THE YEAR OF THE LIBERAL: The ridiculous claims Those People will make!

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2016

What the Trump voters said:
A fascinating moment occurred at the end of Wednesday night's All In.

Chris Hayes was speaking with Linda Sarsour, "executive director of the Arab Association of New York." Also with "my good friend Ezra Klein, founder and editor-in-chief of Vox.com."

Hayes turned to Sarsour first. In this exchange, she described Candidate Trump:
HAYES (2/10/16): Linda, let me start with you. As a proud Muslim-American woman, a woman who wears a hijab, who works in the space of sort of Muslim-American political power, your reaction to last night?

SARSOUR: I mean, I was—I wasn't shocked, but it reaffirmed for me that Donald Trump is not a joke and there was over 100,000 fellow Americans that walked out of their homes and voted for an anti-immigrant, Islamophobic, sexist, misogynistic fascist. And that really scares me, that he has the actual platform and he can potentially be the next president of the United States of America.
In rapid succession, Sarsour unloosed a set of I-, S-, M- and F-bombs in her description of Trump.

Is Candidate Trump an Islamophobic, sexist, misogynistic fascist? Beyond that, is this sort of analysis an effective type of persuasion?

We're not sure how to answer those questions. But we're often struck, at moments like this, by our tribe's growing inability to talk about politics without the use of our bombs.

This way of talking is quite widespread. The next morning, Nicholas Kristof offered this description in the penultimate paragraph of his New York Times column:
KRISTOF (2/11/12): So today the leading candidate for president in the party of Lincoln is an ill-informed, inexperienced, bigoted, sexist xenophobe. And he’s not a conservative at heart, just a pandering opportunist.
Is Candidate Trump a bigoted, sexist xenophobe? We aren't sure how to answer that either. But increasingly, the deployment of long lists of bombs constitutes one of the basic ways our fiery liberal tribe talks.

In our view, the rise of Trump represents a giant cultural breakdown—a cultural breakdown which got its start within an array of American elites. That includes the mainstream press elite, within which Kristof is a major player and a major brand. In our view, Christopher Matthews was Donald Trump long before Trump took it higher.

In our view, Candidate Trump is a cultural black hole. Is he also an Islamophobic, sexist, misogynistic, bigoted fascist xenophobe?

Over here, in our own lofty tribe, such claims now get lots of play.

A distinction should be observed at this point. Kristof dropped his bombs on Trump; he didn't assess Trump's voters.

Sarsour's earlier statement to Hayes was a bit less clear on this point. In her next exchange with the cable host, she tried to clear up any confusion.

She wasn't bombing Trump alone. You might say that, like Ted Cruz, Sarsour was carpet bombing:
HAYES: Two things I want to ask you, Linda. One, there's an argument this is just shtick and he'll completely change if he wins the general election. Does that make you feel any better?

SARSOUR: It absolutely doesn't. I mean, the fact that— I'm talking about—

I'm not talking about Donald Trump, I'm talking about those 100,000 people that went and voted for him in New Hampshire, thousands that came to his rallies, and, you know, root him on when he talks about banning Muslim immigration, and talks about killing women and children, the family members of whatever, ISIS.
Sarsour said she wasn't talking about Trump. She was talking about the 100,000 New Hampshire residents who voted for him this week.

As she continued, Sarsour seemed to drop one final bomb—the white supremacist bomb—on those people's heads. From her statements, it wasn't entirely clear. But in voting for the Islamophobic, sexist, misogynistic fascist, those 100,000 New Hampshire voters may have fingered themselves as white supremacists too!

Is this sort of thing persuasive? It's hard to measure such things.

Does it make sense as a matter of substance? In our view, it doesn't. We were taught, when we were 13, to avoid such sweeping claims, which were described to us freshmen as "generalizations." We drifted back to December 10, when a pair of Trump supporters briefly spoke, via videotape, on the Maddow Show.

As we noted in Wednesday's report, Trump appeared in Portsmouth, New Hampshire that night to receive a major endorsement. A small number of Trump supporters were at the site to cheer him on, as were a larger group of anti-Trump demonstrators.

A reporter, probably Katy Tur, had interviewed two members of each group. On Wednesday, we showed you what the anti-Trump people said on videotape that night. Today, let's review what the Trump supporters said.

For ourselves, we found the brief interviews intriguing. You virtually never see Trump supporters interviewed on MSNBC. You're much more likely to see the network's cable stars lounging about, complaining that they can't imagine what's in those Trump voters' heads.

On this evening, two Trump voters got to speak. Were those Trump supporters Islamophobic, sexist, misogynistic fascist supremacists?

There's no sure test for such widespread traits. We'll have to show you what they said and let you play God on this matter.

Like Noah before her, Tur had selected a male and a female of the pro-Trump species. By way of context, these interviews were conducted eight days after the San Bernardino attacks. It had been three days since Trump first adumbrated his call for a ban, then for a temporary ban, on immigration into the country by Muslims, except for Muslim citizens.

Speaking via videotape, this is what the male of the pro-Trump species said:
REPORTER (12/10/15): You're not a total Trump diehard necessarily?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. I support him and I'm supporting what I believe he meant when he said, "I'll ban Muslim immigration." I don't think he's a racist. I think he was talking about that we need to step back and re-examine the vetting process and get it right.

We're getting it wrong. People are being killed in America and it's going to get worse unless it gets better, unless we stop what we're doing wrong and start doing it right.

REPORTER: So you think it's Trump just being smart in this circumstance?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I do. I do. I don't think he meant all— You know, he wasn't attacking one religion and saying ban an entire religion. I don't think he meant that.
At this point, Maddow jumped in to "correct" what this fellow had said. We'll show you what she said below. We found her correction intriguing.

At any rate, the male of the species improbably said that he doesn't think Trump is a racist. His female consort played this game too. Here's what she had already said:
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have a problem. There are beliefs coming into this country that do not coincide with our constitutional rights, our amendments, our Bill of Rights. And if they cannot— if their beliefs are complete opposite of what we believe in and how we function in this country, then it does not belong in this country.

REPORTER: How do you think that would work? At the border, you know—

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want the wall up. I want the wall up on the southern border. I want the walls up on the northern border. This country, we have to protect it. We the people.

And I will support Mr. Trump when he becomes president. It's we the people that will back him up and get this country back on its two feet and be a strong country, a strong nation, a nation of people that are wonderful.

Excuse me. I'm sorry. Yes, I'm like—

REPORTER: What are your thoughts on the Republican Party in general?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was a registered independent. I switched right over to the Republican Party.
This Trump supporter said she wanted southern and northern walls. For those with tribal ears to hear, her coded language, her loud dog whistles, were present in every word.

So was her New England accent, a familiar sound to our ears. She sounded like many people we've known, dating to the 1950s.

Her name was very familiar too. We decided to scope her out.

As it turned out, Tur had spoken with Mary Donnelly, "a state employee who lives in Concord and recently changed her registration from independent to Republican."

Several other reporters had spoken with Donnelly too. That description came from the Washington Post. Reporter Jenna Johnson quoted Donnelly saying this:
JOHNSON (12/12/15): Mary Donnelly agrees “150 percent” with Donald Trump’s “very positive” idea to temporarily bar most Muslims from entering the United States.

“You can’t tell people: ‘If you’re not going to convert to my religion, I’m going to cut your head off.’ You can’t do that. . . . That does not belong in this country,” said Donnelly, 58, a campaign volunteer who stood with other supporters outside Trump’s latest campaign event on Thursday evening. “We’re a country that loves one another, no matter what the race.”

[...]

Donnelly said she likes Trump because “he’s trustworthy, he’s honest and he’s humble; plus, nobody owns him.” Even if the Republican National Committee finds a way to overrule voters and pick a nominee other than Trump—something his fans are increasingly worried about—Donnelly said she would vote for him as an independent, if he were to decide to run as one.
Donnelly said she thinks that Trump is humble. Intriguingly, she also said this:

"We’re a country that loves one another, no matter what the race.”

Donnelly also said she doesn't think that people should cut other people's heads off if they belong to the wrong religion. Beyond that, we're going to guess she wasn't real thrilled with the shootings in San Bernardino. Or with the killings in Paris.

Does Mary Donnelly really think we're a country that loves one another, no matter what the race? Those of us in God's perfect tribe are able to see that she's lying. That said, Donnelly continued her fiendish deceptions when she spoke to the Huffington Post. In a statement reported by Sam Stein, she posed as open-minded, even perhaps as good:
STEIN (12/11/15): "You're probably going to ask me a question with regards to those [anti-Trump] protesters. I'm going to tell you one thing. They're practicing the First Amendment, freedom of speech. God bless them. God bless all of you, OK? But I'm here for my candidate, Mr. Trump."
God bless the people who don't agree with me, the wily supremacist said.

Presumably, Donnelly voted for Trump this week. Does that mean that she's an Islamophobic, sexist, misogynistic fascist supremacist, the way our sachems have said?

Let's consider another possibility! Is it possible that Donnelly is a decent person whose judgments differ from yours, perhaps in substantial ways?

To us, Donnelly's judgment that Trump is humble seems extremely far-fetched. Then again, Sarsour thinks she can psychoanalyze 100,000 Granite State voters, none of whom she has ever met! Why are members of our tribe so pleased with judgments like that?

Let's review. The male of the species to whom Tur spoke said he didn't think that Candidate Trump was a racist. He said Trump wasn't "attacking one religion" and saying it should be banned.

He said he didn't think that Candidate Trump meant that. Is it possible he was telling the truth? In this regard, we were intrigued by the way Maddow jumped in to "correct" what this Trump voter said.

Rachel could see that this person was wrong. Here's what she helpfully said:
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (12/10/15): I don't think he meant all— You know, he wasn't attacking one religion and saying banning an entire religion. I don't think he meant that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: One Donald Trump supporter in New Hampshire speaking with NBC's Katy Tur tonight, saying that he does not believe that Donald Trump meant to ban everyone from an entire religion from this country.

I have to say, for the record, that is in fact what Donald Trump is proposing. He is proposing banning all Muslim entry into this country, quoting from him directly. It was a written statement. He is—and I'm quoting him. "Calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

His supporters may not believe that's what he meant, but that's what he's proposing.
Maddow jumped in to quote from Trump's original statement, which had been made on December 7. This helped us see that the Trump voter was wrong in what he had said.

Starting the very next day, of course, Trump had begun to revise and extend and sand his remarks, as he commonly does, especially when he says something that occasions substantial pushback.

By the time he went to New Hampshire, Trump had stressed the fact that his proposed ban wouldn't apply to American citizens. He had also said that the ban would be temporary. On the morning of Tuesday, December 8, he said this to Chris Cuomo:

"Look, I'm talking about a temporary situation until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on, Chris. We have to figure it out." That same morning, he was even saying that "maybe it could be a few weeks."

By that Thursday night, those Trump supporters knew that. But so what? Maddow jumped in to read from Trump's initial statement. In part, she "corrected" Trump's male supporter by disappearing the ways Trump had softened and clarified his stand through amendments to the original stance which Maddow had never discussed.

We often get our facts this way on this, our own liberal program.

Remember—we're not asking if you think that Trump's proposal made sense. We're not asking if you think it showed good judgment.

We're asking you if someone who isn't as perfect as you could support Trump's rather fuzzy proposal without being an anti-immigrant, Islamophobic, sexist, misogynistic fascist supremacist. A bit more simply, we're asking if Donnelly could be a decent person while still supporting Trump.

For our money, we'd say yes. Linda Sarsour says no, as she deploys our array of bombs. As is now the way in our tribe, she says no 100,000 supremacists at a time.

We've known a lot of people who talk like Mary Donnelly. In our view, her political judgment isn't all that great. (We'd say she might not be "sophisticated," but that might trigger tribals to call her a low-information voter.)

In our view, Donnelly's political judgment may not be real great. But then again, neither is Sarsour's. As a courtesy, we're going to call that a wash.

For ourselves, we think Candidate Trump represents the ongoing, very dangerous disintegration of our political and intellectual culture. In our view, though, so does Kristof's New York Times, an organ which pretty much beat this candidate in the race to the dumpster fire.

So does a lot of the work being done by our corporate liberal stars. That includes the endless bomb-throwing which has led scholars and experts to refer to 2015 as "the year of liberal loathing." That includes the destructive past work of Chris Matthews, who played the role of Donald Trump long before Trump came along.

Can we talk? We modern liberals love our hatred and loathing! Beyond that, the simple truth is, we just aren't especially sharp. Nor are we especially different from The Others, from Those People, the people we love to deride.

We liberals seem to love our loathing; we just don't like to admit it. Tomorrow, as we finish this award-winning series, we'll recall a great American tradition—a brilliant American moral tradition which took, and still takes, a different approach to matters of this type.

That tradition came center stage last year. We liberals tried to squash it.

Tomorrow: Liberals, please! Ignore those calls for forgiveness

64 comments:

  1. Let's not discuss Maddow now. It's not important now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, let's instead praise Kristof.

      Kristof and those who came before him help us see an awkward fact.

      Delete
    2. Bob's supporters quit discussing Maddow on the last thread. His post was wrong, deceptive, even irrational. He has become an embarassment to liberals everywhere. A cartoon characterization of himself.

      Bob supporters are mostly sad. That is why the combox is left to trolls and cons.

      Delete
    3. "That is why the combox is left to trolls and cons."

      It's easy to tell which one you are!

      Delete
    4. People who dislike Somerby so much should just leave and let those who are interested in his writing discuss it in peace.

      Delete
    5. I have seen vey few people who like Somerby's discuss "his writing." I admire his ideas. He presents them in a scattered, repetitive, vindictive fashion that is clearly better than, but similar to, the speeches of D. Trump.

      Delete
    6. Bob's writing style these days:

      Noun, verb, Rachel Maddow. Sorry, but that's more accurate than it is original.

      And 7:41, be careful what you wish for. There are some people who still come here to comment on how Bob as an increasingly bitter old crank as his audience has dwindled over the years.

      If they suddenly left, you could count the number of people remaining who want to discuss what he writes "in peace" on both hands with digits left over.

      Delete
    7. What a joy that would be! Reading the garbage here directed against Somerby is depressing.

      There used to be substantive commenters here, before the trolls flooded the combox with chaff. I believe some would return if there were ever interesting discussion here again.

      Moderation would help, but either Somerby doesn't believe in it, or he doesn't want to spend time on it. I agree with whoever said the new reincarnation should eliminate comments, just as Digby did a few years back. Who needs a daily reminder of the garbage miscreants can create when left without any civilizing influences.

      Delete
    8. "There used to be substantive commenters here, before the trolls flooded the combox with chaff."

      This has to be one of the all time great Howler myths.

      Delete
    9. "THERE USED TO BE SUBSTANTIVE COMENTERS HERE"

      Part 1

      http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2011/09/special-report-quoting-king-part-4new.html

      Delete
  2. The problem seems to be that Trump is making non-specific proposals that permit people to interpret whatever way they wish. The way to counter Trump is to examine the specifics, but as Somerby notes, no one is doing that, not even liberals.

    I think Trump is a bigoted sexist xenophobe and I wouldn't want to spend 5 minutes in a room with him, much less have a beer. But we are supposed to be examining the policy proposals of candidates, not judging their personalities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We are supposed to be examining the policy proposals of candidates, not judging their personalities."

      Yep. Your well informed Bob reader. Who cares if the candidate is a bigoted sexist xenophobe? You are only supposed to be examining the policy proposals of candidates.

      And on what planet were you instructed what "we are supposed to be examining."

      Delete
    2. The flip side is "Everyone gets free health care and a free college education, and we'll release 600,000 prisoners to pay for most of it and then we'll soak the rich for the rest!". Objectively viewed on its face, these could only be the words of a lying socialist, no?

      Trump sounds like a complete simpleton, while Bernie insults my intelligence with his transparent BS. I can't vote for either but at least Trump carries the possibility of being honest in what he is saying.

      Delete
    3. Trump isn't honest. What makes you think he is? Look at his past record of statements and support. Look at his life history. Nothing about that has been presented honestly.

      Delete
  3. Regarding Candidate Trump, I can't get over the feeling I'm seeing a character he's playing rather than the genuine individual. I have no problem seeing his rhetoric as being xenophobic. (And if you can't see it as such, I suggest you're not paying attention.)

    I'm just not sure the REAL Donald Trump believes what Candidate Donald Trump is saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In that way he reminds me very much of Bob Somerby.

      Delete
    2. I would also like to believe that a "kinder, gentler" Donald Trump exists somewhere, but I can only judge him by what he says and does since I am unable to read his mind or peer into his soul. Assuming he has one.

      Delete
  4. If Xenophobia is vetting members of a cultural group that espouses murder of those who do not share their religious beliefs and keeping such savages out of my country and culture, count me in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Xenophobia dictionary definition | xenophobia defined

      www.yourdictionary.com/xenophobia
      yourDictionary.com

      "Xenophobia is defined as an irrational fear of foreigners or of anything foreign. An example of someone with xenophobia is a person who is fearful or hateful of recent immigrants."

      Example:

      "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."

      Delete
    2. Masochistic Neurosis: An irrational disregard for creating dangerous conditions, as in flippantly referring to all Syrian refugees as "widows and orphans"

      If Mexico is sending rapists and drug dealers and other menaces, "Xenophobia" doesn't apply but "neurosis" does for those who ignore those facts.

      Delete
    3. "An example of someone with xenophobia is a person who is fearful or hateful of recent immigrants."

      An example of stupidity is someone who adopts a definition like the above without recognizing the unsupported assumptions in it. See "typical progressive."

      Delete
    4. There is no evidence Mexico is sending people who are criminals to the US. In contrast, Americans accused of crimes frequently flee to Mexico. Mexican immigrants are mostly hardworking people seeking economic opportunity to support themselves and their families. Americans who go to Mexico are frequently retirees seeking a cheaper cost of living. People cross the border both ways for economic reasons.

      Delete
    5. @ 2:31 tell that to yourDictionary.com.

      Delete
    6. Everyone knows dictionary.com is written by robots incapable of logical fallacy, and there is no chance definitions will contain the biases and stupidity of human beings in their definition examples.

      Delete
  5. I would like to see Maddow cover more topics about health and fitness. And maybe low calorie recipes. Organic and such.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope there is a low cal bar in the new Bob Pavilion.

      Delete
    2. Like items to choose at a salad bar when you're bulking up.

      Delete
  6. There is such a thing as seeing what is right in front of you. At this point Somersby can't. It is not political correctness that leads "we liberals" to see him as xenophobic, bigoted, etc., it Trump's own policy declarations.
    I don't know why Somersby is blind to this. It could be that his thinking is dominated by his own narrative, in which all evil can be tied to criticism of Al Gore's wardrobe.
    Why is Somersby blind? I can't say for sure. But I don't find his demand that we all close our eyes so we can be more like "his correspondents" to be very compelling.
    Bob Gardner
    Randolph, MA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I don't find his demand that we all close our eyes..." I don't find that demand either. I read the thing twice, and I don't find it anywhere.

      Less sarcastically, the characterization that Somersby's [sic] narrative is "all evil can be tied to criticism of Al Gore's wardrobe" is not a good sign that you can be relied upon to see what's right in front of you either.

      You seem instead to see what you want -- or to pretend to see it.

      Somersby [sic] daily details a dominant mainstream liberal press that's determined to omit facts that don't suit, panders to liberal prejudices, puts their thumbs on the scale in whatever way possible, misleads, and ultimately is ridiculously lazy.

      This blog's commenters have a long tradition, which your response, sadly, typifies: Rather than acknowledging the depth of that very real problem, they argue, irrelevantly, that "the other tribe really IS bad."

      It is strongly to be hoped that in whatever the next incarnation is of Somerby's internet presence, he doesn't see fit to include reader comments. The constant reminder they provide that we are indeed as ugly and stupid as our press and as our ideological enemies is, finally, too depressing.

      Delete
    2. I agree @ 6:45. But I do hope he keeps reprinting and commenting on the stupidity of comments made elsewhere. It makes him feel so good. And it makes me tingle in superiority. I hope it does the same for you.

      Delete
    3. Yes, how dare a Muslim woman say such mean things about Donald Trump.

      She's obviously the problem, not Trump or anything he says.

      Delete
  7. I think Bush and Obama deserve some of the blame for Trump, because of their handling of two big issues: illegal immigration and radical Islam. A majority of Americans are very upset about illegal immigration. A majority favor building a wall. Late in Bush's Presidency, a law was passed calling for a wall, but it never happened. Instead, political leadership encouraged illegal immigration in various ways: sanctuary cities, drivers licenses, executive decisions that discouraged enforcement, wrong-headed laws, procedures and court decisions that hamper the removal of these illegals. Trump's bluntness is appealing to people who feel that they've been lied to and ignored by the leaders of both parties.

    Bush set a bad pattern with his name, "War on Terror", when he meant "War on Radical Islam." Obama continued to soft-pedal his language. Both of them visited Mosques, as if the main problem were bigotry against Muslims. I don't think ordinary Muslims should be punished for 9/11 and all the other attacks. But, they shouldn't be rewarded for them. Ordinary people think Bush and Obama are out to lunch on this issue. A blunt-speaking candidate is an attractive antidote to many people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Among those who are upset about immigration are the dreamers -- the young adults who were brought here as very young children, raised to believe they were Americans and only found out (often when applying to grad school), that they are not native. Those who come from Mexico, for example, speak no Spanish and have no relatives there, no understanding of Mexican life or culture, and yet people in the US think they should be sent back immediately. You'd better believe those young people are "upset" about immigration issues. Those of us who know them, who teach them in our college courses for example, are upset about it too.

      As to the so-called war -- we are against those who attack us. We have enough of those enemies without worrying about people who are not attacking us, who may even be our allies. Bush, Trump, and many conservatives are having a hard time figuring out who is against us and who isn't. They seem to have decided to fear everyone, just to be on the safe side. I see that as a massive waste of energy and resources and I doubt we can afford to make the world's second largest religion our enemy, especially when many of those people are Americans.

      Enjoyment of bluntness (whether it is Trump or Judge Judy or Dr. Phil) is an excuse for venting aggression vicariously in the guise of moral superiority. It is ugly to indulge in and does not benefit our democracy. Trump and Bernie Sanders are loving the attention they're getting but neither is fit to govern. I wish the electorate would get serious about selecting a leader instead of just doing what feels good.

      Delete
    2. Let's suppose Islam itself, as a religion, doesn't call for any sort of bad acts. Let's suppose that the great majority of Muslims are peace-loving, good people. People just like us. It stands to reason that all these good people must be horrified by the appalling behavior of radical Islamists. In fact, the great majority of Muslims should be even more horrified than you and I are, because these horrifying acts are being done in the name of their religion. So, the great majority of Muslims should be very happy to see the US take a strong stand against radical Islam.

      Delete
    3. By your argument, you need to be strongly condemning Christian militias, anti-abortion terrorists and Mormon polygamist child abusers but you are strangely silent. Doesn't that stuff horrify you?

      Delete
    4. 10:03 -- there's a staggering difference in magnitude between Islamic terrorism and the situations you listed. E.g., in 2014, the BBC did a thorough analysis of Islamic terror attacks occurring during the month of November. They found 664 attacks and 5,042 deaths. During the recent week of Jan. 30 - Feb 5, 2016, there were 35 Islamic terrorist attacks that killed 270 people and injured 442 people.
      http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/site/the-list.aspx

      Delete
    5. You forgot to list the statistics for the US and for terrorist attacks not committed by Muslims in the US and worldwide. How can one make a comparison without all the numbers? Be sure to include those Bundys.

      Delete
    6. Anon 9:34. I'll give you the statistic for anti-abortion murders. Wiki says,
      In the United States, violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eleven people

      Anti-abortion murders: 11 all-time
      Islamic terrorist murder: 270 in a week.

      It's unreality when many politicians and media treat these things as equivalent. Many voters forgive Trump's faults, because he's sane and realistic on this issue, and most politicians aren't.

      Delete
    7. Well put D in C.

      Delete
    8. Do you really judge the seriousness of terrorism by the number of victims? Shouldn't you also judge it by the likelihood of occurrence and who is targeted? Do you equate a killing of an abortion doctor with the killing of a child or the killing of a worker waiting for a bus? I think it would make more sense to count incidents instead of victims, since your approach encourages use of mass murder methods whereas counting incidents regardless of body count would not. In the 1960-70s, for example, there were 2600 bombings but very few victims because the intent of the terrorists was not to kill people but to gain attention for a cause. On 9/11, the terrorists accidentally killed far more people than planned -- do they get "credit" for that under your approach? They shouldn't, in my opinion. Do you take a group more seriously because they accidentally kill more people?

      You forgot to include the women who cannot get abortion services because of the anti-abortion terrorism among your victims.

      Doing math on mayhem strikes me as evil. I don't see Trump as "realistic," I see him as opportunistic, playing on fears he helps to inflate. Why on earth do you think BBC figures on terrorism in England or Europe have anything to do with the US? If you read stats about IRA bombings in London, would you be fearful about your own safety? Be afraid, be very afraid -- says Trump. I say this, and I live near San Bernardino, interact daily with Muslims, and do not believe I am in any danger from them. I suspect Trump doesn't believe what he says either. He just knows it will get him votes.

      Delete
    9. Anon -- I'm strongly against abortion terrorists. These attacks are horrible. Another reason why some women can't get abortions is that there just aren't many abortionists in some areas. That's because of laws intentionally making it difficult and expensive to provide this service.

      The BBC figures were worldwide, I believe. I included them because BBC is a respected news organ.

      That you don't feel endangered means little. I didn't endangered by my frequent business-related trips to the World Trade Center before 9/11. I'm sure the soldiers service with Major Hassan didn't feel endangered until he started shooting them.

      BTW French Jews certainly do feel endangered by Islamic attacks. Attacks are so frequent that Jews have been told not to go out on the street wearing anything that would identify their religion.

      It's reported that gay people are endangered in certain communities with heavy Islamic population, such as Whitechapel, East London.

      Delete
    10. Gays are endangered in West Hollywood, USA. Don't you watch the news?

      The point of terrorism is that it can strike anywhere without warning, attacking anyone at any time. That's almost definitional. As places with endemic terrorism have learned, you do not change your lifestyle or your culture because of terrorism. Israel knows that, London knows it, Paris knew it when Algeria wanted its freedom. Why don't we? We have experienced far less terrorism that most other areas of the world and yet we are the world's most frightened people. I am ashamed for us.

      Delete
  8. ok so Mary Donnelly

    turns out she is Concord's Chair for Trump's campaign


    and possibly someone who obfuscates about who they are

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, if Bob can be hopelessly redundant I guess I can.
    Donald Trump is arguing the U.S. take torture back to Medieval Times. Is parsing the validity of his critics really the best way Bob has to spend his time?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course not. But Bob isn't a liberal. That's why he attacks liberals.

      Delete
    2. Self-criticism has a long history on the left.

      Delete
  10. You have to wonder why BS rarely criticizes the pimping for Trump and trashing of Hillary Clinton that Joey Scar engages in every morning. Of course, Bob and Joey are both old conservative white southern men. Maybe that has something to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't believe being a critic of corporate liberal media makes one a conservative.

      Delete
    2. No but regularly attacking liberals while giving white male conservatives a pass for far more egregious behavior does.

      Delete
    3. He doesn't give Scarborough a pass, any more than he gives Limbaugh a pass. He doesn't dignify them with attention because they are part of the right-wing noise machine.

      Delete
    4. Ignoring the lies of Scarborough and the rest of the conservative media IS giving them a pass.

      Delete
    5. It is the very definition of giving them a pass.

      And I suppose all this time he's really been "dignifying" the likes of Rachel Maddow and Maureen Dowd with all that attention.

      Delete
  11. Just for the record, I have seen at least a couple dozen interviews with Trump supporters on MSNBC in the last month, most but not all of them by Katy Tur (not my favorite reporter by any means).

    Hey, BOB, why do you make such sweeping and false generalizations against MSNBC but yet you're disgusted by people making sweeping generalizations of Trump supporters?

    I happen to think those characterizations of Trump supporters are off the mark, too. Do you want to know how I came to that conclusion?

    By watching so many interviews with them on MSNBC, for crying out loud!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shouldn't you read what Somerby actually said before criticizing him?

      Delete
    2. BS is a southern white male conservative pretending that he is a liberal. He has turned into the same type of soulless hack that he use to hate.

      Delete
  12. "We're asking you if someone who isn't as perfect as you could support Trump's rather fuzzy proposal without being an anti-immigrant, Islamophobic, sexist, misogynistic fascist supremacist. A bit more simply, we're asking if Donnelly could be a decent person while still supporting Trump."

    Exactly what then would they be supporting in him?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Motorhead speaks on behalf of the 99%.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MHw0yzxHbQ

    ReplyDelete
  14. Perfect examples of Somerby attacking someone in a post while doing exactly the same thing.

    "Sarsour thinks she can psychoanalyze 100,000 Granite State voters, none of whom she has ever met"

    "By that Thursday night, those Trump supporters knew that. But so what? Maddow jumped in to read from Trump's initial statement. In part, she "corrected" Trump's male supporter by disappearing the ways Trump had softened and clarified his stand..."

    While there is no evidence Sasour psychoanalyzed any voters or who she has or has not met, there is evidence Bob is claiming to know what these two voters knew.

    But alas! the disappearing thing again. In a post trying to blame liberals for their bombs by quoting two Trump supporters from two months ago, and trailing their comments through other publications over those two months, including in the Huffington Post, look what Bob disappeared!

    Meet The Members Of Donald Trump’s White Supremacist Fan Club

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-white-supremacists_us_55dce43ee4b08cd3359dc41a

    Our guess? Participants in the new Pavilion will be mostly white, mostly male, single, and old. But we could be wrong. There might be more than one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except this is not "exactly the same thing."

      Delete
    2. True.

      Somerby lied in his accusation against Sasour, while Somerby's mind reading act is self admitted.

      And Somerby disappearing other Trump voters in a post about Trump voters is probably more egregious than Maddow disappearing Trump "clarifications" about a half cocked half baked statement of inbflammatory "policy".

      Delete
    3. Money quote:

      "Chris Matthews, who played the role of Trump long before Trump came along."

      Repeated twice for slow learners. Bob's focus is media propaganda, not word definition.

      Delete
    4. Money quote:

      "Chris Matthews, who played the role of Trump long before Trump came along."

      Repeated twice for slow learners. Bob's focus is media propaganda, not word definition.

      Delete
    5. Money Quote Part 2

      "No, Gore didn’t say he invented the Internet. What he did say (Green clips his comment) was slightly clumsy, but perfectly reasonable (link below). In fact, everyone always knew that Gore was the leader within the Congress (what he had said) in creating what we now call the Net."

      Repeated at least 180 times in 18 years for slow learners.

      Delete
  15. Sarsour said Trump is "an anti-immigrant, Islamophobic, sexist, misogynistic fascist". But Akbar Al Baker, CEO of Qatar Airlines, said "Look, Donald is my friend, and we have been friends for a long time. I think it is an exercise only to gain political mileage. Nothing more." He also counts Hussain Sajwani as a close friend. He is developing hotels in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Turkey and Indonesia. It would be very hard to do so without making Muslim friendships along the way. So, Trump has Muslim friends. Trump is not anti-immigrant; indeed, he said “You know what the backbone of our country [is]? People that came here, and they came here legally — and they worked their ass off, and they made this country great.” Sexist and misogynist? Hardly. Michael Cohen, Trump’s general counsel and an executive vice president at Trump Organization, said that while the billionaire’s companies employ 57 percent men and 43 percent women, “there are more female executives at the Trump Organization than there are male.” Fascist? Fascism involves having the government dictate what the corporations will produce and how, and involves close corporate relations with a centralized government. Trump has only been reluctantly supportive of government involvement. While he did support the bank bailouts, he was not an enthusiastic supporter. On Sept. 30, 2008, CNN’s Kiran Chetry asked Trump about the bailout days before its final passage. Chetry: "Do you think that this bailout plan needs to pass in some way, shape or form for things to stabilize?" Trump replied: "Well, I think it would be better if it passed. I'm not sure that it's going to work. You know, it is trial and error. Nobody really knows what impact it's going to have. Maybe it works, and maybe it doesn't. But certainly it is worth a shot. I don't love the idea that the government's buying back all the bad loans. How about some of the good loans? You know? I don't like the idea that the government, frankly, is going to be negotiating with people to sell those loans, because maybe we'd be better off having the best bankers in the world do that. But I think overall, it's a probable positive, other than you have to control the price of oil. Because if you don't, whatever happens with the bailout, if you want to call it the bailout, whatever happens with the bailout, is will have no impact, no positive impact."

    So, you have a man who is not thrilled with the government helping corporations monetarily, employees a high percentage of women as executives, who has Arab friends, and all Sarsour can do is run him down with made up insults.

    I'm supporting Trump all the way.

    ReplyDelete