Enemies
NYT reports Trump continues to be more childish every day.
Americans woke up on the last day of 2016 to a message from President-elect Donald J. Trump wishing them a happy new year.
But the holiday missive, posted on Mr. Trump’s official Twitter account around 8 a.m., came with a pointed jab.
“Happy New Year to all,” Mr. Trump wrote, “including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don’t know what to do. Love!” (Some social media users homed in on Mr. Trump’s use of the word enemies, rather than opponents or another word for those who oppose him.)
That’s so typical, isn’t it, and so symptomatic. We have no right to oppose him or disagree with him or describe him accurately. We’re not legitimate critics, we’re just enemies. His Majesty the Baby speaks again.
Even a holiday known for its good cheer, it seems, could not dull Mr. Trump’s penchant for doling out taunts and insults via Twitter.
And this is the guy who will be president of the US in 21 days – a guy who loves to taunt and insult people on Twitter. He’s just another Milo Yiannopoulos, but he’ll be president.
The Times goes on to make the inevitable point that it’s a distraction. Sure, it is, but we can talk about both.
Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don't know what to do. Love!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 31, 2016
Also, it’s “honed in”, not “homed in”; critics aren’t a flock of birds looking for a migratory route. Bad NYT.
It’s “home in,” and it’s always refreshing to see that phrase used correctly.
Ahh, hell. Hypercorrection run amuck, possibly, but it still doesn’t sound natural to me. I tend to think of “hone in” as focusing on a rhetorical point to sharpen it, whereas “home in” connotes a more physical refinement of course to a particular destination. That may be technically incorrect, but I’ll bet most people who maintain the distinction feel similarly.
In any case, with regards to Herr Babyführer, I always *did* wonder what it was like to live in a world where someone even more venal (and definitely orders of magnitude more stupid) than Nixon was in charge of something. Guess I’ll find out.
I think both should be declared valid. “Hone in” is quite a good metaphor.
Just thought that needed to be repeated for emphasis.
I assumed “hone in” was a relatively recent derivation from “home in” via folk etymology. Language Log has plenty of background on this, and the situation might not be as clear as I’d thought: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000378.html
Mangohead von Trumpenstein’s biggest agenda and project appears to be a remaking of the world in his own image. His ‘let her rip’ policy on fossil carbon could well finish us up with mango groves in Greenland.
The US Constitution gives the President the power of an 18th C European monarch. Trump is mentally little more than a toddler let loose in a toy shop, except that the shop is actually the bridge of the flagship of a nuclear battle-fleet. The world will probably survive, but will Trump, and will the Constitution that allowed a minority of Americans to put him there?
In 1776, the Anglosphere began its own democratic revolution, (nb long after Switzerland and Iceland.) It is still a work in progress.
It proceeded from the periphery to the centre (the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia; but not until recently South Africa). Britain’s ruling class fought back as hard as it could, and still has not conceded on the veto power of the House of Lords with respect to the House of Commons. That power remains on the books, but its next use will likely be its last. But its presence means that the UK will be the Anglosphere’s last feudal outpost.
In 1789 the people of France (Paris, mainly) broke the back of European feudalism, which had its base, like von Trumpenstein, in inherited wealth, and was manifested in contests over its proclamation and display. von Trumpenstein is all about garish display of his inherited wealth, and in many respects leads a neofeudal antidemocratic reaction to liberal democracy. And science; though not the science behind the art of electroplating, which gives him a gold patina for everything he touches, and helps foster his Midas image.
Luke 19:27
“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.”
I suppose we should be grateful that he’s not a great Bible reader.
Actually, the correct date is 1688. Which is why the Americans’ creation of a presidency with more power than any British monarch at the time has always seemed in some respects a bit of a backward step to me.
Jib Halyard:
Avast there!
“The Glorious Revolution’ of 1688 in England had little mass involvement beside the American Revolution of 1776. It was more like a classical palace coup than a revolution on the model of Paris, 1789 or Petrograd February1917.
It was an unambiguous step towards democracy, and without the bloodshed of Paris or catastrophic repercussions of Petrograd. Britain already had a century of that sort of thing and there wasn’t much appetite for any more. Anyway, revolutionaries have no more claim to rule than anyone else until they go to the bother of setting up a legislature of some sort and getting properly elected to it. Which very few have done.
The Glorious Revolution established a precedent upon which all subsequent political progress in the English-speaking world has depended. Even the American revolutionaries portrayed their own fight as a continuation of it.
The real problem with the Glorious Revolution is that it is boring.
Anyway, revolutionaries have no more claim to rule than anyone else until they go to the bother of setting up a legislature of some sort and getting properly elected to it. Which very few have done.
I could not agree more. Except that when what they have overthrown is a bloodstained, repressive and ruthless dictatorship like, say, Batista’s in Cuba, their preference to keep power in their own hands is somewhat understandable.
It is not an easy problem to solve.