Republicans accuse majority of Americans of hating America

  
Via:  john-russell  •  3 weeks ago  •  14 comments

Republicans accuse majority of Americans of hating America
“The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership,” said former U.N. ambassador and future presidential candidate Nikki Haley. After it was pointed out to her that literally zero Democrats were mourning Soleimani’s death, she argued that “mourning” means wishing he were still alive, and anyone who criticized the decision to kill him wishes he were still alive and is therefore “mourning” him. That, of course, is not what “mourning” means.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Perhaps it’s no surprise that the possibility of yet another war in the Middle East has brought out the worst in so many conservative supporters of President Trump. But even if that prospect seems to have been put off for now, it’s likely that the ugly impulses that have surfaced will emerge again and again as we approach the elections in November.

First, let’s take a little tour around the Republican authoritarian mind-set in the wake of President Trump’s decision to assassinate Iranian general Qasem Soleimani:

  • Rep. Douglas A. Collins  said  that Democrats are “in love with terrorists, we see that they mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families.” I have a vague memory of a presidential candidate attacking a Gold Star family in 2016; can’t quite recall who that was.

  • “The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership,” said former U.N. ambassador and future presidential candidate Nikki Haley. After it was pointed out to her that literally zero Democrats were mourning Soleimani’s death, she  argued  that “mourning” means wishing he were still alive, and anyone who criticized the decision to kill him wishes he were still alive and is therefore “mourning” him. That, of course, is not what “mourning” means.

  • When Rep. Pramila Jayapal said the administration had presented no evidence of an “imminent threat” that necessitated Soleimani’s assassination, Rep. John Rutherford of Florida responded by  saying , “You and your squad of Ayatollah sympathizers are spreading propaganda that divides our nation and strengthens our enemies.”

  • White House adviser Kellyanne Conway  said , “The alarmists and apologists show skepticism about our own intelligence and sympathy for Soleimani.”

  • Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina  tweeted  that “the vast majority” agrees with the killing, while “Democrats are falling all over themselves equivocating about a terrorist.”

Republicans are quite certain not only that the American public shares their belief that the Soleimani assassination was the right thing to do, but that anyone who disagrees must love terrorists.

There will be much more polling in coming days, but as it happens,  the first poll  out from USA Today finds that 55 percent of the public saying the killing of Soleimani and its aftermath made the United States  less  safe, with only 24 percent saying it made us more safe. The poll also found:

There was overwhelming agreement — in each case by more than 6-1 — that the attack made it more likely Iran would strike American interests in the Middle East (69%), that there would be terrorist attacks on the American homeland (63%), and that the United States and Iran would go to war with each other (62%).

It’s true that the poll found that a plurality of 42 percent supported the killing, but that’s actually pretty low given all the noise that Trump’s propaganda machine has whipped up. And the more important point is that solid majorities reject the arguments Trump is making around the killing — that it was necessary to keep us safe and to weaken Iran as a threat.

America, it seems, is a nation of Ayatollah-sympathizing, terrorist-loving Soleimani-mourners. Or maybe most people just don’t buy the proposition that unless you support every decision Donald Trump makes then you’re a traitor.

This has a familiar ring; going all the way back to the Alien and Sedition Acts, advocates for war have accused those who don’t share their enthusiasm of being traitors. More recently, the September 11 attacks were followed by endless accusations from Republicans that any Democrat who failed to support whatever the Bush administration wanted to do was supporting al-Qaeda, and later, Saddam Hussein. As George W. Bush himself  said , “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

The difference now is that Democrats don’t appear particularly frightened of that charge. But how should they respond to the specific accusation that if they disagree with Trump then they love terrorists?

In the past, they’ve responded by trying to show they can be tough. That’s why so many Democratic leaders voted for the Iraq War, at a time when memories of 9/11 were still fresh and nearly two-thirds of the public supported that war.

But now they have an opportunity. While Republican rhetoric may be the same, the public is on the side of Democrats and against a deeply unpopular president. So instead of whimpering in fear and trying to change the subject, they can actually call attention to the execrable charge and make Republicans the issue.

I refuse to allow you to say that the majority of Americans who question President Trump’s erratic decision-making are terrorist sympathizers. And when I’m president, I’ll treat Americans with respect for a change. When Republicans disagree with me, I’ll explain why I think they’re wrong, but I won’t call them traitors. I think we’ve all had enough of that kind of poisonous politics.

To be clear, I’m not saying that candidates should say that we can all join hands and work together. This is about what kind of rhetoric is going to be tolerated and what should be condemned. This is the perfect opportunity to get Republicans on the defensive for their hatefulness.

And it isn’t going anywhere, no matter happens with Iran. As we get closer to the election and the possibility of Democratic victory becomes real, Republicans will get more extreme in their words. Their predictions of cataclysm (the governor of Mississippi, Phil Bryant,  recently said  that if Democrats win the Senate “we will take that first step into a thousand years of darkness”) will regularly bleed over into accusations that if you don’t support Trump then you wish for that apocalypse and therefore hate America.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Earlier today President***** Trump directly accused Nancy Pelosi of "defending" Soleimani, just minutes after she had said the exact opposite in her own news conference. 

Trump's lie-o-meter will break soon. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago

So why are the Democrats mourning his passing?  The guy was a terrorist thug.

afb010820dAPC20200108034507.jpg

afb010920dBP20200109064517.jpggv010820dAPC20200109064535.jpg

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    3 weeks ago
So why are the Democrats mourning his passing?

Prove it. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    3 weeks ago

I'm a registered democrat and I'm not mourning anything especially this guy

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.1.3  Sunshine  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    3 weeks ago

CNN was quite upset no Americans where killed during Iran's missile strike.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sunshine @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.5  MUVA  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

CNN is very disappointed no was killed and WW 3 didn’t start that or they are good at faking it.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1.6  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  MUVA @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
CNN is very disappointed no was killed and WW 3 didn’t start

Link, please.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.7  MUVA  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.6    2 weeks ago

I watch CNN every morning that’s how I know the lefts talking points before most of them wake up around 10 am or so.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago

It's in Satan's office being used as a fan

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.3  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

The result of Dems believing polls in 2016 that were proven inaccurate caused 3 + years of Chicken Little and TDS.

The result of Dems believing in polls in 2020 that will be proven inaccurate will not change that.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
2  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

I don't understand the point of this. People are upset that Trump killed this guy, but they're also mad that Republicans are pointing it out?

The headline says 

Republicans Accuse Majority Of Americans Of Hating America

But none of the people quoted actually say anything like that. They say the critics are mourning the death of the terrorist, which appears to be true, by their own words. So, what's the problem?

 
 
 
Tacos!
3  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

Separate issue, so separate post. Enough time has passed that it's time to call BS on this claim being perpetrated as axiomatic.

I have a vague memory of a presidential candidate attacking a Gold Star family in 2016

Did he? Or did he respond (when asked) pretty mildly to a rather scathing attack from that family? 

To refresh with some facts, no one had heard of or talked about Khizr Khan (or his wife) before he ripped Trump on national television at the Democratic National Convention. According to the New York Times, Mr. Khan

criticized Mr. Trump, saying he “consistently smears the character of Muslims,” and pointedly challenged what sacrifices Mr. Trump had made. Holding a pocket-size copy of the Constitution, he asked if Mr. Trump had read it.

So reporters asked Trump about it, and he answered. 

Mr. Trump told Mr. Stephanopoulos that Mr. Khan seemed like a “nice guy” and that he wished him “the best of luck.”

Not much of an attack there. In fact, it sounds pretty respectful.

The worst thing he said was to point out that his wife wasn't speaking and suggest that maybe that was because Mr. Khan wasn't allowing her to speak.

But, he added, “If you look at his wife, she was standing there, she had nothing to say, she probably — maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say, you tell me.” Mr. Trump also told Maureen Dowd of The New York Times on Friday night, “I’d like to hear his wife say something.”

Rude? Maybe, but not worse than anything Khan was saying about Trump. And let's be honest, it's not unheard of. Whatever religion a person is, if they fall into the more fundamentalist end of the spectrum, he might very well be controlling her public speaking. Where are the leftist atheists to tell me I'm wrong? If we were talking about a Christian, it would practically be automatic to assume such a thing.

Trump even had good things to say about Khan's son.

In a statement late Saturday, Mr. Trump called Captain Khan a “hero,” and reiterated his belief that the United States should bar Muslims from entering the country. “While I feel deeply for the loss of his son,” he added, “Mr. Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things.”

This happens a lot with Trump. Someone criticizes him; he answers back. Headline? "Trump attacks . . . "

We saw the same thing with this guy Soleimani. This guy has been head of the Quds Force for a decade; involved in attacks all over the Middle East; supports other terrorist organizations like Hezbollah; has been recognized officially by this country and others as a terrorist for years, but killing him is somehow unjustifiable murder.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

lib50
JBB
Ender
Tacos!


31 visitors