I posted the below on another forum on October 17th last year. And I meant it then. It received a lot of favorable comment also — some of it national. I wonder what you all think of it in light of the recent demonstrations in Washington.
Here’s the post:
A LANGUAGE PET PEEVE — This has always driven me kind of crazy. It’s a quote from one of our crowd in [Name edited out]’s recent, EXCELLENT post about wrestling over her upcoming Presidential vote.
Someone posted something to the effect that, “the one thing i struggle with is the idea that voting for trump will somehow slow or stop this trend. if anything, he’s such an incendiary figure i suspect he brings out the worst in the left”
First of all, it should be remarked that Trump’s having smoked out what is the left’s “worst” is, indeed, a public service. If you bring out the worst in MOST people, you’ll likely get a stern glare. You will NOT be canceled, fired, slandered, assaulted, maligned or injured in any way whatsoever. It’s GOOD that we know what the Left are capable of!
That aside, here’s what I’ve observed: Trump is bombastic, pompous, ego-filled, an alpha male used to having his own way, decisive (for good or ill), and rather centrist… but he’s NOT incendiary. Absent long-debunked media lies and distortions, he’s NEVER, as President, said anything that should upset ANYONE beyond the INDIVIDUALS he’s openly criticized. He’s never — in his life — said anything (that I’M aware of) that’s racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or anti-ANY GROUP whatsoever.
Want to know why? Easy: There’s nothing in Trump’s more than four-decade public record that suggests that he IS anti-ANY group!
Individuals? Sure, there’s plenty of that! I guess you could find that in the record of ANYONE who’s EVER made more than a few million bucks in a competitive industry.
Look, I don’t like the guy, but he’s EXACTLY as “incendiary” as the Dems and the media have chosen to make him out to be.
You can be as “incendiary” as you want, but if the target or targets of your incendiari-ness (Incendiarity? Incendiariousness?) chooses NOT to be incensed, then YOU’RE not at ALL “incendiary.” Like many things, “incendiary” goes two ways.
Trump is “incendiary,” because the Dems and the entire political left CHOOSE for him to be incendiary, and decided to hang that label, and others, on him. All part of the American media’s ongoing Big Lie.
It’s the same with that ubiquitous term: “divisive.” Again, Trump is every bit as divisive as the media and the Dems choose for him to be. They decided to transform a loudmouthed blowhard, a ridiculously successful New York businessman, who somehow was able to work with EVERYONE before, into a “divisive, incendiary” monster. A David Duke-esque figure who’d somehow managed to conceal his MASSIVE bigotry sufficiently to make billions in real estate.
Imagine with me, if you will, the ACTUAL David Duke trying to make a fortune in New York real estate. Wouldn’t happen.
One more such abused word: “Controversial.” Someone is controversial only to the extent that someone chooses to MAKE that person controversial.
For example, the KKK is no longer “controversial,” largely because (1) they almost don’t exist, but ALSO because (2) any controversy over them was resolved long ago.
They WERE controversial when they were the Democrat Party’s unofficial militia in the South, and we Republicans were making a lot of noise in condemnation of them.
Along with “incendiary,” BOTH “divisive” AND “controversial” go two ways also.
So, Trump is “incendiary?” “Divisive?” “Controversial?”
I mean it’s not as if he’s been hiding in the shadows for 40 years! The dude HAS a LOOOOOOOOOONG public record. It’s a public record showing him arm-in-arm with the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and other luminaries of the Race Grievance Left. Those same people who now automatically call him a racist.
Again, I don’t like the dude, but he’s NOT a racist. If anything he’s kind of a loudmouthed, pompous, bombastic… squish. His policies are resolutely… middle-ish of the road.
The policies that are supposedly “right-wing” (banning Critical Race Theory in government training, for example) are mere statements of the obvious: CRT is NUTSO! Left, Right AND Center ought to be unanimous about that!
Being against CRT OUGHT to be like being against child molestation. In other words: NOT right-wing, but HUMAN!
That being against CRT IS RIGHT-wing, shows how very FAR to the Right the CENTER now is… compared, that is, to the still left-lurching Democrat Party.
The bottom line is that the MEDIA and the DEMOCRATS decided that Trump is “incendiary” and “divisive,” and “controversial.”
I would have thought, for example, that OBAMA was being divisive and incendiary when he told us all that “if I’d had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon.” Or, when he took sides in the controversy involving Henry Louis Gates, Jr. apparently breaking into his own home — both times LONG before any investigations had concluded.
It would have been difficult to have found clearer instances of trying to put a HEAVY Presidential thumb on the scales BEFORE any legal proceedings.
THOSE two things ALONE ought to have made Obama “divisive,” and “incendiary,” and “controversial.” They did not. Because the media chose not to use those words.
Then, Obama went around the world apologizing for America. It REALLY ticked THIS American off… as well as millions of others.
Like nearly all other Americans, I’ve never done anything (serious) wrong to anyone, and I didn’t like globe-trotting half-wits traipsing around, apologizing as if I had! Did Obama become divisive? Incendiary? Controversial? Nope.
Then, Obama looked us all in the eyes and lied to us about being able to keep our doctors under his proposed takeover of the American medical system. Divisive? Incendiary? Controversial? Nope. But, those who criticized the lies and the dissembling were “controversial,” divisive,” and “incendiary.”
Then, on Obama’s watch, four American diplomats were left to die at the hands of bloodthirsty goons in Libya, and his Secretary of State blamed an AMERICAN citizen, and an impossibly obscure video that NO ONE had ever seen. Divisive? Incendiary? Controversial? Nope. Again, the CRITICS were all those things.
Trump says mostly harmless words loudly, pompously and bombastically, then does mostly good, very much defensible, policy-making.
Obama said pretty words (mostly) quietly, then did policy-making that harmed tens, hundreds of millions of Americans. It is indeed arguable that EVERY single American is worse off for Obama’s having been the President — because the country as a whole was worse off when Obama left office.
Yet, OBAMA escaped that dismal record — harming more than 300 million Americans! — WITHOUT being “divisive” or “incendiary,” or “controversial.” Because the media decided to make this nitwit “Presidential,” and “Statesmanlike,” and “Dignified,” and ‘Unifying.”
A public figure is ACTUALLY only as “divisive” or “incendiary” or “controversial” as WE the PEOPLE CHOOSE to be divided or incensed or bothered by him.
OR… as the media decide to hoodwink our ovine gluteus maximi into believing that he is.