0
0
0
Interesting thoughts from Dan Rather on Trump. I know the Facebook links sometimes don't work as expected so I'll repost it below.
The headlines of the moment are in the growing roll call of prominent Republicans who are rescinding their support for Donald Trump. But I am left wondering how his candidacy and those who supported, enabled it, and abetted him until now, will be viewed through the long lens of history. It should be noted that many conservative editorial boards and critics have already come out against Trump long before this latest bombshell in very stark terms.
Apparently everyone has a line, and yet do you feel things would be different if all of these politicians thought Trump could still win in November?
And what should we make of all the other groups who have been insulted and marginalized by Trump and yet his supporters stood by him?
He attacked Mexicans as rapists and murderers - but that was not enough.
He called for barring Muslims from entering the country - but that was not enough.
He incited violence in his rallies - but that was not enough.
He publicly mocked the disabled - but that was not enough.
He retweeted anti-Semitic memes - but that was not enough.
He demeaned a Gold Star Family - but that was not enough.
He insulted the press and railed against their Constitutional freedoms - but that was not enough.
He said that those who suffer from PTSD were weak - but that was not enough.
He had a long history of misogynist and sexist comments - but that was not enough.
He repeatedly lied on issues big and small - but that was not enough.
He refused to release his tax records or health records - but that was not enough.
He joked about violence against his political rival - but that was not enough.
I could go on, and I ask you to do so in the comments section. Perhaps we can tag it with #butthatwasnotenough.
I know some equate Donald Trump with Nazisim - that goes too far for me. But in recent hours I have been hearing echoes of the chilling poem by the German anti-Nazi theologian Martin Niemöller about the culpability of his country's elite in the rise of Nazism.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
America's better nature has always been to speak out for the marginalized and dispossessed. It is an ideal for which we have all too often fallen far short. What about now?
The headlines of the moment are in the growing roll call of prominent Republicans who are rescinding their support for Donald Trump. But I am left wondering how his candidacy and those who supported, enabled it, and abetted him until now, will be viewed through the long lens of history. It should be noted that many conservative editorial boards and critics have already come out against Trump long before this latest bombshell in very stark terms.
Apparently everyone has a line, and yet do you feel things would be different if all of these politicians thought Trump could still win in November?
And what should we make of all the other groups who have been insulted and marginalized by Trump and yet his supporters stood by him?
He attacked Mexicans as rapists and murderers - but that was not enough.
He called for barring Muslims from entering the country - but that was not enough.
He incited violence in his rallies - but that was not enough.
He publicly mocked the disabled - but that was not enough.
He retweeted anti-Semitic memes - but that was not enough.
He demeaned a Gold Star Family - but that was not enough.
He insulted the press and railed against their Constitutional freedoms - but that was not enough.
He said that those who suffer from PTSD were weak - but that was not enough.
He had a long history of misogynist and sexist comments - but that was not enough.
He repeatedly lied on issues big and small - but that was not enough.
He refused to release his tax records or health records - but that was not enough.
He joked about violence against his political rival - but that was not enough.
I could go on, and I ask you to do so in the comments section. Perhaps we can tag it with #butthatwasnotenough.
I know some equate Donald Trump with Nazisim - that goes too far for me. But in recent hours I have been hearing echoes of the chilling poem by the German anti-Nazi theologian Martin Niemöller about the culpability of his country's elite in the rise of Nazism.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
America's better nature has always been to speak out for the marginalized and dispossessed. It is an ideal for which we have all too often fallen far short. What about now?
Dan Rather | Facebook
Posted from facebook.com
Election 2016
Republicans
Donald Trump
Democrats
Democracy
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 7
5
5
0
Never had much respect for Dan Rather and I now have less. His list is a compendium of Leftist lies used to discredit Trump. He didn't attack Mexicans as rapists. Never did. He merely observed (truthfully) that criminals were among the unvetted illegal aliens that were not only entering the nation but also being allowed to remain. He called for barring Muslims from entering the nation? Actually, Muslim refugees among whom are hidden Jihadists (which we have seen happening here and abroad). He incited violence at his rallies? Oh, this is one of the most disingenuous lies on the list. Trump opponents brought violence to his rallies attacking all, even little old ladies. And the list goes on. No. I'd rather Rather shut up.
(5)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
[Cpt Jack Durish] That is certainly one way of interpreting his statements. I'd argue that Trump is very good at double entendre. I'd also agree Rather would have been more accurate if he stated, "He attacked Mexican immigrants as rapists and murderers - but that was not enough." Trump was clearly talking about immigrants there and Rather left that bit out.
As far as inciting violence here is one example of what he said:
"In the good old days this doesn't happen because they used to treat them very, very rough, and when they protested once, they would not do it again so easily ... we've become weak."
I'm sure there are ways to read this where he isn't implying that we are now weak for roughing up protesters at his events and implying that perhaps we shouldn't be so weak. It doesn't matter if others came in protesting him first, that doesn't justify vigilantism. That's the whole double entendre portion of all his statements. You can find a way to explain them away while those that are looking to hear certain things will hear those things.
As far as inciting violence here is one example of what he said:
"In the good old days this doesn't happen because they used to treat them very, very rough, and when they protested once, they would not do it again so easily ... we've become weak."
I'm sure there are ways to read this where he isn't implying that we are now weak for roughing up protesters at his events and implying that perhaps we shouldn't be so weak. It doesn't matter if others came in protesting him first, that doesn't justify vigilantism. That's the whole double entendre portion of all his statements. You can find a way to explain them away while those that are looking to hear certain things will hear those things.
(0)
(0)
COL William Oseles
SPC Kevin Ford - The whole thing about what you are calling "double entendre" is that you take away what you want to hear.
And the media is lapping it up. If Trump were to look out side and say "Gee, those clouds are white" they would proclaim he is talking about white power. If Trump said "Gee, those clouds are dark" while looking at storm clouds they would loudly proclaim he was speaking in a derogatory manner about minorities.
When the media is as biased as they are and proudly proclaiming it ANYTHING he says will be interpreted in the most negative light.
And Dan rather has a proven track record of being willing to push lies to attack the republicans or conservatives.
And the media is lapping it up. If Trump were to look out side and say "Gee, those clouds are white" they would proclaim he is talking about white power. If Trump said "Gee, those clouds are dark" while looking at storm clouds they would loudly proclaim he was speaking in a derogatory manner about minorities.
When the media is as biased as they are and proudly proclaiming it ANYTHING he says will be interpreted in the most negative light.
And Dan rather has a proven track record of being willing to push lies to attack the republicans or conservatives.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
COL William Oseles - The problem is there are lots of groups walking away with what they want to hear, not just the media. It isn't that he is saying clear things and people are deliberately misinterpreting them, it's that he says things deliberately that can be taken several different ways so he can feed red meat to his base and avoid responsibility for what he is saying.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Dan Rather is one of those things that keep floating to the top of the punch bowl. I would simply note that speaking out for the marginalized and dispossessed doesn't do the square root of zero for them. That's a Democratic Party problem. They talk a good game but the marginalized and dispossessed end up ... still marginalized and dispossessed.
I don't particularly like Trump. Have even less use for Dan Rather. I detest the cuckquean. I fear the effect of a cuckquean-filled liberal Supreme Court on our country. Trump has my vote ... not with great enthusiasm ... but for sure.
I don't particularly like Trump. Have even less use for Dan Rather. I detest the cuckquean. I fear the effect of a cuckquean-filled liberal Supreme Court on our country. Trump has my vote ... not with great enthusiasm ... but for sure.
(3)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
I have allways though that cuck and cuckqueen are terms used only by men who are terrified and/or despise women, I have not seen any reason to change my mind,
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr - Then you've always thought wrong. The term is "cuckquean", not "cuckqueen" ... The term cuckquean is the gender-opposite term of cuckold, derived from Middle English (1562 CE). Cuckquean refers to a woman with an adulterous husband. I believe that even Democrats would have to agree that that is an appropriate label for Mrs. Clinton. Don't know what a "cuck" is ... never heard the term except very recently as an abbreviation for "cuckhold" ... not applicable here.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
And Hillary as SecState seriously asked if they could "Drone" one of her critics, as with Hillary has recently been exposed.
But the media do not think that is newsworthy.
IF that had been a republican Dan Rather would have been all over it.
But the media do not think that is newsworthy.
IF that had been a republican Dan Rather would have been all over it.
(2)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
I believe the context of this report is that they were discussing options for dealing with someone releasing classified information, not because he was a Hillary critic. That would come later.
Having said that, if true, drone striking someone for releasing classified information probably isn't an appropriate response unless there was a serious danger to national security (which I doubt). I'd hope the Obama legal team chimed in, "Yeah, that may not be such a great idea."
Having said that, if true, drone striking someone for releasing classified information probably isn't an appropriate response unless there was a serious danger to national security (which I doubt). I'd hope the Obama legal team chimed in, "Yeah, that may not be such a great idea."
(0)
(0)
COL William Oseles
She was POed with Julian Astrange because he was releasing information from HER server, which according to her contained no classified information. According to the latest released notes her staff thought she was joking and they got real quiet when they saw she was being serious.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google