View Full Version : Trump and his dog whistle
Have you noticed that sometimes, when someone says to him that what he's insisting on having done, might not be approved? He says things like "Well, I think there will be a revolt".
I'm sure that fires up his base, which could mean violence and not peaceful protesting. I think when he says things like that, he's sending a message to his base about how to handle it.
iris lilies
12-14-18, 11:38am
Violence and not-peaceful protesting.kinda the norm around here in St. Louis/Ferugson area. But it isnt instigated by Donald Trump.
will you let me know when the Trump-inspired revolt starts up?
Teacher Terry
12-14-18, 11:49am
I think both Cathy and IL are right. Violence has been happening for a long time however we have never had a president encourage it before. So I think he is indirectly responsible for inciting the crazies to do more violence.
I think both Cathy and IL are right. Violence has been happening for a long time however we have never had a president encourage it before. So I think he is indirectly responsible for inciting the crazies to do more violence.. Yes TT, I agree. There is a lot of daily shootings and murders in a big city near me, but those guys probably don’t even know who Trump is. But some of the people who voted for him probably listen To most everything he says and can read between his lines.
I think it is quite irresponsible of a President to suggest "revolt" to deflect.
When a Donald Trump or a Maxine Waters say something stupid or irresponsible, I think it’s legitimate to call them stupid and irresponsible.
When people act stupidly or irresponsibly, I blame the bad actors. I do think it’s not possible to make a direct connection to one’s words and another’s deeds without drifting in the direction of thought crime. Too often, the people hearing the dog whistle are those in the opposing camp looking to blacken the name of someone they don’t like.
Teacher Terry
12-15-18, 1:35pm
I think it’s giving a unstable person permission to do something they may have thought about. They feel justified if someone in power is giving the nod.
I think it’s giving a unstable person permission to do something they may have thought about. They feel justified if someone in power is giving the nod.
They may also feel justified if they see messages in their alphabet soup or decide a television character is speaking directly to them.
Attempting to assign blame to someone, however obnoxious they may be, for your interpretation of someone else’s interpretation of their words is way too circuitous a logical path to be of much use except as a rhetorical weapon. You could at some point blame any public figure for some crazed actions based on whatever dog whistle you claim to be hearing.
Teacher Terry
12-15-18, 2:38pm
Disagree L.
I disagree too. I'm pretty perceptive about behavior. I don't say these things about Trump because I'm not a conservative. I say them because he proves me right over and over and over, with his behavior, his talk, his actions. He's evil and doesn't give a crap about this country. He's a liar and loves to start fires and step back and watch them. He knows exactly what he's doing when he says there will be riots. I have no doubt.
iris lilies
12-15-18, 7:45pm
I disagree too. I'm pretty perceptive about behavior. I don't say these things about Trump because I'm not a conservative. I say them because he proves me right over and over and over, with his behavior, his talk, his actions. He's evil and doesn't give a crap about this country. He's a liar and loves to start fires and step back and watch them. He knows exactly what he's doing when he says there will be riots. I have no doubt.
Do you think Trump is personally satisfied at fhe riots we have in St. Louis? Rather than riots, perhaps some would call them “protests that got out of control” but when our police officers are injured in the things, to me, that is an MF riot.
There were trump supporters rioting in saint louis?
iris lilies
12-16-18, 3:21pm
There were trump supporters rioting in saint louis?
I dont know what CathyA means by “ riots” so I invite her to talk about that.
Trump has said that there will be a violent respomse from his supporters if he gets impeached. (Presumably he’s being characteristically sloppy with his words and actually meant impeached ANd convicted.)
IL.......I'm not quite sure why you're having trouble understanding what I said. I'm not saying that whatever Trump says, it causes violence/riots everywhere that aren't even related to what he said. If something he wants done (build a wall), doesn't happen, he says "Well, I think people will riot".......he's speaking to some of his base that they should think about rioting over whatever it is that he wants, but isn't getting. I think many of his supporters are quick to get angry and express it. He knows this and wants to use them to cause chaos. He's a total manipulator and knows how to get them riled up. He's conniving and I wouldn't put anything past him, to set a fire and take pleasure in watching the destruction.
I can't stand to listen to him anymore. Twitter feeds are ridiculous. Misspellings are embarrassing. His constant effort to drum up violence terribly inappropriate. His promises not happening. His constant berating of those whom were his chosen ones and then ordered to resign.
His Leadership lacks on so many spectrums:( we're the laughing stock of the earth.
Teacher Terry
12-16-18, 8:19pm
Well said G!
I don’t think the argument was that Donald Trump is a wonderful man. It was more about his (or anyone’s) power to make other people bad.
Unfortunately, a lot of people can't/don't/won't think for themselves very well, and they DO respond to others telling them how to behave.....or encourage them to behave in ways that were here-to-for kept in check.
Have you noticed that sometimes, when someone says to him that what he's insisting on having done, might not be approved? He says things like "Well, I think there will be a revolt".
I think Mr. T seriously overestimates the depth, if not the breadth, of his support among the majority of his base. I suppose there are some crackpots who would be willing to take up arms to avenge der fuhrer, but I really think that after his downfall all but a tiny minority would scream and shout for half a day and then start looking around for another simulacrum for their rage. He's just entertainment as far as most of them are concerned, and his demise would cause no more lasting pain to them than their team losing the playoffs or their favorite being voted off the island. Voting for Trump was their way of sticking their thumb in the eye of the establishment, but the reality show is starting to get old.
I hope you're right, oldhat. You make some good points.
It would seem the Democrats have a significant opportunity in 2020. Especially if we see another recession between now and then. If they can coalesce around a candidate with general appeal instead of surrendering to their baser urges or the urges of their more radical base, they could do well.
All that will be needed is a little political maturity. If they can avoid breaking up into a half dozen warring factions over identity politics, socialist fantasy and cults of personality, they could do very well.
It' does seem that 2020 is the dem's to lose. As long as the republican-lite wing of the party doesn't try to take back over we should do fine. I mean how hard is it to run against opponents who only seem to be against stuff and for almost nothing. But maybe instead of being against clean water, against clean air, against consumer protections, against affordable health care, against law and order, against fiscal responsibility, against people voting, against brown people from other countries, and against working with our allies to keep the world safe the republicans will actually figure out what they are for. Other than irresponsible tax cuts for the rich and making excuses for any and every thing that Individual 1 has done and a silly wall. But signs that that will happen are not in evidence at this time.
I mean how hard is it to run against opponents who only seem to be against stuff and for almost nothing.
Ask Mrs. Clinton.
Ask Mrs. Clinton.
True enough. She’s part of that republican-lite wing of the party that needs to get out of the way.
True enough. She’s part of that republican-lite wing of the party that needs to get out of the way.
Yes. Purge them. Ideological purity is the key to electoral success.
If saying i disagree with their outdated nixonian policies means i want to ‘purge’ them then yes. Purge them and lets get on with the task of governing.
Yes. Purge them. Ideological purity is the key to electoral success.
For the record a republican complaoning about litmus tests is hysterical.
For the record a republican complaoning about litmus tests is hysterical.
For the record, I've always thought litmus tests to be counterproductive. My preference would be for a GOP big tent that can accommodate traditionalists, social conservatives, constitutionalists, libertarians, the healthier sort of nationalists, neocons, paleocons, and whatever. All this RINO business only detracts from the project of preserving traditional liberties from overweening government power.
Speaking as a partisan, if the party hopeful of creating ever more government power to exalt the collective over the individual wants to treat political debate like a theological dispute, I can only applaud.
I could be wrong, I don't see the present electorate yearning for a new dawn of Democratic Socialism.
Williamsmith
12-23-18, 2:14pm
As long as gasoline stays somewhere around $2/gal.....the stock market doesn’t crash and we don’t enter another I’ll advise foreign “conflict” without Congressional approval.....they’ll still be talking about impeaching Trump well into his second term of office. Any day now....any day now.
iris lilies
12-23-18, 4:09pm
For the record, I've always thought litmus tests to be counterproductive. My preference would be for a GOP big tent that can accommodate traditionalists, social conservatives, constitutionalists, libertarians, the healthier sort of nationalists, neocons, paleocons, and whatever. All this RINO business only detracts from the project of preserving traditional liberties from overweening government power.
Speaking as a partisan, if the party hopeful of creating ever more government power to exalt the collective over the individual wants to treat political debate like a theological dispute, I can only applaud.
I could be wrong, I don't see the present electorate yearning for a new dawn of Democratic Socialism.
If the social conservatives can stay away from trampling traditional liberties, thay can be in the tent. But I am not convinced they can. All of the others may huddle here in the tent, out of the rain.
As long as gasoline stays somewhere around $2/gal.....the stock market doesn’t crash and we don’t enter another I’ll advise foreign “conflict” without Congressional approval.....they’ll still be talking about impeaching Trump well into his second term of office. Any day now....any day now.
You're certainly right that trump isn't likely to get impeached. Or at least not convicted by the senate. None of his crimes, even money laundering for Russia, will be enough to make the senate democrats actually show that they have even a shred of values left. (Or did they just not have any to begin with?). But I think you're off about that second term. After all, Individual 1 only got 46% of the vote the first time around and the worst we knew about him was that he was a gropey turd of a human being. With what we know now I doubt there are quite as many people willing to vote for him next time around and he didn't have any votes to spare.
You're certainly right that trump isn't likely to get impeached. Or at least not convicted by the senate. None of his crimes, even money laundering for Russia, will be enough to make the senate democrats actually show that they have even a shred of values left. (Or did they just not have any to begin with?). But I think you're off about that second term. After all, Individual 1 only got 46% of the vote the first time around and the worst we knew about him was that he was a gropey turd of a human being. With what we know now I doubt there are quite as many people willing to vote for him next time around and he didn't have any votes to spare.
I think you’re right, unless both major parties behave idiotically. So it’s roughly even odds.
Williamsmith
12-24-18, 11:34am
Our election process is quite adept at making victors out of persons who claim less than 50% of the vote. Trump has continued to campaign with an eye toward his second term. I see no one from the Democratic Party able to get even close the vote total needed to overcome an incumbent. None have emerged. It will be a wild ride up to the next election. Trumps base has no been eroded......they are quite fanatical.
I think Trump’s base is pretty solid, but I wonder if he’s lost support in the mainstream GOP and raised the level of enthusiasm with the Democrats who weren’t all that thrilled with Clinton in 2016.
I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility that serious opposition could emerge in the GOP primaries. I also think there’s a chance the Democrats could come up with an electable candidate without fratricidal infighting.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.