MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2024
Harris hates her own country: According to The Man Who Screams, Ruth Marcus misunderstood.
She doesn't have an ear for these things! Over at the Washington Post, Marcus has offered this reaction to one candidate's recent remarks:
Preemptively blaming Jews, Trump crosses a dangerous line
Donald Trump has always had an odd—and, frankly, offensive—way of talking to and about Jews. As much as he seeks to inoculate himself from any suggestion of antisemitism by invoking his Jewish son-in-law, Jewish (by conversion) daughter and Jewish grandchildren, he too often finds himself enjoying the support, and even the company, of outspoken antisemites and then has a hard time disavowing them.
But when it comes to his comments about Jews, Trump has managed to outdo himself—at a campaign event billed as condemning antisemitism in America, no less. “I’m not going to call this as a prediction, but in my opinion, the Jewish people would have a lot to do with a loss if I’m at 40 percent” Jewish support in the polls,” Trump said Thursday, likely overstating his backing among Jewish voters.
This was no one-off. Later that day, attending the annual summit of the conservative Israeli American Council, Trump raised the subject again. “If I don’t win this election … the Jewish people would really have a lot to do with that if that happens, because at 40 percent that means 60 percent of the people are voting for the enemy,” he warned.
This is both of a piece with Trump past and crossing a hazardous new line, at a time when antisemitism in the United States is exploding and the broader American Jewish community feels vulnerable and besieged. In Trump’s previous comments about Jews and the election, he has seethed with resentment that ungrateful Jewish voters have failed to reward Trump for all the wonderful things he claims to have done for them and Israel.
Marcus continues from there.
Quite a few people have been taken aback by the candidate's remarks at the summit of the Israeli American Council. On Saturday night, along came the Fox News Channel's Mark Levin to explain how wrong they've all been.
As you can see by clicking this link, Levin quoted some of Trump's remarks from that widely discussed address. He then gave this explanation:
LEVIN (9/19/24): It was tongue in cheek. It was tongue in cheek. Everybody there knew it.
How did he know that Trump's remarks had been tongue in cheek? Levin didn't exactly explain, but moments earlier, he'd said that some of his family members were present at the event.
"It was a fantastic speech," Levin said. "It was a tempered speech. It was a factual speech. The people left there, the vast majority were Jews, very excited and very happy."
So the gentleman said—and everything is possible! For ourselves, we decided to check the relevant part of the speech in question.
(You can do that too. Click here, then move ahead to the 41-minute mark.)
We'll admit it! We didn't detect the slightest sign that the candidate's comments were tongue in cheek. But so it goes at times like these, as candidates make their presentations and advocates offer their views.
Back to Levin! Two minutes after the remarks we've quoted, he offered his view of Candidate Harris. He told viewers what people will say in the future if that candidate gets elected:
LEVIN: For hundreds of years, thousands of years, they'll wake up and say, "Oh my God, what did we do? We elected someone president of the United States who's wholly unqualified, who didn't reveal herself, who turns out to be a Marxist Islamist, who failed as vice president. Oh my God, what did we do?"
A bit later, Levin and his guest, Pete Hegseth, further informed Fox viewers about Candidate Harris. The gentlemen offered this:
LEVIN: ...She's power-hungry, as most ideologues are. So if you hate your own people, which is why the border is open—they want to reshape the population, as the New York Times said. If you hate your own people, if you hate your own history, if you hate your own country—well, why wouldn't she sell out to the enemy?
HEGSETH (chuckles): Ask Barack Obama! Ask Joe Biden!
"Trader Pete" continued from there. But we'd call that a thoughtful analysis from two of our most nuanced thinkers!
In our view, sensible people can ask serious questions about Candidates Harris and Walz. At present, some perfectly reasonable questions aren't necessarily getting answered.
That said, it's all anthropology now! It's all about the way we humans are inclined to behave at highly fraught times such as these.
It's all anthropology now! We first told you that some years ago, and it's never seemed more true. We're heading down the stretch of the kind of event which challenges our human wiring and tests our limitations, even among us Blues.
At any rate, Trump's remarks were tongue in cheek. Inside the hall, everyone knew!
Harris is an Islamist now? That's new, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteHe was probably also speaking tongue-in-cheek when he post on Truth Social about his visit with sponsors of Hamas:
ReplyDelete"It was great seeing my friends His Highness Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Amir of Qatar and His Excellency Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, Prime Minister of Qatar at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida,"
It must be wonderful to control the media narrative. Trump made a strong claim that Harris would allow anti-semitism to flourish, and that he would protect Jews. This is perfectly analogous to Harris claiming that Trump would allow racism to flourish and she would protect black Americans.
ReplyDeleteAmazingly, much of the media turned Trump's comment on its head and said Trump was the one promoting anti-semitism.
Are you referring to his speech to the Israeli American Council?
DeleteTrump was called anti-semitic because he told Jews if they didn't vote for him "they should have their head examined." That's got nothing to do with his criticisms of Harris.
It must be wonderful to have your comments be so devoid of fact.
Hector, in 2020, Biden told a black man he couldn’t really be black if he wasn’t voting for him.
DeleteAnonymices have leveled insults here toward Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell via epithets of their being tokens and Uncle Toms.
““They should have their heads examined” would be a straight forward, if debatable, argument from any liberal if said in the context of what Democrats have done for civil rights.
On the other hand, “You arent really Jewish” would be sheer disparagement.
In comments regarding a neo-Nazi rally held in Charlottesville, Trump referred to the neo-Nazis there as "very fine people."
ReplyDeleteThis lie has been debunked over and over. See https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/
DeleteOr, you can find a video of Trump's actual comments, where he says the exact opposite.
It is possible for reasonable people to disagree with Snopes. I prefer to consider the evidence of Trump's associations with neo-Nazis such as Nick Fuentes and The Proud Boys, or Victor Orban. These associations provide a context for interpreting Trump's intentions with his Charlottesville remarks. He was signalling to his Nazi base that he was still with them.
Delete@7:36, if you want to argue that Trump really supports neo-Nazis and white supremacists, you may have a plausible argument. But, claiming that Trump SAID he supports Nazis and white supremacists' is a flat-out lie. What Trump SAID was the exact opposite.
DeleteAnonymouse 7:36pm, it’s ironic that Comma La used essentially the same argument in the 2020 primary when she accused Biden of caring about his former-segregationist politician pals, and opposing busing, rather than considering the former little girl (herself) who had daily participated in integration via busing.
DeleteBiden knew, well understood, the past of his old colleagues. Trump was a political newbie who didn’t understand shite from shinola about Fuentes.
That moment with Harris is what got her on the ticket. It had been real history. Biden’s history. Right there in little old Washington, DC.
""Trader Pete" continued from there. But we'd call that a thoughtful analysis from two of our most nuanced thinkers!
ReplyDeleteIn our view, sensible people can ask serious questions about Candidates Harris and Walz. At present, some perfectly reasonable questions aren't necessarily getting answered."
In this way, Somerby endorses the criticisms of Harris raised by Levin and Hegseth. He doesn't refute any of the obvious untruths and disinformation -- he pretends we need to know more about Harris, while quoting lies.
I won't bother asking whether Somerby is being tongue-in-cheek because it doesn't matter. Damage is done to Harris's prospects when Somerby, who says he will vote for her, repeats MAGA lies about her. He could instead look up the answers and use them here to refute this garbage, but he never does that.
Worse, it doesn't look like he is even trying any more to give a convincing impersonation of a Democratic voter. Levin is scum but Somerby says he is raising good points. Do we need to know any more about where Somerby stands?
"Somerby endorses the criticisms of Harris raised by Levin and Hegseth." Nope.
Delete"He doesn't refute any of the obvious untruths and disinformation..." It's obvious from the sarcastic tone that he thinks their statements are absurd. And he says he watched the "tongue in cheek" part of the video and he saw no sign it was tongue in cheek.
"Damage is done to Harris's prospects when Somerby, who says he will vote for her, repeats MAGA lies about her." Nope.
"...it doesn't look like he is even trying any more to give a convincing impersonation of a Democratic voter." It's obvious to any regular, honest reader that Somerby is a Democratic voter, not impersonating one. But even if he weren't, this would have no relevance in evaluating the merits of his claims or arguments.
"Levin is scum but Somerby says he is raising good points." Nope.
"Do we need to know any more about where Somerby stands?" Do we need to know any more about your judgment and/or honesty?
"In this way, Somerby endorses the criticisms of Harris raised by Levin and Hegseth."
ReplyDeleteHere's what Bob actually said about Levis and Hegseth:
"But we'd call that a thoughtful analysis from two of our most nuanced thinkers!"
One clue to the sarcasm is the exclamation point. Unless you're one of those human-like life forms who believes Bob entusiastically endorses the idea that Harris is a 'Marxist-Islamist' who hates her people, her history and her country.
Sarcasm is not detectable in print unless the writer signals it explicitly. Somerby never does that. That makes it difficult to know when he is being literal and when he intends a second meaning denying the literal meaning (which is what sarcasm consists of -- a contradiction between literal meaning and tone of voice).
DeleteSomerby never says anything positive about Harris. How then are we supposed to understand that he really does support her? When he says that he is planning to vote for her, why could that not also be sarcasm? And no, exclamation points are not a clue.
Somerby clings to his plausible deniability, giving his readers the opportunity take his words any way that they prefer, as you are doing now. That isn't how communication works. The goal is clarity, not obfuscation of the type Somerby uses routinely.
Somerby may think he is being clever with this, but he is actually engaging in reader-abuse.
“Sarcasm is not detectable in print unless the writer signals it explicitly. Somerby never does that. That makes it difficult to know when he is being literal and when he intends a second meaning denying the literal meaning (which is what sarcasm consists of -- a contradiction between literal meaning and tone of voice)”
ReplyDeleteOh, sure, anonymouse 7:33pm.