Technically, it was President George W. Bush who, metaphorically, “founded” (created, whatever) the Islamic State. After we ousted dictator Saddam Hussein, it created a rift in Iraq that cause the development of the group, previously supported by Al Qaeda. (Al Qaeda was created during the Soviet War in Afghanistan, I estimate that developments for the group was during Reagan’s administration and George H. W. Bush’s administration. The Democrats aren’t immune to any blame though, because Bill Clinton kept troops in the Middle East as far as 1996 (according to claims by Osama bin Laden), which caused the development of plans to hit the WTC).
I agree completely with all of that. Make no mistake, I’m trembling at the thought of the beacon of the free world becoming a fascist state. The point now is stopping him, and that starts with understanding how he’s working.
By now, it’s clear he’s using the classic tactic of confusing the enemy with distractions. He starts little fires all over the place so that we’re constantly on the defensive, always reacting to him instead of going on the offensive ourselves. Print this out and put it over your TV or computer: as disgusting and vulgar as he is, DONALD TRUMP IS CONTROLLING THE DIALOGUE.
With every turd that issues from his mouth, he consolidates his hold on media presence. When is the last time Hillary was the headline? When is the last time a talk show host or comedian started his routine with Hillary, or anything else? It’s always Trump, Trump, Trump. All of this matters to casual, uncommitted voters who take their cue from media chatter, and I’m not a hundred percent confident that it won’t be enough to put him over the top.
You have every right to invoke Hitler. It’s time for us simmering frogs to bury Godwin and call Trump what he is. His Brownshirt tactics are straight out of the nazi handbook. So when I hear tonight that Donald Trump said Hillary eats babies, I won’t be surprised or shocked. But I will be disappointed when CNN and Stephen Colbert make it the only issue of the day worth talking about. That’s exactly what Trump wants.
Trump has never suggested anything to do with trickle down economics. His promises, vague and silly thought they might me, have been more of the populist/protectionist type; “I’ll Win! win China and stop all this free trade and all the old school manufacturing jobs will come back.”
I don’t know - wasn’t his recent teleprompter scripted economics speech basically just “tax cuts for the rich and that will somehow create money”? Of course, that was likely written for him - he was praised for not going “off script”.
Trump is now doubling down on the claim and rejecting suggestions by sympathetic interviewers that he meant “founded” metaphorically. He’s insisting that Obama “founded” ISIS in the precise meaning of the term.
I think you are right about this and the other points you make through the thread. He’s said a lot of stupid and outright offensive things in this campaign but on these matters he’s just saying things a lot of people disagree with, and some do agree with him. He isn’t losing votes for criticizing Obama’s middle east policies or economic policies. At best he may only be holding on to the diminishing base of voters he has right now, but jumping on every statement he makes is helping to hold some of those people. I’m disappointed that this is the kind of daily talking points attack that the Republicans were known for in the past now taken up by the Democrats.
I have a suggestion to help elevate the discussion beyond rallies and sound bites.
You recall those debates that Hitchens, Krauss and even Tyson used to have about religion vs. atheism? They are all over YouTube.
What if we have some of those moderated debates hosted by various think tanks and universities – not just 5 minute shouting matches between talking heads on network media. Invite qualified surrogates from both sides and have them present arguments and counter-arguments and take questions from the audience.
Because it would not get ratings. People nowadays will only tune in if someone is guaranteed to say something outrageous, or throw a chair or something.
To some extent, correct. But the odd thing is that nothing that Trump has said nor nothing he is likely to do will in any way help them. By no means is Trump the friend of the blue collar middle class.
Of course. I’m only explaining why I think that these folks are apparently taken in by him. It’s all about the “feels”, not about sober analysis of comparative policies - of which we’ve seen precious little consistent from him.
If he’s actually elected, it won’t do them any good - having a narcissistic pathological liar as POTUS won’t do anyone any good.
MTP Daily on MSNBC had some Trump spokesperson I’d never seen (Kelly Ann someone?) and Hugh Hewitt. The Trump spokesperson couldn’t defend the founder remark except to stammer out, “But…Hillary! Hillary lies! Why are you newspeople focusing on Trump so much when Hillary should be the story of the day?!”
Yes, as long as trump is the lead story, it’s all good, even if the story makes him look like a complete idiot once again.
This does seem to be his strategy.
“Hmmm Hillary is in the paper today with a good economic speech. What can I do? I know! I’ll say something outrageously stupid! That’ll get me some press!”
It’s getting to the point where he has to keep upping the ante though. In a month, we’ll see him spraying seltzer down his pants during a press conference.
