Thanks, FDM ... for the record, I wasn't influenced by Maher mainly because I wrote my column before he went on TV and "expanded on" what I said. (I'm having some fun, FDM, taking off on how you put it.)
TDS is a real and serious condition. I completely understand not liking Trump - while I largely support what he is trying to accomplish, I don't like him either and never have, and his rhetoric is a big part of the problem. But the problem goes well beyond rhetoric into many actions like the No Kings and other protests that amp up the hysteria. It's not easy to measure the real numbers of those afflicted with TDS but the numbers are not immaterial and attempting to have a rational discussion with someone so afflicted is virtually impossible - they completely reject anything Trump and their comments are filled with vitriolic hatred - and as you mention, the rhetoric is coming from high profile individuals in Hollywood, the media and worse, many politicians. I see it in Facebook posts, comments on articles in the Wall Street Journal and even on comments on Seeking Alpha - a site that provides financial analysis commentary. As to calling Trump Hitler, fascist or any other name, democrats have been calling republicans those names long before Trump came along. The name calling has just been amped up and IMO, the main reasons include his silly name calling, statements like what he had to say about Rob Reiner and others along with his boorish public persona. Had he pushed back against the left in a pointed but much more diplomatic manner, his base would likely include many who simply can't see beyond his rhetoric. It's just too bad that many who can't see beyond his rhetoric give a pass to the rhetoric coming from the left.
Hit the nail on the head, again, Mr.G. I am just a tad surprised how gullable certain adults can be these days when they start losing their bearings and "crack." I would think it takes much more than what it's taking, especially with normal IQ adults. Hmm...
Passion morphs into obsession in degrees and usually without personal notice (while others often see it). It's not consciously chosen and not necessarily about intelligence. But one day, you can’t sleep, can’t eat, can’t focus and can’t stop thinking about it. You see connections others don't see or they just don't care that much about. If you can't accept that others don't see things as you do and get passed it, your obsession can take you to darkness and extremism.
Oh, suppose you make a valid point. Those people need to get their frustrations out in a bit more fun, passionate way- maybe more fun under the sheets behind closed doors ought to do it. Such stuffed shirts or deep seated anger issues. God help them.
There's another possibility. Perhaps the guy was a loon filled with outrage over President Trump's policies, and his outrageous tweets and other demeaning statements, i.e. maybe his action wasn't influenced by the hateful climate.
Look at the Unibomber. He was a Harvard alum, a PhD in math and was considered a promising young professor at Berkely. He was motivated by his belief system and his illness, not by any hateful rhetoric.
To those who'll accuse me of justifying the name-calling and hateful rhetoric, I'm not. I've even called out those on my side of the divide for this. To say that those on the Left are primarily responsible for this atmosphere is ignorant. There are tons of examples of those on the Right doing this. As only one case in point, Bill O'Reilly used to contribute to the hateful climate during the Obama administration.
Bill O actually likes B. Obama. His opinions he did vocalize and still does. He is completely faithful to our president, and always will be. That's Bill.
As O'Reilly loves to say but doesn't always measure up to, I'm going to give you a fact based analysis. I wouldn't make such a harsh accusation of anyone without being able to back it up.
Soon after President Obama assumed office and while he was working with the Democratic Congress to prevent our economy from falling into the abyss, O'Reilly kept ranting about our national debt. Of stimulus programs he kept saying, "We can't afford it, we're broke." OK, fair enough. He was attacking Obama's policies, not him personally.
On at least two occasions early in Obama's first term, O'Reilly then had Obama haters on his show, with no one to balance their view. After they spewed their poison, O'Reilly asked, "Surely President Obama knows his policies are hurting the country, why do you think he pushed them?" Being too much for even those Obama haters, they evaded his question, which has only one answer: because he's purposely trying to hurt our country.
On another episode, he had Brit Hume criticizing Obama in a much more measured manner. O'Reilly asked Hume the same question. Only Hume had the basic decency to say what O'Reilly certainly knew, that Obama DOES think his policies are helping the country.
On a later episode, O'Reilly said that he gets a lot of mail from those saying that Obama is purposely trying to hurt the country. By inviting that hate, O'Reilly was apparently giving them a sop.
If I thought President Obama was purposely trying to hurt our country, even I would despise him.
Obama was following Keynesian economics, a mainstream theory. Incidentally, Obama was of course not acting alone. He was signing into law acts passed by the Democratic Congress.. Were they also purposely trying to harm our country?
O'Reilly likes Obama because Obama stands up to him and because Obama was so nice to his kids whey they visited the WH. But that doesn't negate that O'Reilly was egging on the Obama haters.
I don't see it as a stretch to suggest Trump is mix of authoritarianism, extreme nationalism and the suppression/criminalizing of opposition. These are major hallmark traits of fascism. Of course, Trump adds his own flair: monetizing everything he can and every day behaving like Scut Farkus surrounded by Grover Dill toadies!
You describe an evolution Bernie that has resulted from multiple causes. It's not clear to me that people in our society who are in position to begin reversing the trend realize, or perhaps even care, about it's existence. In the meantime we can wait for the next episode to occur or use tools at disposal that can help prevent such action.
My big fear is that the would-be assassin will actually get a very light sentence or be found not guilty because Trump haters will be on the jury waiting to set him free, and why wouldn’t they? I would have done the same thing for Daniel Penny & Kyle Rittenhouse .
Furthermore Sir Bernie, I recall the chapter in one of your books I read years ago discussing the, left wing repetition of “Bush is Hitler “ and the liberal joke in Hollywood that was something like “what’s the difference between Hitler and George W. Bush? Answer: Hitler got elected! “As another reader pointed out, this is nothing new from the left.
I am curious about why so many left wingers are willing to kill Trump for being Hitler but why no conservatives (to my knowledge)back in the era of the Cold War and “red scare” (that was actually a legitimate threat) ever tried to murder the “Commie Pinkoes” who were also a genuine threat to America back in the day. I guess right wingers were just more tolerant than left wingers even back then.
"I would have done the same thing for Daniel Penny & Kyle Rittenhouse ."
You would have acquitted them even if the evidence presented convinced you of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime as defined by the trial judge? Remember, jurors are under oath the 1) Only consider the evidence (or lack thereof) as presented a trial, 2) apply the credible evidence to the law as presented by the trial judge and 3) to put aside whatever preconceptions or predispositions you may have.
In the cases you cite, I don't think the evidence justified a guilty finding, but is beside the point I'm raising and beside the point I think you were making.
Perhaps but not as much as the woke left Marxists incorrectly over-generalize the right by labeling practically anybody who disagrees with any progressive left wing policy, and that includes liberals like Bill Maher, John Fetterman and J.K. Rowling
Another comment. The term "Marxist" is thrown around promiscuously. There's a difference between socialist or communist on the one hand and, on the other, Marxist. Most who use the term "Marxist" are referring to what Marx and Engels referred to as "Utopian socialism," i.e. socialism that's imposed regardless of the stage of history. Marxism is a type of socialism or communism.
Marxism embodies the belief in dialectical materialism, historical determinism and the Labor Theory of Value, i.e. marxism is more of an socio-economic model than a political one. Marxism is dead in our time.
That said, Marxist-Lennists and Maoist would say, and perhaps have said, I should go back to shoveling horse manure.
Greetings Mr. Hadley—-I’m seeing many on the left who celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk, so much to the point that other prominent liberals like Bill Maher and Cenk Uygur had to condemn them just as Sir Bernie & Sir John condemned Trump’s idiotic rhetoric about the death of the Reiners.
Many left-wingers constantly lament the fact that every Trump assassin wannabe has been unsuccessful. Again, Bill Maher had to speak out against These people. I know of one incident or a conservative scum bag who shot into a Unitarian universal Church, where he was trying to kill a bunch of liberals a few years back. However, I don’t recall any other conservatives celebrating him or Vance Boelter for that matter, and that includes Trump.
Hello Mr. Hadley. I understand you’re taking issue with that. However, to be honest with you, I don’t know how many vitriolic Marxist woke liberals on TikTok and social media that I could label as “prominent liberals.” The only prominent woke leftist that I could honestly say fits into that “prominent” category would be the liberal hypocrite Hassan Piker. The rest of them are simply woke leftists with too much time on their hands.
OK, But are they "some" or are they "many"? The most vocal are frequently the most extreme and the most covered. Keep a mental check on the imagery created by the news media, the motto of which is still or even more so "If it bleeds, it leads."
The line between genius and insanity is very thin. Look at this latest would have been assassin. He was a Cal-Tech grad. He worked for NASA, I believe and invented and created shooter videos. That in a nutshell is a clue, at least to me. Maybe I'm too old to know what a real shooter computer game is but when someone's livelihood depends on creating people shooting other people, even through a computer, well, that smacks me in the face. I'm not a shrink! I only look at things with puzzlement and when I heard that this guy created "shooter" games and became a "shooter", that registered with me. He hated the President! The fine line was stretched to the limit by people like Kimmel and Colbert's constant unholy jibes and BANG! That's just my take on this guy. He'll never see the outside again and I'm glad he did really no harm to anyone but just the silly idea that he could maneuver through that gauntlet of law keepers shows his inability to see the real world.
This is well written and instructive, but basically expands on Bill Maher's latest show Realtime on HBO.
If you can, go and take a look as there are some great points raised about this topic with his guests. I agree with him and you Bernie.
Thanks, FDM ... for the record, I wasn't influenced by Maher mainly because I wrote my column before he went on TV and "expanded on" what I said. (I'm having some fun, FDM, taking off on how you put it.)
TDS is a real and serious condition. I completely understand not liking Trump - while I largely support what he is trying to accomplish, I don't like him either and never have, and his rhetoric is a big part of the problem. But the problem goes well beyond rhetoric into many actions like the No Kings and other protests that amp up the hysteria. It's not easy to measure the real numbers of those afflicted with TDS but the numbers are not immaterial and attempting to have a rational discussion with someone so afflicted is virtually impossible - they completely reject anything Trump and their comments are filled with vitriolic hatred - and as you mention, the rhetoric is coming from high profile individuals in Hollywood, the media and worse, many politicians. I see it in Facebook posts, comments on articles in the Wall Street Journal and even on comments on Seeking Alpha - a site that provides financial analysis commentary. As to calling Trump Hitler, fascist or any other name, democrats have been calling republicans those names long before Trump came along. The name calling has just been amped up and IMO, the main reasons include his silly name calling, statements like what he had to say about Rob Reiner and others along with his boorish public persona. Had he pushed back against the left in a pointed but much more diplomatic manner, his base would likely include many who simply can't see beyond his rhetoric. It's just too bad that many who can't see beyond his rhetoric give a pass to the rhetoric coming from the left.
Hit the nail on the head, again, Mr.G. I am just a tad surprised how gullable certain adults can be these days when they start losing their bearings and "crack." I would think it takes much more than what it's taking, especially with normal IQ adults. Hmm...
Passion morphs into obsession in degrees and usually without personal notice (while others often see it). It's not consciously chosen and not necessarily about intelligence. But one day, you can’t sleep, can’t eat, can’t focus and can’t stop thinking about it. You see connections others don't see or they just don't care that much about. If you can't accept that others don't see things as you do and get passed it, your obsession can take you to darkness and extremism.
Oh, suppose you make a valid point. Those people need to get their frustrations out in a bit more fun, passionate way- maybe more fun under the sheets behind closed doors ought to do it. Such stuffed shirts or deep seated anger issues. God help them.
There's another possibility. Perhaps the guy was a loon filled with outrage over President Trump's policies, and his outrageous tweets and other demeaning statements, i.e. maybe his action wasn't influenced by the hateful climate.
Look at the Unibomber. He was a Harvard alum, a PhD in math and was considered a promising young professor at Berkely. He was motivated by his belief system and his illness, not by any hateful rhetoric.
To those who'll accuse me of justifying the name-calling and hateful rhetoric, I'm not. I've even called out those on my side of the divide for this. To say that those on the Left are primarily responsible for this atmosphere is ignorant. There are tons of examples of those on the Right doing this. As only one case in point, Bill O'Reilly used to contribute to the hateful climate during the Obama administration.
Bill O actually likes B. Obama. His opinions he did vocalize and still does. He is completely faithful to our president, and always will be. That's Bill.
As O'Reilly loves to say but doesn't always measure up to, I'm going to give you a fact based analysis. I wouldn't make such a harsh accusation of anyone without being able to back it up.
Soon after President Obama assumed office and while he was working with the Democratic Congress to prevent our economy from falling into the abyss, O'Reilly kept ranting about our national debt. Of stimulus programs he kept saying, "We can't afford it, we're broke." OK, fair enough. He was attacking Obama's policies, not him personally.
On at least two occasions early in Obama's first term, O'Reilly then had Obama haters on his show, with no one to balance their view. After they spewed their poison, O'Reilly asked, "Surely President Obama knows his policies are hurting the country, why do you think he pushed them?" Being too much for even those Obama haters, they evaded his question, which has only one answer: because he's purposely trying to hurt our country.
On another episode, he had Brit Hume criticizing Obama in a much more measured manner. O'Reilly asked Hume the same question. Only Hume had the basic decency to say what O'Reilly certainly knew, that Obama DOES think his policies are helping the country.
On a later episode, O'Reilly said that he gets a lot of mail from those saying that Obama is purposely trying to hurt the country. By inviting that hate, O'Reilly was apparently giving them a sop.
If I thought President Obama was purposely trying to hurt our country, even I would despise him.
Obama was following Keynesian economics, a mainstream theory. Incidentally, Obama was of course not acting alone. He was signing into law acts passed by the Democratic Congress.. Were they also purposely trying to harm our country?
O'Reilly likes Obama because Obama stands up to him and because Obama was so nice to his kids whey they visited the WH. But that doesn't negate that O'Reilly was egging on the Obama haters.
I don't see it as a stretch to suggest Trump is mix of authoritarianism, extreme nationalism and the suppression/criminalizing of opposition. These are major hallmark traits of fascism. Of course, Trump adds his own flair: monetizing everything he can and every day behaving like Scut Farkus surrounded by Grover Dill toadies!
You describe an evolution Bernie that has resulted from multiple causes. It's not clear to me that people in our society who are in position to begin reversing the trend realize, or perhaps even care, about it's existence. In the meantime we can wait for the next episode to occur or use tools at disposal that can help prevent such action.
Such a waste! Good newsletter tho.
My big fear is that the would-be assassin will actually get a very light sentence or be found not guilty because Trump haters will be on the jury waiting to set him free, and why wouldn’t they? I would have done the same thing for Daniel Penny & Kyle Rittenhouse .
Furthermore Sir Bernie, I recall the chapter in one of your books I read years ago discussing the, left wing repetition of “Bush is Hitler “ and the liberal joke in Hollywood that was something like “what’s the difference between Hitler and George W. Bush? Answer: Hitler got elected! “As another reader pointed out, this is nothing new from the left.
I am curious about why so many left wingers are willing to kill Trump for being Hitler but why no conservatives (to my knowledge)back in the era of the Cold War and “red scare” (that was actually a legitimate threat) ever tried to murder the “Commie Pinkoes” who were also a genuine threat to America back in the day. I guess right wingers were just more tolerant than left wingers even back then.
"I would have done the same thing for Daniel Penny & Kyle Rittenhouse ."
You would have acquitted them even if the evidence presented convinced you of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime as defined by the trial judge? Remember, jurors are under oath the 1) Only consider the evidence (or lack thereof) as presented a trial, 2) apply the credible evidence to the law as presented by the trial judge and 3) to put aside whatever preconceptions or predispositions you may have.
In the cases you cite, I don't think the evidence justified a guilty finding, but is beside the point I'm raising and beside the point I think you were making.
"I am curious about why so many left wingers are willing to kill Trump for being Hitler...."
Careful there. You might be overgeneralizing a tad.
Perhaps but not as much as the woke left Marxists incorrectly over-generalize the right by labeling practically anybody who disagrees with any progressive left wing policy, and that includes liberals like Bill Maher, John Fetterman and J.K. Rowling
Here, you might be overgeneralizing again. lol .
But I hear ya. Liberal ideologues sometimes think I'm conservative.
Well, Mr. Hadley, as you and I both know, ideologues od any persuasion don’t exactly think logically.
Another comment. The term "Marxist" is thrown around promiscuously. There's a difference between socialist or communist on the one hand and, on the other, Marxist. Most who use the term "Marxist" are referring to what Marx and Engels referred to as "Utopian socialism," i.e. socialism that's imposed regardless of the stage of history. Marxism is a type of socialism or communism.
Marxism embodies the belief in dialectical materialism, historical determinism and the Labor Theory of Value, i.e. marxism is more of an socio-economic model than a political one. Marxism is dead in our time.
That said, Marxist-Lennists and Maoist would say, and perhaps have said, I should go back to shoveling horse manure.
Forgive my pedantry. lol
Mr. Hadley you are hereby given a royal pardon for your regular use of pedantry.
His Utmost Excellency The Emperor, has spoken
Greetings Mr. Hadley—-I’m seeing many on the left who celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk, so much to the point that other prominent liberals like Bill Maher and Cenk Uygur had to condemn them just as Sir Bernie & Sir John condemned Trump’s idiotic rhetoric about the death of the Reiners.
Many left-wingers constantly lament the fact that every Trump assassin wannabe has been unsuccessful. Again, Bill Maher had to speak out against These people. I know of one incident or a conservative scum bag who shot into a Unitarian universal Church, where he was trying to kill a bunch of liberals a few years back. However, I don’t recall any other conservatives celebrating him or Vance Boelter for that matter, and that includes Trump.
If you'd replace "many left-wingers" with "at least some prominent left-wingers" I'd have no problem with you post.
Hope you're well and best wishes
Hello Mr. Hadley. I understand you’re taking issue with that. However, to be honest with you, I don’t know how many vitriolic Marxist woke liberals on TikTok and social media that I could label as “prominent liberals.” The only prominent woke leftist that I could honestly say fits into that “prominent” category would be the liberal hypocrite Hassan Piker. The rest of them are simply woke leftists with too much time on their hands.
OK, But are they "some" or are they "many"? The most vocal are frequently the most extreme and the most covered. Keep a mental check on the imagery created by the news media, the motto of which is still or even more so "If it bleeds, it leads."
The line between genius and insanity is very thin. Look at this latest would have been assassin. He was a Cal-Tech grad. He worked for NASA, I believe and invented and created shooter videos. That in a nutshell is a clue, at least to me. Maybe I'm too old to know what a real shooter computer game is but when someone's livelihood depends on creating people shooting other people, even through a computer, well, that smacks me in the face. I'm not a shrink! I only look at things with puzzlement and when I heard that this guy created "shooter" games and became a "shooter", that registered with me. He hated the President! The fine line was stretched to the limit by people like Kimmel and Colbert's constant unholy jibes and BANG! That's just my take on this guy. He'll never see the outside again and I'm glad he did really no harm to anyone but just the silly idea that he could maneuver through that gauntlet of law keepers shows his inability to see the real world.