Remember When Civil Discourse Mattered Under Bush?


First, the weird stuff.

"One of my favorite TV shows is 'The Rachel Maddow Show' on MSNBC," James Hodgkinson began in one of the letters. "On a recent show she stated that 17 very rich men are supplying the Republican Party with more than 60 percent of their campaign contributions."
Alrighty. Let's, er, move on.

Despite all the claims of violence perpetuated by Trump supporters in Trump's alt-right America it's interesting to note most of it actually comes from the left and groups like Antifa culminating into the shootings of Republicans by what is being reported to be a Democrat; a Sanders supporter no less.

That's some projection I reckon.

Expect the justification or spin of this crime to be along the lines of 'yeh well, Republicans want to kill people with their health plan' or some variation thereof.

It's a silly and grotesque logical fallacy but this is where we are these days.

I mean, what's to stop someone from shooting politicians for any grievance, right?

For years Democrats and the progressive left chirped about how 'civl discourse' was eroding this from the party who enjoyed 'going high when they go low'. Yet, nothing happened really that could be attributed to anything Bush or even Palin said however dubious in nature they could have been. Going as far as attempting to pin the murder spree of a deranged leftist where Gabby Gifford was shot on the GOP and their "violent" rhetoric.

So when one of their own supporters (like that Sanders nut in Portland) commits a violent act you'd expect them to atone for it as they would demand from the GOP, correct? Not so fast. Here's Bernie in his own words.

And here's Loretta Lynch on the matter:

Fantastic stuff right there. Not sure what rights were taken away. Certainly not those inalienable rights, right?

Yet, like with the projection with violence, I don't see how Democrats should escape criticism for their behaviour since Trump's election. Rather than calming the base down they've been doing nothing but agitating them with their rhetoric. By framing Trump as illegitimate whether it be through   not winning the popular vote or blaming Russian electioneering without proof to general all-around fabrications to build a 'resistance' as if it's going to somehow reset the election or impeach Trump, the Democrat leadership has played its part in what transpired in Virginia on a baseball field where a man from Illinois (a Northern state; not a southern one) decided to open fire possibly based on party affiliation.

And this will go down as an 'X' on the Democrat resume no matter how it's spun.

Which makes me further wonder why they didn't behave more maturely from the onset? None of Hillary, the DNC leadership, Warren, Sanders or Obama have said, 'Hey, it's unfortunate we lost but we lost fair and square. Time to regroup, refocus and reenergize what needs to be done to win in 2020'.

Instead, we have Hillary going around on a blame everyone tour, Sanders is just railing, while Obama is using his 'pay back time' speaking tour that sometimes coyly takes under handed shots at a democratically elected official and undermine his administration. Obama's insistence on staying in the public eye especially leaves him open to sharp criticism in my opinion. He's done little to assuage people. On the contrary, his public appearances are designed to give the impression of him being the voice of reason in an age of 'growing dictatorships'. It's foolish as it is dangerous and is proof of why leaders who have served their duty should sail away into the sunset for the sake of sanity and decorum.

Above all, Obama mocked people in the general population who opposed him. Trump's trolling has been mostly restricted to fellow politicians and the media.

In what mindset could anyone conclude calling people 'deplorables' or 'bitter clingers' is a good idea? That it was somehow speaking enlightened truth to power? Rather, to me, it was instructive of the arrogant contempt the left has for their compatriots.

As I've observed and strenuously argued during Obama's Presidency, he was not a leader. He was an activist.

Big difference.

Time and again when the chance presented itself to calm people he chose to agitate and I think by choice.

And we're seeing it plainly play out in 2017.

It's interesting to note that Dylan Roof's racist rampage happened under Obama and not Trump. Now, I understand this could mean a few things including being simply one of those people who simply hated Obama but it still pokes a hole into somehow one Presidency signals a more racial one that most. It remains to be seen what racist loon springs into action but we did see some racially divisive language from the previous administration; one in which we've yet to see from the current one.

The DNC and its supporters need to look at that mirror and decide if they like what they see and whether changes are in order.

As it stands, their mentality is one for losers.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.