Left unaddressed: How is it possible to hate a man like this and not hate those he represents? Issue advocacy voters elected Donald Trump because what he pledged in his campaign resonated with their values and the direction they’re determined to see the country move in.
The hatred is not just reserved for the president, as demonstrated after the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise and others during practice for a charity baseball game by an (“alleged”) leftist loon and Bernie Sanders supporter. And the excuse-making, finger-pointing and outright rejoicing by (“confirmed”) leftist loons drives home the point that the “suspect” is not alone in his malevolent hatred of all things not “progressive.”
“[I]t is clear that we have a divide, a major divide in America that does not seem surmountable,” talk radio host Rush Limbaugh observed. “It does not seem reparable. It does not seem like it is possible or even likely to find any common ground, when many Americans think that their number one enemy is the other political party, which is a fact on the left. Scary times.”
Ah, but the REAL question is: is it desirable to find “common ground” with those who seek to rob us of our birthright of freedom and enslave us? As I’ve said so many times here: if you wish to compromise with the Left, which of your basic rights and liberties are you willing to give up? Free speech? The 2A? Trial by jury of your peers? The Ninth and Tenth both are already dead letters, and the Progtards want ’em all.
Compromise? Been way too much of that already, if you ask me. Especially if by “compromise” you mean “rolling over and giving the Left what it wants, and getting absolutely NOTHING in return,” that is. Which, up till now, is what it ALWAYS means.
“Draining the swamp means not only ejecting Trump from the presidency, but also bringing himself and everyone assisting in his agenda up on charges of treason,” Huffington Post commentator Jason Fuller declared, confirming that assessment. “They must be convicted (there is little room to doubt their guilt). And then—upon receiving guilty verdicts—they must all be executed under the law.
“Anything less than capital punishment—or at least life imprisonment without parole in a maximum security detention facility—would send yet another message to the world that America has lost its moral compass,” he elaborated in a lunatic screed that was approved by the editors and only pulled down after they were embarrassed by the outraged backlash.
If you were a Trump supporter, that’s you Fuller is talking about. That’s what he and those like him really want for you, for any family members who agree with you, for your friends and neighbors, and essentially for all in “red state/flyover” America. They want it for everyone who has committed the heresy of rejecting “progressivism” and instead chosen to support a Constitution delegating limited powers and declaring rights off limits from government encroachment.
This type of Killing Fields precursor is the kind of “thought” put out on a leading “progressive” opinion website, one with millions of regular readers, and one that garnered all kinds of supportive comments. The answer to Los Angeles Riots catalyst Rodney King’s plaintive “Can we all get along?” plea becomes clear.
What do you think? Is getting along possible with people who want you tried for treason or simply killed outright?
And I repeat: forget “possible”—is it even desirable? Did anybody ever think to ask the Jews in the middle of the Holocaust if a way might not be found to “get along” with Hitler?
When some “entertainer” symbolically executes Donald Trump, or some “pundit” makes excuses for it and reverses the blame, we need to ask ourselves what it is about the man they hate so much. The answer is the policies he says he stands for. That means they hate those who agree with those policies. He’s the symbol, an avatar of sorts, for all those who chose the vision of America he articulated over what Hillary Clinton offered.
Precisely so. It is by no means all about Trump; that’s what frustrates them so, it’s what has driven them over the edge. It’s US: those of us who voted for Trump, who want to see the swamp drained and the Deep State dismantled, who want to see the status quo upended for real this time. Those of us who still support him and ignore every successive manufactured scandal and conjured-up misstep or gaffe, no matter how loud they scream about it. WE’RE the real target of the Hater Left; Trump is merely a figurehead in a way, an icon. Ultimately, it’s US they really intend to destroy.
We are not now and will never be onboard with the Progressivist program of top-down tyranny, of unyielding central control not just of the economy, but of our very lives, down to the most infinitesimal detail. Our rejection of that control is (correctly) seen by them as not just a repudiation of their politics, but a denial of their assumed right and fitness to rule over us; since, as they’ve always said, the personal is political for them, it amounts to a direct denial of their supposedly superior intellect, a dire insult hurled right at their sense of self.
These aren’t people who can agree to disagree, make their case as best they can, and should they lose, walk away to fight another day with respect and tolerance granted to their opposition. It simply is not in ’em; unlike those of us who don’t grant politics a central role in our very self-identity and have no wish to, politics is who they are. For them, the personal is political, sure enough…but the political is also personal, too. How could it be otherwise, for people whose most intense desire is for an all-powerful State directing our every move? Maybe Mussolini said it best: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
And if you think it’s a coincidence that they cleave so entirely to a phrase coined by a long-dead, raddled old fascist dictator, well, you don’t know them well enough, bub.
Given all that, who could be surprised that they truly, sincerely want to kill us? Far from being a transgression, it would have to seem almost like a moral imperative to them.
I need to throw in a quote from the Coulter column mentioned above, too:
After a Bernie Sanders supporter tried to commit mass murder last week — the second homicidal Bernie supporter so far this year — the media blamed President Trump for lowering the bar on heated political rhetoric by calling his campaign opponents cruel names like “Crooked Hillary” and “Lyin’ Ted.”
As soon as any conservative responds to Trump’s belittling names for his rivals by erupting in a murderous rage, that will be a fantastically good point. But until then, it’s idiotic. Unlike liberals, conservatives aren’t easily incited to violence by words.
What we’re seeing is the following: Prominent liberals repeatedly tell us, with deadly seriousness, that Trump and his supporters are: “Hitler,” “fascists,” “bigots,” “haters,” “racists,” “terrorists,” “criminals” and “white supremacists,” which is then followed by liberals physically attacking conservatives.
To talk about “both sides” being guilty of provocative rhetoric is like talking about “both genders” being guilty of rape.
Nearly every op-ed writer at The New York Times has compared Trump to Hitler. (The conservative on the op-ed page merely called him a “proto-fascist.”) If Trump is Hitler and his supporters Nazis, then the rational course of action for any civilized person is to kill them.
That’s not just a theory, it’s the result.
Liberals know damn well that their audience includes a not-insignificant portion of foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics, prepared, at the slightest provocation, to smash windows, burn down neighborhoods, physically attack and even murder conservatives. But instead of toning down the rhetoric, the respectable left keeps throwing matches on the bone-dry tinder, and then indignantly asks, “Are you saying conservatives don’t do it, too?”
No, actually. We don’t.
Not yet, we don’t. But I expect that to change before a whole lot longer; there would seem to be no other way of stopping them. And even the most timorous of curs will take being beaten for only so long before he decides to bite back.
They’re fascists, plain and simple. They’re filled with hate; they recognize no ethical or practical limits on their behavior, and they are undeniably prone to violence when they are hindered, thwarted, or even verbally contradicted. They intend to rule us, and they are not bothered in the least by the prospect of killing us in job lots if they have to. They assume that if they dispense with the most recalcitrant among us, the more meek of us will then be cowed into going along at last. If not, well, the meek can all join us in the Killing Fields.
We’re going to find out if that assumption is correct. It is NOT going to be pretty.
Hey, it’s not as if their ideological brethren haven’t done it before, you know.