In Response to Tom Sightings



Tom (in the comment section to yesterday's post): "I'm no Trump supporter, but while I cannot speak for your Uncle Earl, I do not believe that everyone who voted for him is an evil hateful person. My brother-in-law, for example. He voted for Trump.... I don't agree with him on a lot of things. But I know he's a popular teacher; he's volunteered to help a lot of disadvantaged kids; and yes, he also volunteers at his church. Anyway, I suggest you read 'Liberals, You're Not as Smart as You Think' from May 12 NY Times for another perspective. And even so, I don't think the proper response to hate ... is to hate back."

Just to be clear... First off, Earl is my father-in-law. Secondly, Trump is not a conservative by any common measure of conservatism that existed pre-Trump, yet Trump has so dominated the Republican Party (the same party that deplored him a mere two years ago) that it only recognizes two kinds of people, those who support Trump (who Republicans euphemistically refer to as conservatives) and everyone else, who they call liberals. While I might lean more toward the liberal end of the spectrum than what used to be called the conservative end, I am not a liberal. For example, I want strong borders; I deplore political correctness; I favor the death penalty; I'm appalled by "Black Lives Matter;" and where its feasible, I think that long-term welfare recipients should be required to work. I also agree with yesterday's definition of conservatism inasmuch as it upheld the importance of a balanced budget.

"And even so, I don't think the proper response to hate ... is to hate back."

You previously expressed the same sentiment in regard to another of my posts, and I didn't know what you meant then or what you mean now, or what you would suggest in lieu of what you call hatred. That said, I think that fear and hatred are understandable responses to being attacked, and to the extent that they inspire a productive counterattack, I even think they're admirable. Of course, one can split hairs, such as many Christians do when they claim to hate the sin but love the sinner, this despite the fact that their love sure can look like hatred. Do I hate Earl? No. What I see in Earl is a formerly good man who keeps Fox TV on all day, and when you expose yourself to hours of lying and ad hominem attacks, day in and day out, you can't help but be affected. The day that Earl told me of his admiration for Trump was actually the first time I had ever seen him angry in the 47 years that I've known him, and, although old age itself often changes people, the main influence I saw in his anger was Fox, without which we surely wouldn't have Trump.

I know whereof I speak because I used to listen to Fox radio (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Lars Larson, and even Michael Savage) for hours everyday, but after several years I gave it up, the turning point being when I undertook a serious effort to verify what these men were telling me. What I found was that Fox would take some story about, let's say, a condo owners' association telling some aged war veteran that he couldn't fly his boxcar size American fly all day everyday, and then people like O'Reilly would omit such details as the size of the flag, and the fact that it obscured other residents' view of nearby scenery. Finally, he would spend hours and hours waging personal attacks against the members of the condo association. He would constantly refer to them as "America haters," and his staff would uncover every potentially embarrassing thing they had ever done and twist it to cause maximum humiliation, after which these poor schmucks would be besieged by insults and death threats.

After I stopped listening to Fox, I came to feel as if some violence-inducing drug was working its way out of my system, and the Fox of today is far more virulent than the Fox I used to listen to. In fact, Fox has gotten so bad that, on the rare occasions that I turn it on, I can't listen for more than five minutes before I become too disgusted to continue. I have a blog reader who told me that he listens to Fox so that he can get "both sides of the story," but Fox doesn't give both sides. Fox doesn't even give one side. Fox only gives a fictionalized version that is calculated to provoke maximum outrage. Like Fox, Trump is beside himself with anger every waking moment, and I see Earl going in the same direction.

Say what you will about hatred, Tom, there is no longer room in the Republican Party for anyone who doesn't support Trump, and who could be more hateful than Trump himself or more cowardly than the Congresspeople who stand behind him for fear of losing their jobs? My problem is this: when someone voices support for a man who exhibits continual depravity, I can't see in that person a good heart or even an intelligent mind, no matter how mild-mannered he might seem. Think back to Hitler, do you really believe that all those people who supported Hitler went about yelling and assaulting people like so many frothing-at-the-mouth mad dogs? No, no, no. While the Brown Shirts were spittle-flecked, most Nazis seemed like ordinary people, people like Earl, at least until the conversation turned in a direction that set them off.

Supporting a man like Trump is not something you do if you're good at heart because Trump's mean-spirtedness and ignobility are so appallingly obvious. Take his policy of separating immigrant kids from their families and insisting that he had no choice but to do it because the Democrats made a law that forces him to do it, yet the Obama administration didn't do it; no new laws have been passed since Trump took office; and Trump's OWN PARTY controls both houses of Congress. When public outrage became overwhelming, Trump signed an executive order banning the practice of separating children from their families, saying that he did so because he cares deeply about children. What can any reasonable person conclude from this other than that he was lying when he said he could do nothing about the problem?

Sadly, another bizarre twist to the story is that the executive order by which Trump claims to have solved the problem is so lame that all but one of the 2,500 children are still separated from their parents (that one sued). Even before he signed the order, Trump was told that it wasn't a problem that an executive order could remedy because the only way to keep the children with their parents would be to do what Obama did which was to release the parents from custody prior to their hearing date (it being unlawful to keep families in prison, and there being no other place to put them). Trump was unwilling to do that, and wouldn't have needed an executive order to do it if he had been willing. He has therefore knowingly left the people who are enforcing America's immigration laws with no way to carry out his executive order. As the days go by, and the kids are still living in detention centers, he will no doubt do what he always does when something doesn't go his way: he'll blame the Democrats and some imaginary "Deep State."

No one who isn't brainwashed by Fox is likely to be fooled by Trump, and even then, it would require willful ignorance because Trump's lies are as unsophisticated as those of a five year old and there are new ones everyday, often at a rate of several a day (CNN puts the average lies per day at 6.5*). Trump lies so often that I feel nauseous just trying to remember the ones from a week ago. So, Tom, you deplore my "hatred," but what would you suggest that I replace it with given that I truly don't believe that anyone can support Trump from a position of innocence? While I recognize the necessity of compromise when it comes to electing a president; in order to support Trump, one has to go beyond mere compromise and into taking the position that "the ends justify the means," which is the very thing that conservatives used to condemn Communists for doing. 

* https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/01/politics/donald-trump-3000/index.html

19 comments:

Elephant's Child said...

From this side of the world it feels like watching a car accident. A car accident in which there have been and will be fatalities. Which makes me feel a bit like a depraved voyeur.

Emma Springfield said...

Eloquent. First he tells one lie, then another to back up the first. Then he lies again adding a few embellishments. Then he blames his opposition when people question him. Then he makes claims that there is nothing he can do because he has to follow the laws made by previous administrations, usually the opposing party. Then he abruptly makes a 180 turn and claims he is trying to remedy the situation but it may not work because others are against him and won't cooperate. Then he signs a proclamation ordering what should have been done in the first place. The problem there is that it only covers occurrences from the time of the signing forward. Then he announces to the world what a wonderful guy he is for fixing an unfixable problem. His base drinks the kool-aid, his loyal media tout his wonderfulness, and some of the rest of us are terrified that we cannot as a country survive the insanity.

Snowbrush said...

Tom, I did read the article you referenced.

From this side of the world it feels like watching a car accident.

I feel the same, only I use the term "train wreck." Three-ring circus might also apply in that a person can't focus on what's happening in one ring before attention is drawn to another. I just added to this post a CNN (Cable News Network) tally according to which Trump tells 6.5 lies a day.

"Which makes me feel a bit like a depraved voyeur."

I feel the same, and I live here. Presidents are supposed to solve problems rather than become problems. I actually listened to an hour long radio program about whether the media spends too much time talking about Donald Trump (it struck me as like reflecting upon taking a drink in order to clear ones' head about the possibility of going on the wagon).

"The problem there is that it only covers occurrences from the time of the signing forward."

I agree with your summary except that his spokespeople contradict one another about who the order will cover, and it's also true that, order or no order, he can't legally keep these families together in prison, and he hasn't addressed the issue of where else to put them.

"his loyal media tout his wonderfulness, and some of the rest of us are terrified that we cannot as a country survive the insanity."

The hardest thing for me (thus far anyway) to deal with internally is that I no longer believe it remotely possible for Republicans and Democrats to work together for the good of the country because I no longer consider it remotely possible that the Republican leadership (that is what's left of Republican leadership now that Trump's supporters have run moderate Republicans out of the party) consists of people of integrity, much less people of heroic stature. I've always wanted to know what other people thought and why they thought it, but when it comes to listening to people defend the honor of the likes of Donald Trump, his defenders don't even pass the straight-face test. I haven't been an up-with-humanity type of person for decades, but never have I thought this poorly of my species. Prior to comparing Republicans to Nazis, I often reflected upon whether the mood in modern America is anything like what it was in Nazi Germany now that we have a president who treats murderous dictators far better than he treats his nation's allies, a president who says he's interested in America following the lead of China and making its leader president for life! We can but hope that November's elections will bring good news.

PhilipH said...

A thoroughly GOOD and reasoned argument Snowy. You have MY vote, and millions of others in the UK and, undoubtedly, elsewhere in the western world.

Your mention of Hitler is not inappropriate. There are, of course, some differences between these two leaders but, in my view, both Trump and Adolf Hitler managed to mesmerise millions of ordinary folk by lies, fear and false promises. Hitler was backed up by an inner caucus of murderous fiends who thousands of youngsters into relentless hate and thuggery against any opposition to the Nazi Party. Not that I'm saying that this is what's happening in the Repugnant, oops, Republican Party, but it's all very disturbing.

There has always been a strong bond between the United Kingdom and the USA. Without the support of America during WW2 then we in the UK would almost certainly have been defeated. No question about that! And because of this longstanding bond we now await Trump's official visit to these shores. On Friday, 13th July ... I don't hold with any superstitious belief about Friday the 13th, but there are more things in heaven and earth ... eh what?

It seems he will avoid a tour of London. Far too many anti-Trump protesters are geared up for this. But wherever he goes there will have to be a massive police and security operation in place. He will be so solidly protected we may have to call upon the USA for another huge loan, another lease-lend package, just to survive again.

Not that I would link arms in any demonstration against the Don. I am sure that such loud shouting and banner-waving stuff would be so very 'ordinary' as to be boring. No, the most telling demo would be huge gatherings as the Trump cavalcade passed by simply turning their backs ... silently ignoring this narcissist as he went by.

Charles Gramlich said...

there is no sense of the word in which Trump is presidential. I really don't understand how everyone can't see that.

Snowbrush said...

"Your mention of Hitler is not inappropriate. There are, of course, some differences between these two leaders"

Do I really think that Trump is as bad as Hitler? I fear that he is because of his open admiration for murderous dictators, his desire to be made president for life, and his appalling racism?

"both Trump and Adolf Hitler managed to mesmerise millions of ordinary folk by lies, fear and false promises."

Trump's appeal is similar to that of religious gurus. He started holding campaign rallies for the next election as soon as he took office following the last election, and the people at these rallies behave in the most extraordinary ways, ways that I've never seen people behave at the rallies of other candidates. As soon as Trump arranged to meet with North Korea's dictator, the people at his rallies started chanting "Nobel Prize, Nobel Prize...." For his "base" as it's called, truth is what Trump says it is. He constantly refers to the non-Fox press as "fake news" or the "lying press," and says there should be legal limits on what they can say about him. To millions of Americans, Trump sounds exactly like a man would sound if he was trying to turn a democracy into a dictatorship.

"Hitler was backed up by an inner caucus of murderous fiends who thousands of youngsters into relentless hate and thuggery against any opposition..."

During his campaign rallies, Trump said he would pay the legal fees of supporters at those rallies who assaulted those who had come to protest. That alone would be reason enough for me to not vote for him, but it didn't discourage the millions who did. Again, people who support Trump know what manner of man he is, and they support him anyway. Hilary Clinton called them a "basket of deplorables," and given the kind of man they stand behind, I can but agree.

"There has always been a strong bond between the United Kingdom and the USA....And because of this longstanding bond we now await Trump's official visit to these shores."

I hadn't heard about this, although I'm sure it will be all that I do hear about as the time approaches for his visit...I wonder if he was invited, or simply sent word that he was coming. I can't imagine that his visit will go well, but since he feeds on hating and being hated, I can't imagine that it will phase him.

"But wherever he goes there will have to be a massive police and security operation in place. He will be so solidly protected we may have to call upon the USA for another huge loan..."

Like when the pope comes here, and it costs the taxpayers millions upon millions to protect him.

"there is no sense of the word in which Trump is presidential. I really don't understand how everyone can't see that."

When I hear Trump supporters asked if there is anything that they don't like about him, all I ever hear them say is that they wish he wouldn't Tweet quite so much.

Marion said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Snowbrush said...

"Obama separated kids from their parents, but that was okay, right?"

No, Marion, it wasn't okay, but it also didn't come close to equating what Trump is doing. I quote from https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17443198/children-immigrant-families-separated-parents:

"When the Obama administration attempted to respond to the “crisis” of families and unaccompanied children crossing the border in summer 2014, it put hundreds of families in immigration detention — a practice that had basically ended several years before. But federal courts stopped the administration from holding families for months without justifying the decision to keep them in detention. So most families ended up getting released while their cases were pending — which immigration hawks have derided as “catch and release.”

After that ruling, Obama also separated children when there was a concern that they were being brought into the country to be sex trafficked. So tell me, Marion, where is the equity in what happened under Obama versus what is happening under Trump... Okay, maybe you don't like Vox, so I'll also refer you to Snopes, but for chrissakes, feel free to verify all this rather than simply believing everything you hear from Trump, from Fox, or from Breitbart because there is no truth in them; there is only propoganda: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/are-these-children-separated-by-obama/.

Despite what the Trump administration claims, there are no "alternative truths" or (more recently) no "versions of the truth," and we are not living in some post truth world. There are simply facts that can be proven or disproven, unless they concern claims about which our species simply does not have sufficient data. All else is opinion. For example, you believe (as near as I can tell) that everyone has a legal right to walk around carrying a loaded gun. If the day ever comes that the Supreme Court decides one way or the other we'll have a law that is hopefully clear and comprehensive. Until then, we only have opinions based upon the Second Amendment, which is anything but clear and comprehensive. Of course, even after such a decision, we'll have strong disagreement on the part the losers, but we'll at least have a objectively verifiable law under which we all must live unless we favor anarchy.

"I'm not a crazy sheep, either. I think for myself."

Marion, no one who thinks for herself can believe such easily disprovable lies as the one you just quoted about Obama. Look, I stand behind my post because although it saddens me more than you can probably imagine to feel so negatively about millions of my fellow countryman, I don't believe you can support Trump without going out of your way to be willfully ignorant. I say this because he lies, lies, lies. From morning to night, he lies, and they're not even good lies. They're childish lies. Whatever hold Trump has on your mind doesn't come from objectively verifiable truth but from pandering.

I'm always glad when you come by.

Snowbrush said...

"Obama separated kids from their parents, but that was okay, right?"

I worded the first sentence of my response poorly, so I'll have another go at it. Obama ONLY separated children from accompanying adults when they were in danger of being sold into sexual slavery. If you disagree with this, prove it. The hundreds of families that were referenced in the Vox quotation were just that--families--and I agree with the court that it was wrong to keep them locked up for months without a hearing (just as it's wrong to keep people locked up at Guantanamo for nearly TWO DECADES without a hearing), but what Obama did then was in no way similar to what Trump is doing now. Last week, Trump said that Democrats don't care about children and that they want open borders. I'm not a registered Democrat, but I usually vote Democratic, and I DO care about these children, and DO NOT want open borders. I want strong borders, but wanting something to happen is a very different matter from finding an effective way to make it happen, and nothing gives Trump the right to choose to inflict permanent harm on children and to blame his choice on Democrats and their parents. And it is HIS choice. He said for a whole week that he had no choice, and then he suddenly said that he had a choice, only the executive order that constituted his choice was completely and appalling ineffective. Does this not look like not one but two lies to you?

billy pilgrim said...

dostoevsky said it best 150 years ago. liberalism is a fine concept but liberals are mostly wealthy landowners claiming their shit shit doesn't stink. those weren't his exact words but that was the jist. there is a huge gap between liberalism and liberals.

the main stream media is pathetic. on the day melania trump wore the coat saying i don't care, donald trump revoked obama's policies on protecting the oceans. yet what did the main stream media spend all day talking about? melania's coat with nary a mention of the oceans being destroyed.

ted turner must be turning over in his grave.

Snowbrush said...

"liberalism is a fine concept but liberals are mostly wealthy landowners claiming their shit shit doesn't stink."

Their shit shit? I'll see your two shits and raise you a shit. You realize, of course, that the truth truth of a proposition is in no way dependent upon the the character of the person making the claim claim, and that we would be far worse off without the likes of a rich man named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Isn't it ironic though that the very states that favor candidates who support putting an end to social services are the same states that spend so much money to keep their citizens from starving to death that they take in more money from the federal government than they put into it? Surely, their choice of candidates not a case of biting the hand that feeds them.

"the main stream media is pathetic."

The primary goal of the mainstream media is to sell advertising, which is why visual imagines and human interest stories dominate. Who's to blame though, the media or the people who rush out to badger their doctors into prescribing the advertised drugs?

Tom said...

Snowbrush -- Can't argue with you, b/c I agree with you probably 80%. Maybe I'm a closet Quaker, who believes "that we can only bring peace into the world to the extent that we rid ourselves of the animosity that causes war."

Snowbrush said...

"Maybe I'm a closet Quaker, who believes "that we can only bring peace into the world to the extent that we rid ourselves of the animosity that causes war.'"

Gandhi and MLK Jr were pacifists, but if instead of conducting their protests in places that had a respect for the rule of law, they had conducted them under the reign of psychopathic dictators, I should imagine that they and their supporters (and maybe their supporters' families) would have been killed, and that would have been the end of things. I also recall that pacifistic groups didn't fare well with American Indians tribes that had a strong warrior tradition because, instead of respecting the pacifists, the Indians were disgusted by their seeming cowardice and killed them in droves.

I will say this, Tom, holding animosity (as I certainly do) doesn't have to equate with being impolite or otherwise behaving in an overbearing manner. In this regard, I'm horrified by the increasingly vile treatment of Trump officials when they venture out in public, and I hope that my straightforwardness on this blog and in my comments on other blogs doesn't rise to the level of rudeness. The fact is that I know of no kindly way to communicate my very strong feelings toward those members of the Republican Party who give Donald Trump a 90% approval rating, and I'm well aware that, having compared them to the followers of Hitler, the bottom has been reached, which is why I don't do it casually or without truly believing that it is an apt comparison.

For instance, while I would not compare Trump's camps for children with Nazi camps (as some do), I am very concerned to hear Republicans say that they're fun for the children--like summer camps--or that the preceding trek across the desert which takes so many lives is, as Trump put it, like a stroll through Central Park. His ongoing rhetoric toward Hispanics as "infesting" America and his description of them as parasites, animals, and rapists, etc. is Hitler-speak, yet his supporters (most of whom profess to be Christians) cheer him wildly when he's saying these things. How then, does Trump (and his followers) differ from Hitler (and his followers) except that the latter are being held largely in check by the laws of their country? If
Trump is able to overturn those laws (which is admittedly very unlikely, although I know that if he can, he will, and that his supporters will want him to), I have no doubt but what we will have Nazi style camps.

cont.

Snowbrush said...

So when you say you don't experience animosity, and you're disappointed that I do, I frankly don't know what it is that you do feel, and I wonder if your sangfroid is due the fact that you, a close follower of the news, just don't want to admit to yourself how serious the threat to your country's expressed values, if not its actual survival, is in this period of Trumpian human rights abuses, science denial, constant lies, daily policy reversals, adoration for dictators, bad faith negotiations, and determination to put an end to freedom of the press. The only thing that I see in Trump that he ("stable genius" that he claims to be) does really, really well is to take his followers' worse instincts, give them free reign, and multiply them a hundred fold. There's a pathology in people who hold beliefs (like those who believe that Obama also separated migrant families and created large detention camps for children) that are demonstrably wrong, yet are incapable of changing their views. No matter how much evidence is presented, they won't read it much less consider it because they don't need to. They have what Trump tells them, and that's all they need to have because Trump is their everything, and anyone who criticizes Trump is their enemy.

When I ask myself how people can believe, not just an occasional one of Trump's demonstrable lie, but all of Trump's demonstrable lies at the rate of 6.5 new ones a day, what I come up with is that Trump IS his followers' standard of truth. Like their supposed Savior, Trump proclaims himself to be the way, the truth, and the life, and his followers echo his words back to him. To Trump's followers, all that is not Trump is just what Trump says it is: "fake news." It's a sickness, Tom, and I believe with all my heart that it is how those pre-WWII Germans responded to Hitler. Even if Democrats win every upcoming election in November and the presidency itself, I don't believe that the evil that Trump has created can be put back into the bottle anytime soon, and perhaps not for years, if then, and the absorbing rage and hatred that Trumpianites feel are clearly felt by their opponents. We're way beyond working together for the good of all.

Marion said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Todd said...

Good post. I try to not pay much attention to Trump.. It;s all just "noise" His time is limited. We have followed each others blogs for a long time now. I don't do as many posts as I used to and don't know if anyone really cares but I enjoy it. Have a great day .

Snowbrush said...

Marion, the link you provided is unrelated to your claim that, like Trump, Obama separated large numbers of migrant children from their parents.

"I try to not pay much attention to Trump...His time is limited."

It's too bad that the harm he is doing will continue when he goes.

kj said...

Snow, I agree with you totally.

I do think the mainstream press tries more honestly than they get credit for. There are many reporters I trust and admire.

Trump’s time is limited? I wish I felt that way. I deplore what’s happening to our country and by extension to the world
Love
kj

Snowbrush said...

"I do think the mainstream press tries more honestly than they get credit for."

I listen to NPR for hours on most days, and I look up some news stories on the Internet. I also watch CBS or NBC Evening News or both, but I think of them as being on the order of guilty pleasures because it's painfully obvious the extent to which they're ad driven as evidenced by their substitution of celebrity news and other human interest stories for news that's actually important for people to know about. I also find it horribly sad that NBC's evening news anchor is a black man who also narrates an hour long weekly show that reports primarily on the murders of young attractive white women (I know about this because he mentions it on the evening news as a part of the news).