debtors did just fine:
    "...Under the voluntary bankruptcy filing, Trump Atlantic City Associates, which is 99 percent owned by Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc., listed $1.3 billion in debt and $1.5 million in assets.
    But this time around the Donald proposed that reorganizing the company would provide him the cash to upgrade his properties. By making these changes, he could help keep the casinos competitive. The second benefit: bondholders would receive stock in exchange for forgiving the debt owed. In other words, it would increase their ownership of the company by roughly two-thirds."
    https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/
    how-does-trump-repeatedly-file-
    for-bankruptcy-and-still-stay-on-top
    And I didn't vote for him either, but he's done more for a fan of libertarian values than any POTUS in my memory.

  • vek||

    All of that is basically half truths.

    He was born on 3rd base to be sure. But the "his daddy gave it all to him" narrative conveniently misses the small fact that his net worth PASSED his fathers entire net worth in the 1980s. He was excessively aggressive, and it paid off for a long time. Then it didn't. He went broke, and was 500 million under water for awhile. He dad helped him out a touch after this happened too, like parents often do. Thing is, DJT came roaring back, and became a billionaire AGAIN while his father was still alive, and barely worth a few hundred million bucks.

    DJT was basically a high stakes gambler, who went flat broke once. But he pulled it out, and is again one of the wealthier people on earth. That's not exactly the most glowing way to describe a guy... But it's pretty accurate. He simply did not get everything handed to him... It's impossible for somebody to hand you orders of magnitude more than they have them self!

    It's fine to call him out for being born on 3rd base, but keep it factual homie!

  • ||

    That's all I am actually calling him out for (being born on 3rd base, that is).

    I have no problem with inherited wealth, I do have a problem with people creating self made myths.

    Now, look there is a problem here. Many in the media have work the meme that Donald inherited $40M and has ended up with $XB (numbers vary) but that he would not have done any better if he had just put his money in a Vanguard Indexed Fund .The problem with that is that in addition to multiplying his original legacy to that figure, he has also financed an extraordinarily lavish lifestyle.

    That takes some real ability.

  • vek||

    Well then that's fair.

    I suppose he probably even believes it to an extent himself. I mean he probably thinks "Pops only gave that 1st million as a loan... Then I, ya know, was doing all this stuff for his company, and he cut me in on earning some cash from that. But I earned that! And then I was off like a rocket ship! Then it crashed, and he bailed me out... But I made billions more!" etc.

    Because in all fairness, I bet DJT is worth BILLIONS more than anybody else he grew up with who had comparably wealthy parents.

    That index fund myth ALSO ignores the fact that he was worth BILLIONS within a period WAY faster than he ever could have done with an index fund... And then lost it all. If he had somehow not gone BK in the 90s, and had "index funded" it from his high figure in the late 80s/real early 90s, he might be worth 75 or 100 billion by now!

    So it's all kind of silly. If Bill Gates had done that at the height of the dot com bubble, he would be worth, what 500, 600, 700 billion? It's just a silly way of looking at it knowing the facts and actual timeline. The fact that he ALSO pissed away probably a billion plus on stuff just makes it even more ridiculous.

  • XM||

    Saying that it's unpresidential for Trump to characterize the press as the "enemy of the people" (and it is unpresidential) is kinda like saying it's wrong to use a racial epithet to attack ISIS.

    The press, at least the MSM side of it, has been extraordinarily dishonest and partisan in the age of Trump. NBC had interviewed a witness that contradicted Swetnick's account at least a day before the confirmation vote, but they dropped the story because it became "not newsworthy" after BK was sworn in.

    The left develops feelings for free press when the narrative suits them, just like republicans pay lip service to cutting spending when they're out of power. People who love journalists don't threaten or assault them on the field.

    I can't understand how sentient beings just parrot things over and over again without a scintilla of thought behind it. When Antifa assaults reporters covering the demonstration, that's because they were motivated by Trump's rhetoric? When antisemite trump hater shoots up a synagogue, that's Trump's foot soldier in action?

  • Jeep's Blues||

    "I can't understand how sentient beings just parrot things over and over again without a scintilla of thought behind it."

    This has made Twitter founders Jack Dorsey, Biz Stone, Evan Williams and Noah Glass extraordinarily, colossally wealthy. It's also about as much as I can definitively say about Twitter.

    As for the rest (the 'coverage' of Antifa for example) when the news media leans disproportionately in one ideological direction (was it 9 out of 10 journalists) the 'reporting' seems likely to reflect that ideological bent. It's why we get coverage of a recent clash between the Proud Boys and Antifa as "far-right group" against "anti-fascists". It's cultural gaslighting at its very best.

  • Hank Phillips||

    International socialists in Latin America and Europe are trying to distance themselves from their National Socialist bretheren. The problem is they are as alike as Republicans and Democrats. National Socialism and Spanish and Italian fascism have always been more attractive to christians, but lay socialists don't dare make a big deal out of that difference. But the only other distinguishing feature is racial eugenics as in Hunter's Civic Biology (banned in Tennessee in the early 1920s) and Mein Kampf. So they go for racial collectivism, and add support for slaveholding Mercantilism (which Marx's disciples promptly dubbed "capitalism" as in "Capitalism and Slavery"). With Teddy Roosevelt's race suicide and Henry Ford's Jewish problem blather dovetailing so effortlessly with nationalsocialist beliefs in innate altruism as an endangered trait, the commies would be fools to let pass such a fat and exploitable opportunity to push their own initiation of force. Aside from the Millerite Cassandra Church of Global Warming, what other arguments do commie socialists have?

  • Hank Phillips||

    International socialists in Latin America and Europe are trying to distance themselves from their National Socialist bretheren. The problem is they are as alike as Republicans and Democrats. National Socialism and Spanish and Italian fascism have always been more attractive to christians, but lay socialists don't dare make a big deal out of that difference. But the only other distinguishing feature is racial eugenics as in Hunter's Civic Biology (banned in Tennessee in the early 1920s) and Mein Kampf. So they go for racial collectivism, and add support for slaveholding Mercantilism (which Marx's disciples promptly dubbed "capitalism" as in "Capitalism and Slavery"). With Teddy Roosevelt's race suicide and Henry Ford's Jewish problem blather dovetailing so effortlessly with nationalsocialist beliefs in innate altruism as an endangered trait, the commies would be fools to let pass such a fat and exploitable opportunity to push their own initiation of force. Aside from the Millerite Cassandra Church of Global Warming, what other arguments do commie socialists have?

  • Hank Phillips||

    International socialists in Latin America and Europe are trying to distance themselves from their National Socialist bretheren. The problem is they are as alike as Republicans and Democrats. National Socialism and Spanish and Italian fascism have always been more attractive to christians, but lay socialists don't dare make a big deal out of that difference. But the only other distinguishing feature is racial eugenics as in Hunter's Civic Biology (banned in Tennessee in the early 1920s) and Mein Kampf. So they go for racial collectivism, and add support for slaveholding Mercantilism (which Marx's disciples promptly dubbed "capitalism" as in "Capitalism and Slavery"). With Teddy Roosevelt's race suicide and Henry Ford's Jewish problem blather dovetailing so effortlessly with nationalsocialist beliefs in innate altruism as an endangered trait, the commies would be fools to let pass such a fat and exploitable opportunity to push their own initiation of force. Aside from the Millerite Cassandra Church of Global Warming, what other arguments do commie socialists have?

  • Nardz||

    Hank!
    I have a really important question for you, one that might just clear everything up:
    What year is it?

  • Arizona_Guy||

    I don't think he knows. I just skip his comments anyway. And the Rev. And Hihn.

  • Nardz||

    That's my list too, but I add sqrlsy to it.
    Sometimes fun to skim, though

  • NashTiger||

    Wall of text gobbledygook.
    I tried reading his stuff, once or twice
    He uses his own inside jargon, his own 3-Adjective Nicknames, and treats it like common slang vernacular, and thinks everyone else wants to wade into his dementia and figure out WTF he is trying to say. He has to be the worst communicator imaginable

  • Headache||

    Nick you really suck and you're mind is fucked up.

    "He should stop this sort of garbage talk' - paragraph 1 after Trump tweet.
    " argues Adam Serwer at The Atlantic" - paragraph 2; media
    "At The Washington Post, ex-conservative Max Boot says " paragraph 3; media

    "his fact-free, ugly, divisive rhetoric and, more important still, his often-inhumane and counterproductive policies." -
    Over the top Nick TDS Gillespie

    Nick you proved the tweet to be closer to the truth than your opinion.

  • wearingit||

    So sick of the Trump apologists. This is nothing but a distinction without a difference. Sack up and just lay some blame at his feet already.

  • vek||

    He's done plenty of shitty things... But he's not LITERALLY HITLER. And even his talking points aren't different in substance from shit that's been going on in politics for a LONG time. That the left doesn't like somebody who is willing to dish it back at them does not make him horrible, when they've been insulting people for decades. Policy wise, he's basically Bill Clinton from the 90s, soooooooo...

  • Jeep's Blues||

    For the better part of 22 months since his election nearly every branch of our news media from the MSM thru the cultural and political blogs has openly called Donald Trump a fascist, a racist, a bigot, a misogynist, mentally ill, a dictator, a sociopath, among other things. Outside hyperbole and labile emotionalism, none of those epithets apply btw.

    A sitting, elected state Senator (Maria Chappelle-Nadal D-Missouri) also publicly hoped for his assassination on Facebook. It's been made culturally acceptable not to view him as a human being therefore culturally acceptable he receive no humanity from all those who despise him.

    And with all of that these same people who openly, daily dehumanize him consider themselves to be morally superior to Trump. It's a curious and puzzling pathology, one as lacking in self-awareness as it is overrun by viciousness and bile.

  • vek||

    "We desperately need a reset in contemporary politics, one that allows for conversation and dialogue that goes beyond the shrill, polarized positions invoked by the contemporary Republican and Democratic parties and the conservative and liberal ideologies they generally represent."

    Not gonna happen. There's a 99% chance that we're on the fast track for one side or the other curb stomping the shit out of the other side and forcing their will on them. The left is not going to come out on top if it goes to violence, because the modern left is a bunch of pussies. If the 1% chance of it not going this way does happen, I'll be a monkeys uncle!

    IMO, the right is not going to give up on "silly ideas" like that nation states are a good thing, free speech, gun rights, etc... So either the left is going to fizzle out and die politically somehow, or it's going to turn to violence eventually.

    Time will tell!

    All I know is I am STOKED about the rising tide of healthy levels of nationalism across the globe again. Globalism is a bullshit ideology. It literally requires nations and their citizens to self sacrifice for the good of the "global community," which is horseshit. Nations should do what is best for their people. If it's better for Italy to NOT let in any illiterate peasants from Africa/ME, then they should do that. That it's worse for Africans should be of no relevance.

    Onward and upward!

  • NashTiger||

    We had 1 team trying desperately to have adult conversation for 35 years, and were just told by the other they were racist, sexist, greedy pigs who wanted old people to die penniless in the street.

    So, after 35 years, the Rs finally said "fcvk it". And now, it is the Trump Republicans fault that rhetoric is in the sewer? LMAO

  • vek||

    Exactly.

    The funny thing is, they think Bill Clinton from the 90s is bad... Errr, Donald Trump I mean. If they step shit up much more on the left, they're going to have a REAL hard right leader on their hands. We might end up with a new American Franco, or Mussolini, Pinochet or whatever. The kind of guy who will GLADLY send out goons to curb stomp ANTIFA, and not bat an eye about it, and get CHEERED for it by the half+ of the country that will love him for it.

    I really don't think most leftists know how dangerous the game they're playing is...

  • spec24||

    Oh....right! Trump is divisive! Not the myriad leftists who talk about whites being evil, or responsible for all black people's problems, or calling anyone who disagrees with them Nazis. OOOOOH no. It's all Trump.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    I don't know; I read the article and the comments and just feel a tremendous disconnect.

    We live in a semi-rural small town about 75 miles in the high desert northeast of Los Angeles. Our community is racially integrated and by and large it's no big deal. Our kids go to school together and play together, informally and in organized sports. One of my best friends is a black minister whose son plays on a football scholarship at a major university. I attend a foursquare gospel church with at least two gay couples as members. We work, we go out to dinner and movies, we live the lives we love and love the lives we live. We shake our heads and commiserate when events like Pittsburgh happen and pray for the victims. We have partisans in our midst but by and large all the heat just passes us by.

    And I don't think we're all that unusual.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    "No, it isn't, and it's particularly disturbing for journalists to conflate words with deeds and to impute motivation from the texts and ideas that evildoers consume"

    maybe the media should stop with the fake news then.

  • Longtobefree||

    At The Nation, Sasha Abramsky avers, "The Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting Is the ​Inevitable Result of​ Trump's Vile Nationalism."

    Damn. And all along I thought it was Louis Farrakhan calling down wrath on the Jews.

  • Longtobefree||

    Nick, help me out here;
    You:
    "We desperately need a reset in contemporary politics, one that allows for conversation and dialogue that goes beyond the shrill, polarized positions invoked by the contemporary Republican and Democratic parties and the conservative and liberal ideologies they generally represent."
    You:
    "Trump's Rhetoric Is Divisive, Contemptible, Un-Presidential."

    So which is it to be?

  • Salero21||

    EXACTLY! The blame and the guilt MUST ALWAYS be put on whom the blame and guilt really belongs, on whoever commits the crime, on him/her/them who actually do the bad deed. Anything else is just an excuse, a pretext to let the guilty get away with murder.

    If Criminals are not punished according to their Crimes they're being Rewarded. You get less of what's punished and more of what's rewarded.

  • LifeStrategies||

    Along with the rest of the MSM, Reason are a large part of the problem with YOUR divisive rhetoric untruthfully slamming most of President Trump says as "fact-free".

    In fact, it's no more fact-free than Reason's posts about him and his administration!

  • cheapmcmbelt||

    Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to http://www.mkoutletfire.com/mi.....offee.html word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online