03-19-2024, 02:06 PM
(03-19-2024, 12:59 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, good. I didn't really doubt you see it that way, but now whoever comes along and claims you did not condemn it (and usually they do come along) are already proven wrong.
Yes, this is sadly true. I suppose I have to spell it out clearly in every thread or be labeled a Trump supporter.
Quote:That is of little importance, imho, which one is worse. I for one would label Trump's comments as antisemitic, I just feel telling Jews they hate their religion and should be ashamed for alleged un-Jewish behaviour is just that no matter the circumstance, but well. It's not for me to determine really.
That groups of the far left have some antisemitic tendencies is without doubt. They deserve condemnation for sure, maybe there's not enough of it (I really don't follow closely enough, but I believe your assessment). Imho, if a presidential candidate says things like that it is more impactful then when some protesters or a widely isolated Congressperson (Tlaib has little support within her own ranks, after all) say stuff, but that does not make the latter ok for sure. Or the former, for that matter.
Yes, I will concede that the remarks of a major POTUS carry far more weight. I see what's going on in the Democratic party right now as mirroring the issues that the Labor (I'm not spelling it with a U you damn limeys!) Party is/has dealt with in regard to antisemitism. There's a strange lack of introspection on the left into the racism of its own members, like it cannot possibly exist or is only a right wing phenomena It is frequently claimed by many that it's not even possible to be racist towards white people, or that black people cannot be racist. Both claims being obviously, and ludicrously, false, yet they still enjoy quite a bit of prominence. It strike me as pointing out the speck in another's eye, while ignoring the log in your own. Except in this case both eyes have logs in them.
Quote:I can not quite see it that way really. How often would Biden have to make weird comments about blacks before the impact is lessened? Would it somehow be less bad if he had done it twenty times? I don't know.
My point being that Trump is known for saying over the top crap, hence the impact of them is lessened, whether it should be or not. It's like the difference in your little brother swearing at the table and your grandmother doing it. They may be saying the same thing, but the shock of them saying it is not the same.
Quote:For the record, I still don't totally agree with that in the bloodbath example. It is not exactly made up that he used the term. At the very least, Trump knows that some of his ardent supporters are willing to use violent means. Responsibly, he would have to be extra careful with expressions like that. I would bet there are people that took the bloodbath comment as some form of encouragement to turn violent should Trump lose the "last election". At this point, imho already irresponsible at the very least.
Admittedly though, Trump felt like clarifying the day after, which is why I probably would leave that bloodbath example out if I were to make a list of all nefarious Trump comments. As you said, there are indeed numerous less ambiguous examples around.
I still think you're giving him far too much credit for being sneaky here. As I pointed out, the term is used to describe a dire financial result all of the time, to the point that it's in the dictionary as such. You couple that with the clip being deliberately taken out of context and then the media onslaught of coverage/condemnation and it all looks very deliberate, calculated and intentionally deceitful. And every time it's done it lends more credence, to more people, of Trump's claim to be the victim of a deliberate campaign by "the swamp" and that he's the only one who can stand between "us and them".
