THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2024
Atlantic writer muses: In a new essay at the Atlantic, Megan Garber muses about what Candidate Trump said.
We invite you to take the Garber's Construct Challenge. Does this presentation make sense?
WHAT ORWELL DIDN'T ANTICIPATE
[...]
Earlier this month, Donald Trump mused aloud about the violence Americans might anticipate on November 5. If Election Day brings havoc, he told Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo, the crisis would come not from outside actors but instead from “the enemy from within”: “some very bad people,” he clarified, “some sick people”—the “radical-left lunatics.”
The former president further mused about a solution to the problem. “I think it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by the National Guard,” he said, “or, if really necessary, by the military.”
A presidential candidate who may well retake the White House is threatening to use the military against American citizens: The news here is straightforward.
For the record, Trump "mused aloud about the violence Americans might anticipate on November 5" because he was specifically asked about that possibility by Bartiromo.
He didn't raise the topic himself; Bartiromo raised the topic. After Trump's one brief response, the two moved on from there.
At any rate, ponder the logic of that construct. According to Garber, Trump was "threatening to use the military against American citizens" in his response to Bartiromo's question. The problem there seems fairly obvious:
Trump won't be president on November 5! President Biden would be able to call out the National Guard (or the military, "if really necessary") to deal with some type of "havoc" next Tuesday, but Candidate Trump wouldn't be able to do that.
He wouldn't be able to call out the Guard! With that in mind, in what way was he "threatening to use the military against American citizens" in his brief response to Bartiromo's hypothetical question?
"The news here is straightforward," Garber says. In our view, her logic pretty much isn't.
In sum:
Trump has said at least a million crazy things by now. That brief Q-and-A with Bartiromo struck us as a major nothingburger.
At that point, in our view, creative outrage took over. That said, the vast majority of the mainstream press has gone along with this construct.
(At the Times, they seem to know that this construct doesn't make sense. They just keep fact-checking around it!)
Think Bob is burying the lede. Kinda creepy reading him this election cycle. Bunch of garbage got to say.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Trump is referring to Republican governors calling out the national guard in their states? Maybe Trump is so disordered (as our Host believes and I also believe) that he will be able to call on the military or National Guard to do something on November 5th?
ReplyDeleteThe piece doesn't make sense in many different ways but good job Bob pointing out that Garber embarrassingly forgot Trump would have no authority to act in this capacity at that time.
ReplyDeleteTrump already tried to use the military on citizens when he was president. Why is Somerby treating this as a hypothetical?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat was the point of raising the possibility of violence on election day to the Fox audience of Trump voters? As a strategy it seems kind of dumb to increase fears for Trump voters who lean older and may decide not to show up at the polls.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, one could read it as Trump signaling to his violent thugs to disrupt polling places where Dem turnout is high. After all, we've already seen “the enemy from within”: “some very bad people,” “some sick people”—and they were entirely Trump-led radical-right lunatics who ransacked the US Capitol to prevent an election.
Protests got violent days after Trump’s election in 2016. I’m more than certain if Trump wins it will happen again.
Deletehttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/11/11/anti-trump-protesters-pepper-sprayed-demonstrations-erupt-across-us/93633154/
Perhaps his minions and proud boyzz will attack the Capitol again if he loses. Those things from 2016, whatever they were, didn’t prevent Trump from taking power, and Obama didn’t stage an insurrection to stop him either. Just minor differences I’m sure, twit.
DeleteCecelia,
DeleteLike polls, Democrats have adjusted from these errors of 2016 by developing coping skills to deal with uncertainties like Trump's 2016 election - so they are likely more able to cope now. Polls had indicated Trump would lose both the popular vote and the electoral college and while polls play a vital guardrail role in our society, everything in the universe is on a spectrum and comes down to wave functions. So when a fair election decided Trump's victory was certain, Dem's psychological makeup with respect to electoral politics prevented them from simply getting on with the business of limiting the harm Trump and his cronies would do to society and focus on winning in the next round. But since then, Dems have adjusted and learned from these errors that a key way to survive is to develop coping skills to deal with uncertainties like inaccurate polls that keep elections trustworthy, Trump's fate as a winner and the universe. They are no longer trapped by their errors of 2016 and have adjusted despite nothing in the universe being certain, (everything is on a spectrum and comes down to probabilities). Dems have a renewed psychological makeup are no longer easy to motivate. They are no longer trapped by constantly needing externally reassuring vital guardrails that help keep our elections trustworthy despite errors and inaccuracies. They found a key way to survive, so they are likely less violent now.
We're too accustomed to the use of half-truths. That is omitting part of a statement in order to change its meaning. The headline ""threatening to use the military against American citizens" is a good example. Trump wasn't threatening American citizens in general. He was threatening violent rioters.
ReplyDeleteThis is now such a common trick that we barely notice.
"Violent rioters"...who are American citizens, right? Using the military on American soil is specifically prohibited by law.
DeleteDavid, lifelong military men who dedicated their lives to serving their country, like Mattis, Milley, and Kelly were all appalled at Trump’s desire to use the military, and have all, particularly Kelly, spoken critically of Trump. Why do you dismiss their judgments in favor of a self-serving nihilist like Trump? Are they degenerates in your eyes, as Trump has called them?
DeleteExactly right. Democrats and their propaganda arm the legacy media rely on this form of lying to convince the dumbest voters.
Delete"Lifelong military men" who are auditioning for positions on the lecture circuit or in board rooms or academia or cable news networks. They're disgraces and liars and you'd think you would realize that after the 51 lying signatories on the Hunter Laptop "Russia collusion" letter. Liars.
DeleteMilitary service used to mean something, certainly to traditional Republicans. Apparently, the only qualification for acceptance into the club nowadays is absolute subservience to Trump, service to ”country” be damned. At some point, MAGA will have no one left to recruit, because they’re busy demonizing everyone.
DeleteI would still like to get David’s response, because he once presented as a traditional Republican.
DeletePick a fucking lane, Maggots.
DeleteDickhead agrees that trump was advocating using the military on American citizens, which is a clear violation of the law. He and JD Vance, Peter Thiel's boy toy raised in a laboratory, thinks that is just fine and dandy.
But apparently, 8:17 and 8:19 are saying it's not true. What is an American patriot to think?
BTW, it is well known that Trump was hoping for counter protesters on Jan 6 to incite violence, in which case he was prepared to invoke the Insurrection Act. Unfortunately, his plan didn't work.
DeleteMAGAs have been harassing people in line to vote, shouting at them from trucks in drive-bys. And they have disrupted voting by refusing to remove Trump regalia in polling places. This has been in early voting. Their trained “poll watchers” may try to deter voters using actual or threatened violence. That may provide an excuse to challenge results. Why is Somerby being obtuse about this other stuff?
ReplyDelete