Perpetrators hailed Trump
ABC News has dug up an interesting fact:
President Donald Trump has repeatedly refused to accept any responsibility for inciting violence in American communities, dismissing critics who have pointed to his rhetoric as a potential source of inspiration for some citizens acting on even long-held beliefs of bigotry and hate.
“I think my rhetoric brings people together,” he said last week, four days after a 21-year-old allegedly posted an anti-immigrant screed online and then allegedly opened fire at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 22 and injuring dozens of others.
But a nationwide review conducted by ABC News has identified at least 36 criminal cases where Trump was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence or allegations of assault.
Obama and Bush? Zero.
In nine cases, perpetrators hailed Trump in the midst or immediate aftermath of physically attacking innocent victims. In another 10 cases, perpetrators cheered or defended Trump while taunting or threatening others. And in another 10 cases, Trump and his rhetoric were cited in court to explain a defendant’s violent or threatening behavior.
I guess that’s what people who think he stands for “tough guy masculinity” have in mind – the fact that he incites other people to be violent.
ABC News could not find a single criminal case filed in federal or state court where an act of violence or threat was made in the name of President Barack Obama or President George W. Bush.
The 36 cases identified by ABC News are remarkable in that a link to the president is captured in court documents and police statements, under the penalty of perjury or contempt.
And this change is permanent. Even if he dropped dead right now, this malevolent effect would continue. He’s warped us for a generation.
Another nice touch:
The perpetrators and suspects identified in the 36 cases are mostly white men — as young as teenagers and as old as 75 — while the victims largely represent an array of minority groups — African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims and gay men.
So, basically, KKK world.
ABC gives details on all the cases. It makes for sickening reading.
And Bush certainly played the swaggering macho guy. He just didn’t do it in a way that encouraged those who followed him to take things in their own hands. There is a difference between being a swaggering asshole and being a swaggering asshole who incites violence.
There is. It seemed such a trivial difference before Trump, didn’t it. Well to be more exact, it didn’t occur to us to be grateful that Bush didn’t incite violence because…really? But now we know better.
Careful now, careful. You are talking about Captain Bonespurs here.
;-)
Though as an afterthought, I never thought much of that old phrase ‘the exception that proves the rule.’ Except in Trump’s case. His dodge of the Vietnam War was arguably and objectively the best choice he ever made. It does not seem to have done him much harm in Republican circles either. He seems to have been able to buy his way out of any consequences for his own political career using money and a whole pile of patriotic verbiage.
I’m beginning to think finding a way not to go to Vietnam is a requisite for Republicans. Those who actually went (anyone remember John McCain?) can’t win the big job. But only for Republicans. We’ve gotta have (double) standards, you know.
To be fair, the one Democratic president who was the right age managed to avoid Vietnam as well. Offhand, I can’t think of any current candidate who served there.
Although I guess you were referring to nominees, in which case Gore and Kerry belie me.
He’s right, of course. The people he “brings together” are those likely to watch Fox News or attend one of his rallies. They’re the only ones who count. They’re the only real Americans.
Maroon, I was. It looks like serving in Vietnam is actually a detriment…
Would that be like shouting allahu akbar after a killing spree?
Also, to address the fairness issue @ 5 – Republicans and Democrats had sharply different views on that war, despite the fact that Kennedy and Johnson dragged us much deeper into it. Resisting fighting a war you think is a bad unjust war is different from staying out of a war you think is awesome. The difference isn’t 100% because not wanting to die or be mangled may be the largest motivation in all cases, but it’s still a difference.
Trump was not out in the streets protesting that war at any time.
The link doesn’t lead to the cited text, there’s a 24 second clip on the page, but that’s all.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889