—STAND UP. 

 

…I’m two-thirds through The Booker Prize winning novel, “Prophet Song,” which is about a modern-day version of the Nazis, little by little, and with cunning strategy, taking over most of Europe, with hopes of eventually conquering the entire world.

It’s a gripping book, but definitely leads to anxiety.

Sadly, it also feels prescient, much as “The Handmaid’s Tale” does. 

 

I never really get political here, and I might lose quite a few readers for this, but doesn’t everybody have to try to expose lunacy when they encounter it? Why would anyone want T (I have vowed to never write his name) to be President? For the life of me, I can’t understand it. And he’s supposedly a Christian, the same one who calls his former UN Ambassador “Bird Brain.” He branded Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas.” He calls our current President “Crooked Joe,” too lame to come up with something different than the “Crooked Hilary” tag he used to use. He makes fun of Joe’s stuttering. He mocks his gaffes and questions his state of mind when T’s own father suffered from Alzheimer’s. It’s all such a shame.  

I mean, who does that? A Christian? Would we be fine with our children poking fun of others? Would we be fine with them ridiculing their opponents? Women? Making up flagrant lies? Vowing to punish our rivals until they were “dust”? Refusing to label injustice, injustice (Navalny)? Offering to pardon insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol and killed a policeman, instead labeling them “Patriots”? Calling immigrants “Animals”? Bullying critics? Endless lying? Would Jesus do any of those things, and the countless others T has done, and does on a daily basis? I don’t think so.

Some Christian…

He’s an entitled, pampered toddler, with an ego so big he couldn’t fit it into the Grand Canyon, yet he’s adored by a flock of, sadly, bamboozled followers who, if we’re speaking Christianese, “Know not what they do.” 

 

…T is dangerous. Very dangerous. He’s a flaming narcissist, a pathological liar, not very smart whatsoever, though he has somehow hoodwinked the labor middleclass while hijacking the American flag. He doesn’t care about America at all. All he cares about is himself. What’s there not to see, not to hear? Just listen, or watch that mf^cker for five minutes, if you can stand it that long. He’s borderline insane. I’m serious here. He is the epitome of a completely irrational and self-absorbed person with an entourage of people, near him or nearby, who suck his d*ck even though they know he’s a lying, cheating, scumbag.

 

The idea that any normal person would vote for him is revolting to me. The saddest thing wouldn’t be that he got RE-elected, but that human beings, with functional brains, actually voted for him. 

 

There are literally thousands of examples I could cite to bolster this case, but here’s a current one, which again, underscores what a threat he is. 

 

In an interview with Donald Trump that aired over the weekend, Fox News host Howard Kurtz presented Trump with a not-exactly-novel theory: that Trump uses “over the top, sometimes inflammatory language” to draw attention.

Trump conceded that “if you don’t use certain words, that maybe are not very nice words, nothing will happen.”

The weekend provided ample evidence of that dynamic, particularly when Trump invited yet another tempest with his violent rhetoric. This time, he warned of a “bloodbath” if he loses in November. Trump’s allies claim he’s being taken out of context and unfairly attacked.

To recap: Appearing at a rally in Ohio, Trump riffed on his proposal for a 100 percent tariff on Chinese-made cars to protect the U.S. auto industry.

“Now, if I don’t get elected,” he continued, “it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.”

Here’s what we can say: Trump might indeed have been speaking metaphorically in this case. But the broader context here is vital. And that context is that Trump has repeatedly invoked the prospect of actual violence by his supporters while speaking about similar circumstances — his losing or facing criminal accountability, for example. We also saw a pronounced example of his supporters seizing on his rhetoric when they stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Which makes it much more difficult to dismiss the “bloodbath” comment as overheated rhetoric. Trump is, at the very least, deliberately playing with fire. And this is merely the most recent example.

Trump backers and even some conservative Trump critics dismissed the comment as, more or less, standard-issue political rhetoric. Some suggested that Trump was merely talking about a “bloodbath” for the auto industry (even though he was clearly saying the “bloodbath” would extend beyond that industry).

Regardless, a focus on the one word misses the point. It’s not that this isolated comment is particularly egregious; it’s that it is merely the latest example of this kind of rhetoric. And the rhetoric is often more direct:

• Trump in 2016 said that if he were denied the presidential nomination at the GOP convention, “I think you’d have riots.”
• Trump in November 2020 responded to an adverse ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by saying it would “induce violence in the streets.” (Trump later expanded, saying, “Bad things will happen, and bad things lead to other type things. It’s a very dangerous thing for our country.”)
• Trump warned last March of “potential death & destruction” if he were charged by the Manhattan district attorney. He also mocked those who urged his supporters to stay peaceful, saying, “OUR COUNTRY IS BEING DESTROYED, AS THEY TELL US TO BE PEACEFUL!”
• Trump warned in August, after the search of his Mar-a-Lago estate, that “terrible things are going to happen.” He later promoted a comment from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that there would be “riots in the streets” if Trump were charged.
• Trump in January warned of “bedlam in the country” if the criminal charges against him succeeded. Days earlier, he targeted efforts to remove him from the ballot using the 14th Amendment, saying: “Because if we don’t [get treated fairly], our country’s in big, big trouble. Does everybody understand what I’m saying? I think so.”

And this doesn’t even account for the many, many examples of his alluding more suggestively to righteous violence by his supporters. He does this a lot. Sometimes it’s direct; sometimes it’s veiled and carries with it the plausible deniability that he craves.

But is it really ridiculous to suggest that the guy who warned of “riots,” “violence in the streets” and “death & destruction” if he were wronged might be gesturing in that direction again? Of course not.

More than that, history gives weight to comments like these. And that history includes Trump’s supporters turning violent after the 2020 election — and after they appeared to interpret his comments as encouragement.

At a 2020 presidential debate, Trump was asked to repudiate violence by white supremacists and the Proud Boys, a far-right group. Trump responded by telling the Proud Boys not to “stand down,” as had been suggested, but to “stand back and stand by.” That set off a fuss similar to the one we see today, with Trump allies and media critics asserting that this was much ado about nothing — just some awkward phrasing! For days, Trump and his White House resisted calls to clarify.

Months later, the Proud Boys — who in real time appeared to interpret Trump’s comments as a call to action — played a central role in the Capitol insurrection.

Also interpreting Trump’s various comments as a call to action, according to their legal defenses: many other Jan. 6 defendants.

With that kind of history, it’s certainly a choice for Trump to keep talking like this.