On Wednesday, President Trump took to Twitter and well, this is a set-up that means something amusing or concerning happened, and not much in-between.
I'm utterly mystified by those who insist on another national struggle session over the president's rhetoric because of their misplaced belief that D.C. was all curtsies and decorum before Trump showed up.
Hillary Clinton came along - we're going to elide a lot of historic Clinton lowlights and skip straight to the 2016 campaign - and said half of Trump's voters belonged in a "Basket of deplorables." She then went on to say they were "Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic - Islamophobic - you name it." Worst of all, she said many of them were "Irredeemable." Unlike Trump, she is not known for pro-wrestling levels of hyperbole.
Now if you ask the mandarins in national politics whether Obama and Clinton are more "Civil" than Trump, I'm pretty sure the answer will be near unanimous and spittle-flecked.
In much of the country, the answer to that question is not obvious or the answer is still on balance Trump.
Comparing the president to his predecessor or political opposition for the purpose of putting their words and actions in context, once the most basic aspect of political analysis, is now frequently said to be off-limits because Trump is sui generis even when he's not.
If you're continually surprised we've arrived at a point where much of the country doesn't regard Trump's rhetoric as disqualifying, you haven't been paying attention.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/24/why-its-not-surprising-voters-dont-think-trumps-rhetoric-is-disqualifying/
I'm utterly mystified by those who insist on another national struggle session over the president's rhetoric because of their misplaced belief that D.C. was all curtsies and decorum before Trump showed up.
Hillary Clinton came along - we're going to elide a lot of historic Clinton lowlights and skip straight to the 2016 campaign - and said half of Trump's voters belonged in a "Basket of deplorables." She then went on to say they were "Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic - Islamophobic - you name it." Worst of all, she said many of them were "Irredeemable." Unlike Trump, she is not known for pro-wrestling levels of hyperbole.
Now if you ask the mandarins in national politics whether Obama and Clinton are more "Civil" than Trump, I'm pretty sure the answer will be near unanimous and spittle-flecked.
In much of the country, the answer to that question is not obvious or the answer is still on balance Trump.
Comparing the president to his predecessor or political opposition for the purpose of putting their words and actions in context, once the most basic aspect of political analysis, is now frequently said to be off-limits because Trump is sui generis even when he's not.
If you're continually surprised we've arrived at a point where much of the country doesn't regard Trump's rhetoric as disqualifying, you haven't been paying attention.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/24/why-its-not-surprising-voters-dont-think-trumps-rhetoric-is-disqualifying/
No comments:
Post a Comment