One of the most often used right-wing attacks against President Obama during his eight years in office was that he was so “divisive”. According to them, he was really bad on this. He divided people according to their racial and ethnic identity and then set them against each other. His rhetoric was so one-sided and inflammatory that they blamed him for the shooting of police officers. “He had blood on his hands.”
The right, using rhetoric that was very one-sided and extremely inflammatory, painted that picture of Obama. See the irony there? The talking heads on the radio, internet and Fox News kept a constant drumbeat going, ever since Obama appeared on the national stage, promoting this propaganda. There’s a lot more irony in the tale I’m about to tell. But the word “irony” implies something contrary to what one would expect, and if you know anything about the right-wingers I’m taking about, this is exactly what one would expect. “Hypocrisy” is a more fitting word.
You see, these are the same right-wingers who love Donald Trump. And what do they love most about The Donald? His very one-sided and extremely inflammatory rhetoric, of course. What makes this hypocrisy particularly disgusting is the nature of Trump's rhetoric when you compare it to Obama's.
If you examine the words used by Obama at the times he was accused of “divisive and inflammatory rhetoric” you will find them to be careful, measured, reasonable, restrained and invariably balanced with both points of view. That the right-wingers can take these words and twist them so grotesquely is tantamount to a disgusting lie. They have done this not only on issues of race but on many other matters. Like when he goes to other countries and apologizes for America — he never apologized. Or when he said to business owners “you didn’t build that” (their businesses) — he said the exact opposite, three times in that "conversation."
Here’s an example of when Fox News had a Cleveland Detective on the air so he could accuse Obama of being responsible for the awful Baton Rouge shootings of police officers last year (three killed, three injured). “It’s reprehensible. And the President of the United States has blood on his hands that will not be able to come washed off.” He was referring to statements made by Obama, previous to the Baton Rouge shootings, about the senseless shooting of Philando Castile by a police officer during a traffic stop. This Cleveland cop was not alone. The entire right-wing hate machine was accusing Obama. What did the race baiting Obama say about the officer who fired seven gunshots at Mr Castile after Castile told him he was carrying a firearm? Did Obama rant and rave, Trump-like? Did he angrily accuse the cop of being a racist murderer?
Nah. Obama was his usual calm measured self:
So if this is the standard right-wingers use to measure inciteful speech, what are we to make of Trump’s language? The difference between Trump and Obama in content, tone and intent is like night and day. Or black and white, if you prefer. (Interestingly, that’s obviously the difference racist type conservatives see. Obama is inciting hatred because he’s black. Trump’s just telling the truth because he’s white)
Just check out any of Obama’s statements on these matters and you’ll see they are always reasonable and almost always factual. He never made a really bad misstatement that I know of. His tone is always calm and non-accusatory. And most importantly, his intent was not to anger people but to calm them by acknowledging the feelings on both sides of the issue.
Trump is the exact opposite. Trump has become infamous for his outlandish statements. His reasoning is batty. And how can we even begin to describe the sheer volume of his proven to be false statements. He is the single greatest promoter of Fake News. Ever.
And, most importantly, his intent is precisely to anger people — so he can manipulate them. And what is his favorite way to get people angry? Scapegoating non-white people using loathsome, outrageous falsehoods. He divides people according to their racial, ethnic and religious identity and sets them against each other. He’s the Divider-in-Chief.
The fake stories he uses (which he gets from the right-wing/alt-right/white-racist media) to slander non-whites aren’t just false. They are monumentally false.
He started this last campaign by repeating the right-wing fake news story that Mexico deliberately sends it’s worst criminals into our country. Politifact (as well as other fact-checkers) did a well researched fact-check and rated the claim “Pants on Fire.”
He said, in effect, that most, if not all, Mexican undocumented immigrants are drug bringing criminal rapists. The New York Times and many other news organizations cited statistics from various organizations like the Migration Policy Institute that show only 2.7% of undocumented immigrants have been convicted of a felony compared with 6% of the overall population.
Despite these facts, Trump not only wants you to believe his fake news story about criminal Mexicans, he wants you to think that they are after you white people. He has paraded out crime victims of illegal immigrants who are almost all white. But it is a well known fact that the vast majority of crimes committed by all racial/ethnic groups are committed against those same groups because most crime victims know their attacker. As Politifact stated, “these trends have been observed for decades.”
You’d think that Trump, an avid news watcher, would know this. But then he saw a fake news site that reported outrageously false Black on White murder statistics which exaggerated the percentage of Black killers by a factor of 5.4 times. The site was traced to some neo-Nazi scumbag who wrote “Should have listened to the Austrian chap with the little mustache.” Like all the other times Trump came across a right-wing/alt-right/racist-right fake news story, he bought it hook, line and sinker then promoted it like it had his name on it.
Interestingly, he re-tweeted this gem the day after a black activist was kicked and punched by supporters at a Trump rally in Alabama. Trump said “maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.” (The man was shouting “Black lives matter.”) So it looks like Trump was looking for stronger justification for the assault... see what these black thugs are like? They all want to kill you!
Then we have the infamous fake story that “thousands and thousands” of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated the 9/11 attack as the world Trade Center came down. Again, a falsehood of monumental proportions that had been going around the right-wing/alt-right/racist-right fake news media for years. Trump was called out on it immediately because of its obvious falsity. But the right-wing/alt-right/racist-right media came to Trump’s defense with “proof” that this was true. They found several reports of uncorroborated allegations of small groups of people celebrating. Police investigators took no action. Trump supporters called the radio stations swearing they saw small groups of Muslims celebrating, too. See? Trump was right! The only thing is, even if we accept these unverified allegations, Trump and his supporters are still short by a factor of “thousands and thousands.”
The right, using rhetoric that was very one-sided and extremely inflammatory, painted that picture of Obama. See the irony there? The talking heads on the radio, internet and Fox News kept a constant drumbeat going, ever since Obama appeared on the national stage, promoting this propaganda. There’s a lot more irony in the tale I’m about to tell. But the word “irony” implies something contrary to what one would expect, and if you know anything about the right-wingers I’m taking about, this is exactly what one would expect. “Hypocrisy” is a more fitting word.
You see, these are the same right-wingers who love Donald Trump. And what do they love most about The Donald? His very one-sided and extremely inflammatory rhetoric, of course. What makes this hypocrisy particularly disgusting is the nature of Trump's rhetoric when you compare it to Obama's.
If you examine the words used by Obama at the times he was accused of “divisive and inflammatory rhetoric” you will find them to be careful, measured, reasonable, restrained and invariably balanced with both points of view. That the right-wingers can take these words and twist them so grotesquely is tantamount to a disgusting lie. They have done this not only on issues of race but on many other matters. Like when he goes to other countries and apologizes for America — he never apologized. Or when he said to business owners “you didn’t build that” (their businesses) — he said the exact opposite, three times in that "conversation."
Here’s an example of when Fox News had a Cleveland Detective on the air so he could accuse Obama of being responsible for the awful Baton Rouge shootings of police officers last year (three killed, three injured). “It’s reprehensible. And the President of the United States has blood on his hands that will not be able to come washed off.” He was referring to statements made by Obama, previous to the Baton Rouge shootings, about the senseless shooting of Philando Castile by a police officer during a traffic stop. This Cleveland cop was not alone. The entire right-wing hate machine was accusing Obama. What did the race baiting Obama say about the officer who fired seven gunshots at Mr Castile after Castile told him he was carrying a firearm? Did Obama rant and rave, Trump-like? Did he angrily accuse the cop of being a racist murderer?
Nah. Obama was his usual calm measured self:
"When incidents like this occur, there’s a big chunk of our citizenry that feels as if, because of the color of their skin, they are not being treated the same, and that hurts, and that should trouble all of us,” Obama said in a statement the following day. “This is not just a black issue, not just a Hispanic issue. This is an American issue that we all should care about.”
So if this is the standard right-wingers use to measure inciteful speech, what are we to make of Trump’s language? The difference between Trump and Obama in content, tone and intent is like night and day. Or black and white, if you prefer. (Interestingly, that’s obviously the difference racist type conservatives see. Obama is inciting hatred because he’s black. Trump’s just telling the truth because he’s white)
Just check out any of Obama’s statements on these matters and you’ll see they are always reasonable and almost always factual. He never made a really bad misstatement that I know of. His tone is always calm and non-accusatory. And most importantly, his intent was not to anger people but to calm them by acknowledging the feelings on both sides of the issue.
Trump is the exact opposite. Trump has become infamous for his outlandish statements. His reasoning is batty. And how can we even begin to describe the sheer volume of his proven to be false statements. He is the single greatest promoter of Fake News. Ever.
And, most importantly, his intent is precisely to anger people — so he can manipulate them. And what is his favorite way to get people angry? Scapegoating non-white people using loathsome, outrageous falsehoods. He divides people according to their racial, ethnic and religious identity and sets them against each other. He’s the Divider-in-Chief.
The fake stories he uses (which he gets from the right-wing/alt-right/white-racist media) to slander non-whites aren’t just false. They are monumentally false.
He started this last campaign by repeating the right-wing fake news story that Mexico deliberately sends it’s worst criminals into our country. Politifact (as well as other fact-checkers) did a well researched fact-check and rated the claim “Pants on Fire.”
He said, in effect, that most, if not all, Mexican undocumented immigrants are drug bringing criminal rapists. The New York Times and many other news organizations cited statistics from various organizations like the Migration Policy Institute that show only 2.7% of undocumented immigrants have been convicted of a felony compared with 6% of the overall population.
Despite these facts, Trump not only wants you to believe his fake news story about criminal Mexicans, he wants you to think that they are after you white people. He has paraded out crime victims of illegal immigrants who are almost all white. But it is a well known fact that the vast majority of crimes committed by all racial/ethnic groups are committed against those same groups because most crime victims know their attacker. As Politifact stated, “these trends have been observed for decades.”
You’d think that Trump, an avid news watcher, would know this. But then he saw a fake news site that reported outrageously false Black on White murder statistics which exaggerated the percentage of Black killers by a factor of 5.4 times. The site was traced to some neo-Nazi scumbag who wrote “Should have listened to the Austrian chap with the little mustache.” Like all the other times Trump came across a right-wing/alt-right/racist-right fake news story, he bought it hook, line and sinker then promoted it like it had his name on it.
Interestingly, he re-tweeted this gem the day after a black activist was kicked and punched by supporters at a Trump rally in Alabama. Trump said “maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.” (The man was shouting “Black lives matter.”) So it looks like Trump was looking for stronger justification for the assault... see what these black thugs are like? They all want to kill you!
Then we have the infamous fake story that “thousands and thousands” of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated the 9/11 attack as the world Trade Center came down. Again, a falsehood of monumental proportions that had been going around the right-wing/alt-right/racist-right fake news media for years. Trump was called out on it immediately because of its obvious falsity. But the right-wing/alt-right/racist-right media came to Trump’s defense with “proof” that this was true. They found several reports of uncorroborated allegations of small groups of people celebrating. Police investigators took no action. Trump supporters called the radio stations swearing they saw small groups of Muslims celebrating, too. See? Trump was right! The only thing is, even if we accept these unverified allegations, Trump and his supporters are still short by a factor of “thousands and thousands.”
How many is “thousands and thousands” anyway? I’ve asked several people their opinion because even Trump’s critics were low balling that number. Politifact generously assumed that Trump meant only two thousand. They printed this graph to illustrate how that number compared with the most credible report they could find — eight men celebrating on a rooftop:
I read a Breitbart article that defended Trump. The writer was attacking the Washington Post fact checker for giving Trump four Pinocchios for that whopper. You see, a Washington Post article from back then was found about allegations of a “tailgate style party” on an apartment rooftop which the fact checker failed to mention. So, sure Trump had “exaggerated” but that fact checker was a liar! The Breitbart writer then engaged in some interesting logic that unintentionally exposed the true nature of Trump’s monstrous lie. He said, yeah, so Trump exaggerated somewhat but those “dozens” of celebrators represented many more Muslims who felt just like them but didn’t actually come out to celebrate.
But Trump said “Thousands AND thousands”. Other people suggested that number should be ten thousand or twenty thousand or fifty thousand or even more. Well I heard Trump himself tell us how many “thousand and thousands” are. Remember when he was complaining that the International climate agreement required participating countries to contribute a total of 100 billion dollars? He later referred to that number (100 billion) as “billions and billions and billions.” So, simple arithmetic says he meant 66 thousand Muslims celebrated. And he saw it on TV.
I read a Breitbart article that defended Trump. The writer was attacking the Washington Post fact checker for giving Trump four Pinocchios for that whopper. You see, a Washington Post article from back then was found about allegations of a “tailgate style party” on an apartment rooftop which the fact checker failed to mention. So, sure Trump had “exaggerated” but that fact checker was a liar! The Breitbart writer then engaged in some interesting logic that unintentionally exposed the true nature of Trump’s monstrous lie. He said, yeah, so Trump exaggerated somewhat but those “dozens” of celebrators represented many more Muslims who felt just like them but didn’t actually come out to celebrate.
He had no real proof of even “dozens” of celebrators and even less proof that an exponential number of Muslims felt the same way. But if Trump wants his supporters to believe that the actual number was indeed “thousands and thousands” as he continued to insist even in the face of common sense and the lack of evidence, what does he want them to think about the Muslim American population in general? By your own logic, Mr Breitbart writer, Trump wants them to think that practically all the Muslims in this country want all of us non Muslims to die. That would justify the ban, the registry of Muslims and the crackdown on mosques he wants.
If you google “Obama most divisive President in history” you will find 388,000 results with countless Republicans and conservatives offering this opinion. According to them, race is the issue Obama is most divisive on. By their own measure, do you think Trump has Obama beat? Do you think they would admit it? Should we be referring to Trump as The Divider-in-Chief from now on?
Trump is the all time master of divisiveness (since the Civil War. He just might be leading us into another one). Do you know who has been doing a pretty good job of dividing people by race for years, now? Republicans and conservatives. Think of a typical Republican rally. Looks like they did a pretty good job of dividing out the non-whites from the whites, doesn't it? But Trump has now made the Republican tent bigger. He's invited the KKK, the Neo-Nazis and the Alt-Right in and made them feel joyful and welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment