Althouse | category: hatred



an endless succession of beans and nuts.

"Sitting around in my own mess, pissed off at the world, disdainful of the people in it, and thinking my contempt for things somehow amounted to something..."

"... had some kind of nobility, hating this thing here, and that thing there, and that other thing over there, and making sure that everybody around me knew it, not just knew, but felt it too, contemptuous of beauty, contemptuous of joy, contemptuous of happiness in others, well, this whole attitude just felt, I don’t know, in the end, sort of dumb."

Writes Nick Cave, responding to a fan who asked "When did you become a Hallmark card hippie? Joy, love, peace. Puke! Where’s the rage, anger, hatred? Reading these lately is like listening to an old preacher drone on and on at Sunday mass" — at The Red Hand Files. 

After his younger son Arthur, aged 15, fell off a cliff and died, Cave thought about "the precarious and vulnerable position of the world" and felt he ought to try to help the world, "instead of merely vilifying it, and sitting in judgement of it."

In 2022, his older son Jethro died, aged 31.

"The defense lawyers contended that Democrats were pursuing Mr. Trump out of personal and partisan animosity, using the word 'hatred' 15 times during their formal presentation..."

"... and they cast the trial as an effort to suppress a political opponent and his supporters. 'It is about canceling 75 million Trump voters and criminalizing political viewpoints,' [Trump's lawyer Bruce] Castor said. 'That’s what this trial is really about. It is the only existential issue before us. It asks for constitutional cancel culture to take over in the United States Senate. Are we going to allow canceling and banning and silencing to be sanctioned in this body?'" 

Write Peter Baker and Nicholas Fandos in the NYT, in an article that begins, "Former President Donald J. Trump’s legal team mounted a combative defense on Friday focused more on assailing Democrats for 'hypocrisy' and 'hatred' than justifying Mr. Trump’s own monthslong effort to overturn a democratic election that culminated in last month’s deadly assault on the Capitol."

"Hatred" is a strong word. We're told Trump's lawyers used it 15 times. I would like to understand the usage, but this NYT article doesn't give us even one of the 15 "hatred" quotes. Was it just a hot-headed substitute for partisanship? Trump antagonists "hate" him — don't they say that themselves? How much power does it have anymore? 

And here, I found the transcript. Here are some of the hatreds: 
[W]e would like to discuss the hatred, the vitriol, the political opportunism that has brought us here today. The hatred that the House managers and others on the left have for President Trump has driven them to skip the basic elements of due process and fairness and to rush an impeachment through the House, claiming ‘‘urgency.’’... 

Why do we have to skip the necessary due diligence and due process of law and any—that any legal proceeding should have? It couldn’t have been the urgency to get President Trump out of office. House Democrats held the Articles until he was no longer President, mooting their case. Hatred, animosity, division, political gain—and let’s face it, for House Democrats, President Trump is the best enemy to attack....

And... hatred is at the heart of the House managers’ frivolous attempt to blame Donald Trump for the criminal acts of the rioters based on double hearsay statements of fringe rightwing groups based on no real evidence other than rank speculation. 
Hatred is a dangerous thing. We all have to work to overcome it. Hatred should have no place in this Chamber, in these proceedings.... 
Politics... has interposed the element of hatred. And the political world changes when hatred becomes part of the dynamic.... 

"If you read his speech and listen to it carefully, much of it is thinly-veiled innuendo calling us white supremacists, calling us racists, calling us every name in the book, calling us people who don't tell the truth."

Said Rand Paul on Fox News last night, quoted in "Power Up: Unity in Washington will be harder than Biden makes it sound" (WaPo)("Some Republicans such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) even trashed Biden's speech itself, which was widely-lauded for its appeals for Americans to set aside their political differences and work together for a better country"). 

If I had a little more time at the moment, I'd go through the speech line by line and look for every phrase that can be interpreted as saying that Rand Paul and whoever he thinks of as "us" are white supremacists, racists, liars, or whatever other names might be in that book. 

ADDED: Here's Rand Paul's Fox News segment with the "thinly-veiled innuendo" charge:


Paul cites a particular line in the speech: "And we must reject the culture in which facts themselves are manipulated and even manufactured." According to Paul, the "gist" of what Biden was saying there is that his political opponents manufacture and manipulate the truth.

AND: Without yet going through the comments to see your suggestions, I have read the speech to look for what can be characterized as the "thinly-veiled innuendo" Paul was talking about. Here's what I found:
And now arise a political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that we must confront and we will defeat.

Literally, Biden is not calling anyone a white supremacist, a racist,  a domestic terrorist, or a political extremist. He identifies the quality — extremism, supremacy, terrorism — and vows to fight the abstractions, not the actual people. These things don't exist without people, and yet, it's clever, because who wants to say That's me? Rand Paul's "us" can't say That's about us unless they cop to being racists, white supremacists, or domestic terrorists. 

Uniting to fight the foes we face: anger, resentment and hatred, extremism, lawlessness, violence, disease, joblessness, and hopelessness.

I note the use of the word "fight," the word that Trump was denounced for using in his January 6th speech. Trump stands accused of — impeached for — inciting an insurrection for saying, "We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore." 

But Biden says "fight" — "fight the foes." And yet his "foes" are not human beings. His foes are abstractions: "anger, resentment and hatred, extremism, lawlessness, violence, disease, joblessness, and hopelessness." 

Is he really referring to people? You can't have any of those things without people, and some of those things come from within people and characterize those people as The Other, most notably the first 4 things on that list: anger, resentment, hatred, extremism. And yet Biden did not say the angry, resentful people are foes. He takes a hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner position. 

But there's no expression of love for these angry, resentful people. And I don't get the sense that he means to say all anger is wrong and needs to be stamped out. He expressed support for the racial justice movement, and it certainly involves a great deal of expression of anger —  anger, resentment, hatred, extremism. Those angry people are respected in their anger. Their anger is justified. So anger per se is not the foe.

We can deliver racial justice and we can make America once again, the leading force for good in the world.

He almost said "Make America great again." 

I know speaking of unity can sound to some like a foolish fantasy these days. I know the forces that divide us are deep and they are real. But I also know they are not new. Our history has been a constant struggle between the American ideal, that we all are created equal, and the harsh ugly reality that racism, nativism, fear, demonization have long torn us apart.

Again, the literal attack is on the abstraction: "racism, nativism, fear, demonization." But these are things that only exist within human beings. So it is a thinly-veiled attack on racists, nativists, fear-mongers, and demonizers. And, again, who wants to say That sounds like you're talking about me

Well, Rand Paul does. It's hard to admit, but Biden will get away with demonizing his opponents if no one admits it. Obviously, a small set of Americans will openly take on the label of "racist" or "nativist," but Paul isn't talking about them. He's saying, I believe, that Biden is stoking hostility that is aimed at the millions of Americans who agreed with the Trump policies that Trump's opponents have denounced as racist. 

Let’s begin to listen to one another again, hear one another, see one another, show respect to one another. Politics doesn’t have to be a raging fire, destroying everything in its path. Every disagreement doesn’t have to be a cause for total war. And we must reject the culture in which facts themselves are manipulated and even manufactured.

I included that because Paul himself cited that line. I observe that Trump himself continually denounced "the culture in which facts themselves are manipulated and even manufactured." But Trump didn't pontificate about unity at the same time. Trump forthrightly attacked his foes. 

It's important to acknowledge that Biden doesn't demand that his opponents shut up entirely:

To all those who did not support us, let me say this. Hear me out as we move forward. Take a measure of me and my heart. If you still disagree, so be it....

You can keep fighting, but fight within a system of good order:

That’s America, the right to dissent peaceably within the guard rails of our Republic is perhaps this nation’s greatest strength. Yet hear me clearly, disagreement must not lead to disunion.... 

 No insurrection, please. 

 [T]he answer is not to turn inward, to retreat into competing factions, distrusting those who don’t look like you or worship the way you do, or don’t get their news from the same sources you do. We must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal… 

I need to give this my tag "civility bullshit," because I think that means now that my side has the power, let's be nice. Your side did not play nice when it was out of power. Did you ever tell your people to stand down when it was not in your political interest?


And let me quote one more thing, because I want to quote an annotation that appears in The Washington Post's copy of the speech transcript. From the speech:

There is truth, and there are lies — lies told for power and for profit, and each of us has a duty and a responsibility as citizens, as Americans, and especially as leaders, leaders who have pledged to honor our Constitution and protect our nation to defend the truth and defeat the lies.

The WaPo annotation:

This is one of the prominent features of Biden's speech: While calling for unity, an acknowledgment that some of his opponents aren't on the level and that their influence must be dealt with. Biden didn't use his speech to call out individuals who purveyed the theory that his win wasn't legitimate, but he seems to recognize that, without addressing the proliferation of falsehoods, his agenda will be difficult to enact. For a man who emphasizes conciliation, it was certainly a notable choice. 

"So it was a shock on Monday afternoon to see myself attacked in National Review as, essentially, a traitor to the white race."

"'Max Boot Fans the Flames of Racial Hatred' was the headline of an article by John Hirschauer. This was a response to a Post column I had written last week taking aim at the 55 percent of whites who in a 2018 poll said that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minority groups.... In reply, Hirschauer labeled me one of 'the self-loathing whites' who has adopted 'the politics of self-hatred.' He accused me of 'speaking in … totalizing racial language' that 'is stoking the flames of race hatred.' So telling whites not to be racists is an incitement to race hatred? How Orwellian.... I have no idea what 'totalizing racial language' means; it’s the kind of cant that [National Review founder William F.] Buckley, a stickler for precise language, would have mocked. What I do know is that this article employed the language of 'race treason' against me. Yes, Hirschauer attacked white supremacists in passing but he also engaged in moral equivalency and implied that, by denouncing racism, I was driving whites into their arms. ('Boot sets up a Faustian choice for ‘white’ readers: Side with the white supremacists and their detestable program, or sell your political soul to Max Boot and become one of the self-loathing whites.') This is part of a rhetorical strategy also employed by Trump, who occasionally denounces white supremacists but more often promotes racism while insisting his critics are the real racists."

From "National Review’s ugly attack on me reflects the Trumpification of conservatism" by Max Boot (in WaPo).

Trump enthuses over earmarks.

I've cued it up to the earmarks part. I recommend the video, because it allows you to watch for signs of dementia, but here's the transcript:
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Very well said. One of the reasons I’m here, Chuck, so importantly, is exactly that. I mean, normally you wouldn’t have a President coming to this meeting. Normally, frankly, you’d have Democrats, Republicans, and maybe nothing would get done.

Our system lends itself to not getting things done, and I hear so much about earmarks — the old earmark system — how there was a great friendliness when you had earmarks. But of course, they had other problems with earmarks. But maybe all of you should start thinking about going back to a form of earmarks. Because this system — (laughter) —

PARTICIPANT: Yes, yes, yes. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: This system — (laughter) — but you should do it, and I’m there with you, because this system really lends itself to not getting along. It lends itself to hostility and anger, and they hate the Republicans. And they hate the Democrats. And in the old days of earmarks, you can say what you want about certain Presidents and others, where they all talk about they went out to dinner at night and they all got along, and they passed bills. That was an earmark system, and maybe we should think about it.

And we have to put better controls because it got a little bit out of hand, but maybe that brings people together. Because our system right now, the way it’s set up, will never bring people together.

Now, I think we’re going to get this done — DACA. I think we’re going to get — I hope we’re going to get infrastructure done in the same way.

But I think you should look at a form of earmarks. I see Lindsey nodding very hard “yes.”

SENATOR GRAHAM: Starting with the Port of Charleston. Absolutely. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: A lot of the pros are saying that if you want to get along and if you want to get this country really rolling again, you have to look at a different form, because this is obviously out of control.

The levels of hatred — and I’m not talking about Trump. I’m talking you go back throughout the eight years of Obama and you go before that, the animosity and the hatred between Republicans and Democrats.

I remember when I used to go out in Washington, and I’d see Democrats having dinner with Republicans. And they were best friends, and everybody got along. You don’t see that too much anymore. In all due respect, you really don’t see that. When was the last time you took a Republican out? Why don’t you guys go and have dinner together? (Laughter.)

But you don’t see it. So maybe, and very importantly, totally different from this meeting, because we’re going to get DACA done — I hope we’re going to get DACA done, and we’re going to all try very hard — but maybe you should start bringing back a concept of earmarks. It’s going to bring you together. You’re going to do it honestly. You’re going to get rid of the problems that the other system had — and it did have some problems. But one thing it did is it brought everyone together. And this country has to be brought together. Okay? Thank you. Yes, Lindsey?

"Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."

Said Donald Trump today at the White House.

Bloomberg suggests that this as a walk-back from the much-criticized "many sides" statement Trump made on Saturday. But he's still saying "other hate groups" — which could include Antifa, and he also said:
“To anyone who acted criminally in this weekend’s racist violence, you will be held accountable,” Trump said, adding that he had just met with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Chris Wray for an update on a federal civil rights investigation into the incident.

“We must love each other, show affection for each other and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry and violence,” he added.
Anyone who acted criminally... that too would include all sides. 

Note the triad — hatred, bigotry, and violence. Those are the same 3 words he put together in Saturday's "many sides" statement — "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides."

"I see tone. You know the word 'tone'? The tone is such hatred."

Let's read the transcript of Trump's epic press conference. This went on for over an hour, with Trump picking up energy as he went, almost as if he absorbs energy from his antagonists in the room. I'll show you a few things that jumped out at me, including the places where he expresses his delight in bouncing off whatever they dish up for him.
The press has become so dishonest that if we don’t talk about [it], we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people. Tremendous disservice. We have to talk to find out what’s going on, because the press honestly is out of control. The level of dishonesty is out of control....  I’m here... to take my message straight to the people...

The failing New York Times wrote a big, long front-page story yesterday. And it was very much discredited, as you know. It was — it’s a joke.... Wall Street Journal did a story today that was almost as disgraceful as the failing New York Time’s story.... And I’ll tell you something, I’ll be honest, because I sort of enjoy this back and forth that I guess I have all my life but I’ve never seen more dishonest media than frankly, the political media....

I don’t mind bad stories. I can handle a bad story better than anybody as long as it’s true and, you know, over a course of time, I’ll make mistakes and you’ll write badly and I’m OK with that. But I’m not OK when it is fake. I mean, I watch CNN, it’s so much anger and hatred and just the hatred....

Nobody mentions that Hillary received the questions to the debates. Can you imagine — seriously — can you imagine if I received the questions? It would be the electric chair. OK, he should be put in the electric — you would even call for the reinstitution of the death penalty, OK...

The public... they read newspapers, they see television, they watch. They don’t know if it’s true or false because they’re not involved. I’m involved. I’ve been involved with this stuff all my life. But I’m involved. So I know when you’re telling the truth or when you’re not. I just see many, many untruthful things.
And I’ll tell you what else I see. I see tone. You know the word “tone["?] The tone is such hatred. I’m really not a bad person, by the way. No, but the tone is such — I do get good ratings, you have to admit that — the tone is such hatred.....

Well, you look at your show that goes on at 10 o’clock in the evening [Don Lemon's "CNN Tonight]. You just take a look at that show. That is a constant hit. The panel is almost always exclusive anti-Trump. The good news is he doesn’t have good ratings. But the panel is almost exclusive anti-Trump. And the hatred and venom coming from his mouth; the hatred coming from other people on your network.

Now, I will say this. I watch it. I see it. I’m amazed by it. And I just think you’d be a lot better off, I honestly do. The public gets it, you know. Look, when I go to rallies, they turn around, they start screaming at CNN. They want to throw their placards at CNN. You know. I — I think you would do much better by being different....

Now, they’ll take this news conference — I’m actually having a very good time, OK? But they’ll take this news conference — don’t forget, that’s the way I won. Remember, I used to give you a news conference every time I made a speech, which was like every day. OK?... I won with news conferences and probably speeches. I certainly didn’t win by people listening to you people. That’s for sure. But I’m having a good time.

Tomorrow, they will say, “Donald Trump rants and raves at the press.” I’m not ranting and raving. I’m just telling you. You know, you’re dishonest people. But — but I’m not ranting and raving. I love this. I’m having a good time doing it. But tomorrow, the headlines are going to be, “Donald Trump rants and raves.” I’m not ranting and raving.
He just said "I’m not ranting and raving" 3 times in close succession. Does he want them to say he's ranting and raving? It would prove him right. His bet is hedged. He cannot lose.
QUESTION: If I may, just one more followup...

TRUMP: Should I let him have a little bit more? What do you think, Peter? Peter, should I have — let him have a little bit more?
Now, he's openly playing with them. He said he was having a good time, and he's not ranting and raving. So watch him having a good time, toying with the questioner. What? Do you like this? Do you like getting slapped around? He consults Peter: Hey, whaddya say, Peter, should I let him have some more?
QUESTION: Just because of the attack of fake news and attacking our network, I just want to ask you, sir...
Sir! By the way, this is Jim Acosta (of CNN), who just happens to have the same last name as the new nominee for Secretary of Labor. Trump is getting very loose at this point as the back and forth in the transcript shows:
TRUMP: I’m changing it from fake news, though.

QUESTION: Doesn’t that under...

TRUMP: Very fake news.

QUESTION: ... I know, but aren’t you...


TRUMP: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Real news, Mr. President, real news.

TRUMP: And you’re not related to our new...

QUESTION: I am not related, sir. No. I do like the sound of Secretary Acosta, I must say.

TRUMP: I looked — you know, I looked at that name. I said, wait a minute, is there any relation there? Alex Acosta.

QUESTION: I’m sure you checked that out, sir.

TRUMP: OK. Now I checked it — I said — they said, “No, sir.” I said, “Do me a favor, go back and check the family tree.”
Does this have any real effect softening Acosta up? It breaks up the rhythm of the question. It's disarming, I think. If you can go back and forth, on some level, you are (sort of like) friends.
QUESTION: But aren’t you — aren’t you concerned, sir, that you are undermining the people’s faith in the First Amendment, freedom of the press, the press in this country, when you call stories you don’t like “fake news”? Why not just say it’s a story I don’t like.

TRUMP: I do that.

QUESTION: When you call it “fake news,” you’re undermining confidence in our news media (inaudible) important.
If I were on the receiving end of that question, I'd say: Freedom of speech and the press is only a freedom to speak and to publish things, not an entitlement to be deferred to or shown respect. We all have freedom of speech, and if I criticize you — which I should do to defend myself, especially when you are distorting things — I'm exercising my freedom of speech. And I am speaking or writing to the people just as you are speaking and writing to the people, and the idea of the First Amendment is that the people get to hear and read it all, and they get to think for themselves and talk and write to each other, and we're all involved in figuring out what is true and what is right. You see, you in the professional mainstream press want to filter it all and serve the people what you say is the truth, all pre-digested and gooey. But the people don't want that sickly fast-food truth anymore. You can keep serving it, or you can figure out how to serve up something better, but you don't dominate the truth market anymore, and you shouldn't. And your effort to invoke law — the First Amendment?! Are you kidding?!! — to force all the other speakers and writers to stand down and let you have your old monopoly back? That's just plain ludicrous, and I'm embarrassed for you that you would try to palm off an interpretation of constitutional law that's so blatantly bankrupt. It's such a good thing that people don't rely on you anymore.

But here's what Trump said about why he says "fake news" and not just I don't like the story:
TRUMP: No, no. I do that. Here’s the thing. OK. I understand what you’re — and you’re right about that, except this. See, I know when I should get good and when I should get bad. And sometimes I’ll say, “Wow, that’s going to be a great story.” And I’ll get killed. I know what’s good and bad. I’d be a pretty good reporter, not as good as you. But I know what’s good. I know what’s bad. And when they change it and make it really bad, something that should be positive — sometimes something that should be very positive, they’ll make OK. They’ll even make it negative. So I understand it. So, because I’m there. I know what was said. I know who’s saying it. I’m there. So it’s very important to me.

Look, I want to see an honest press. When I started off today by saying that it’s so important to the public to get an honest press. The press — the public doesn’t believe you people anymore. Now, maybe I had something to do with that. I don’t know. But they don’t believe you. If you were straight and really told it like it is, as Howard Cosell used to say, right?

Of course, he had some questions also. 
Howard Cosell had some questions? That's a side issue not explored!
But if you were straight, I would be your biggest booster. I would be your biggest fan in the world, including bad stories about me. But if you go - as an example, you’re CNN, I mean it’s story after story after story is bad. I won. I won. And the other thing, chaos because zero chaos. 
He lapses into speaking in shorthand. If you like him, you can easily see what he means. He's referring to recent stories that pushed the meme that the White House is in chaos — I devoted Monday to blogging this theme. — and saying it's all fake because there is no chaos.
We are running - this is a fine-tuned machine and Reince happens to be doing a good job but half of his job is putting out lies by the press (ph)....
By "putting out lies" there, he doesn't mean Priebus is emitting the lies. He's visualizing the lies as fires that need to be put out. 
I would be your biggest fan in the world if you treated me right. 
Art of the deal, no? You give me that, and I'll give you this.
I sort of understand there’s a certain bias maybe by Jeff (ph) or somebody, you know - you know, whatever reason. But - and I understand that. But you’ve got to be at least a little bit fair and that’s why the public sees it. They see it. They see it’s not fair. You take a look at some of your shows and you see the bias and the hatred. And the public is smart, they understand it.
Notice that he never got to Acosta's invocation of the First Amendment. He used flattery — you're a better journalist than I would be, and I think I would be good — and set himself up as a friendly colleague. He empathized with journalists and presented himself as concerned that the public doesn't want to listen to the press. He offered ideas about how the press could build their relationship with the public. In this framework — which ignores the (nonexistent) legal requisites — there's really a shared self-interest, and everyone could be better off: Trump, the press, and the people. You should do what I want because it's what we all should want, and there's nothing I'm asking you to do that isn't what you, thinking clearly, will want to do. I want you to criticize me and say something is bad when it's bad. Just don't say it's bad when it's good or very, very bad when it's only a little bad. 
QUESTION: (inaudible) ...for those who believe that there is something to it, is there anything that you have learned over the last few weeks that you might be able to reveal that might ease their concerns that this isn’t fake news? And second...

TRUMP: ... I think they don’t believe it. I don’t think the public - that’s why the Rasmussen poll just has me through the roof. I don’t think they believe it. Well, I guess one of the reasons I’m here today is to tell you the whole Russian thing, that’s a ruse. That’s a ruse....
The play on words is disarming. And Trump veers into a discussion about how bad Hillary Clinton would have been at dealing with the Russians. There's not even a gesture at responding to the plea to take back the "fake news" insult. If anything, he piles on a new accusation that the media is impairing efforts to deal with Russia.

Soon, another reporter asks about Russia. And look at the byplay here. Trump controls the roll-out of the question and throws the reporter off his rhythm. He will not let the man set up the question his way:
QUESTION: You mentioned the vessel — the spy vessel off the coast of the United States.

TRUMP: Not good.

QUESTION: There was a ballistic missile test that many interpret as a violation of an agreement between the two countries; and a Russian plane buzzed a U.S. destroyer.

TRUMP: Not good.

QUESTION: I listened to you during the campaign ...

TRUMP: Excuse me, excuse me. When did it happen? It happened when, if you were Putin right now, you would say, “Hey, we’re back to the old games with the United States; there’s no way Trump can ever do a deal with us.” Because the — you have to understand. If I was just brutal on Russia right now, just brutal, people would say, you would say, “Oh, isn’t that wonderful.” But I know you well enough. Then you would say, “Oh, he was too tough; he shouldn’t have done that.” Look, all of the...


QUESTION: I’m just trying to find out your orientation to those...


TRUMP: Wait a minute. Wait, wait. Excuse me just one second.


TRUMP: All of those things that you mentioned are very recent, because probably Putin assumes that he’s not going to be able to make a deal with me because it’s politically not popular for me to make a deal. So Hillary Clinton tries a re-set. It failed. They all tried. But I’m different than those people....
He is different, in so many ways. But right there he means that it's virtually impossible now to make a deal — impossible because of the behavior of the press — but he is the great deal-maker. Imagine how he will preen when he gets something he can call a deal.
TRUMP: I think Putin probably assumes that he can’t make a deal with me anymore because politically it would be unpopular for a politician to make a deal. I can’t believe I’m saying I’m a politician, but I guess that’s what I am now. Because, look, it would be much easier for me to be tough on Russia, but then we’re not going to make a deal. Now, I don’t know that we’re going to make a deal. I don’t know. We might. We might not. But it would be much easier for me to be so tough — the tougher I am on Russia, the better. But you know what? I want to do the right thing for the American people. And to be honest, secondarily, I want to do the right thing for the world.
Cagey. Cute and cagey. He proceeds to remind us about nuclear war. You know what it would be like? He'll tell you: "like no other." And by the way: "Hillary Clinton gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States. She’s close to Russia." Meanwhile, you know what Trump gave Russia? "Nothing."

Moving on:
QUESTION: Could I just ask you — thank you very much, Mr. President. The trouble...

TRUMP: Where are you from?


TRUMP: Here’s another beauty.
He just right off insults BBC! He's very loose now.
QUESTION: That’s a good line. Impartial, free and fair.

TRUMP: Yeah. Sure.
Sarcasm! Yeah. Sure. The President just blurts out Yeah. Sure as if for his own amusement. (And yet, we here at home were laughing.)
QUESTION: Mr. President...

TRUMP: Just like CNN right?

QUESTION: On the travel ban — we could banter back and forth. On the travel ban would you accept that that was a good example of the smooth running of government...
We could banter back and forth but we'd end up with a transcript full of nothing. (Or you dancing on top of our heads.) Is that what you want?
TRUMP: Yeah, I do. I do. Let me tell you about this government...

QUESTION: Were there any mistakes...

TRUMP: Wait. Wait. I know who you are. Just wait. Let me tell you about the travel ban. We had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban. But we had a bad court. Got a bad decision. We had a court that’s been overturned. Again, may be wrong. But I think it’s 80 percent of the time, a lot.
Here's that shorthand speech again. He's saying the 9th Circuit has an unusually high proportion of its cases overturned in the Supreme Court. (And let me add: It's not that the 9th Circuit is wrong 80% of that time. Only a very small percentages of cases go on to be heard in the Supreme Court. A majority of the Supreme Court may disagree with 9th Circuit frequently because the leanings of the judges are different. I question whether "wrong" is the most accurate word for that disagreement between courts.)
We had a bad decision. We’re going to keep going with that decision. We’re going to put in a new executive order next week some time. But we had a bad decision....
Important news there. Trump is going to deal with the setback in court by writing a new order, not by fighting in court (even though Trump famously tweeted "See you in court").
We had a court that gave us what I consider to be, with great respect, a very bad decision. Very bad for the safety and security of our country. The rollout was perfect....
The rollout was not perfect. The order should have been clear that it didn't cover persons with a green card. It should have originally been written in the form that they're going to have for the new order. You know, "perfect" is such a strong word. Why say "perfect"?! It's as if he wants to get caught in inaccuracies. Maybe that's some art-of-the-deal trick. Say some things that are just plain wrong — a shiny object to distract the haters. For the Trumpsters, so what? It's not perfect, but it's still pretty good.

Another questioner gets back to a Russia question: "Can you say whether you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with Russia during the course of the election?" Trump is brusque:
TRUMP: How many times do I have to answer this question?

QUESTION: Can you just say yes or no?

TRUMP: Russia is a ruse. I know you have to get up and ask a question. It’s so important. Russia is a ruse....
He used that "Russia is a ruse" joke 2 more times. And insulted the reporter as having asked a question just to "get up and ask a question." He's very loose at this point, as noted above, and he's gone on for over an hour. He asks them about the time (sort of implying that he could go on until they can't take it anymore (he's having fun, remember)):
TRUMP: How much longer should we stay here, folks?

QUESTION: Mr. President...

TRUMP: Five more minutes. Is that OK? Five?

QUESTION: Mr. President, on national...

TRUMP: Wait. Let’s see. Who’s — I want to find a friendly reporter.
Uh oh. If you're asking now, you're promising to be friendly, and he will be the judge.

TRUMP: Are you a friendly reporter? Watch how friendly he is. Wait. Wait. Watch how friendly he is. Go ahead.


TRUMP: Go ahead.

QUESTION: So first of all, my name is (Inaudible) from (Inaudible) Magazine. I (inaudible). I haven’t seen anybody in my community, including yourself or any of the — anyone on your staff of being (OFF-MIKE). Because (OFF-MIKE). However, what we’ve already heard about and what we (OFF-MIKE) is (OFF-MIKE) so you’re general forecast (ph) like 48 (OFF-MIKE). There are people who are everything (ph) happens through their packs (ph) is one of the (OFF-MIKE)...


TRUMP:...he said he was gonna ask a very simple, easy question. And it’s not, its not, not — not a simple question, not a fair question. OK sit down, I understand the rest of your question. So here’s the story, folks. Number one, I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life. Number two, racism, the least racist person. In fact, we did very well relative to other people running as a Republican — quiet, quiet, quiet. See, he lied about — he was gonna get up and ask a very straight, simple question, so you know, welcome to the world of the media. But let me just tell you something, that I hate the charge, I find it repulsive.... See, it just shows you about the press, but that’s the way the press is.
Wow. But what was the question? We didn't hear. Apparently, it did not meet his standard of friendly.

He takes another question:
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Lisa [Desjardins] from the PBS News Hour. On national security and immigration, can you give us more details on the executive order you plan for next week?... And in addition, on the DACA program for immigration.... What is your plan, do you plan to continue that program or to end it?

TRUMP: We’re gonna show great heart, DACA is a very, very difficult subject for me, I will tell you. To me, it’s one of the most difficult subjects I have because you have these incredible kids. In many cases, not in all cases. And some of the cases, having DACA and they’re gang members and they’re drug dealers, too. But you have some absolutely, incredible kids, I would say mostly. They were brought here in such a way — it’s a very — it’s a very, very tough subject. We’re gonna deal with DACA with heart. I have to deal with a lot of politicians, don’t forget and I have to convince them that what I’m saying is — is right. And I appreciate your understanding on that. But the DACA situation is a very, very — it’s a very difficult thing for me because you know, I love these kids, I love kids, I have kids and grandkids. And I find it very, very hard doing what the law says exactly to do and you know, the law is rough. I’m not talking about new laws, I’m talking the existing law, is very rough, it’s very, very rough....
It's as if it's not his choice. He has to get the law — whatever's on the books — enforced. Obama didn't. But Trump is a law-enforcer. However much it may hurt his heart. But please know he's got a heart.

He gets a question he proclaims truly "nice." Talk about Melania. He asks the questioner "who are you with?" and says "Good, I’m gonna start watching, all right?" He talks about Melania for a while, and he could end there, on a cozy note, but he takes another question. It's about the inner cities:
QUESTION: Mr. President, I need to find out from you, you said something as it relates to inner cities. That was one of your platforms during your campaign. Now you’re —

TRUMP: Fix the inner cities.

QUESTION: — president. Fixing the inner cities.


QUESTION: What will be that fix and your urban agenda as well as your HBCU Executive Order that’s coming out this afternoon? See, it wasn’t bad, was it?

TRUMP: That was very professional and very good.

QUESTION: I’m very professional.
He pats the reporter on the head and the reporter accepts it. See? Reporters can be tamed. He just tamed one. I won't copy all of what Trump said here, but here's some of it:
So, we are going to be working very hard on the inner cities, having to do with education, having to do with crime. We’re going to try and fix as quickly as possible — you know, it takes a long time. It’s taken more a hundred years and more for some of these places to evolve and they evolved, many of them, very badly.... You go to some of these inner city places and it’s so sad when you look at the crime. You have people — and I’ve seen this, and I’ve sort of witnessed it — in fact, in two cases I have actually witnessed it. They lock themselves into apartments, petrified to even leave, in the middle of the day. They’re living in hell. We can’t let that happen. So, we’re going to be very, very strong. That’s a great question and — and it’s a — it’s a very difficult situation because it’s been many, many years. It’s been festering for many, many years. But we have places in this country that we have to fix. We have to help African American people that, for the most part, are stuck there...
The questioner asked if he was going to include the Congressional Black Caucus, and Trump invited the questioner to set up the meeting, which seemed odd at first, but after some back and forth, he said:
TRUMP: I would love to meet with the Black Caucus. I think it’s great, the Congressional Black Caucus. I think it’s great. I actually thought I had a meeting with Congressman Cummings and he was all excited. And then he said, well, I can’t move, it might be bad for me politically. I can’t have that meeting. I was all set to have the meeting. You know, we called him and called him. And he was all set. I spoke to him on the phone, very nice guy.
Wow. That to me was the biggest news of the press conference. Cummings can't meet with the President? People are controlling him?
QUESTION: I hear he wanted that meeting with you as well.

TRUMP: He wanted it, but we called, called, called and can’t make a meeting with him. Every day I walk and say I would like to meet with him because I do want to solve the problem. But he probably was told by Schumer or somebody like that, some other lightweight. He was probably told - he was probably told “don’t meet with Trump. It’s bad politics.” And that’s part of the problem in this country. 
I'd like to hear what Schumer and Cummings have to say about that. Is the tone so hateful because those who want a friendlier tone are bullied?

There's another question, partly inaudible, that seems to be about some horrible racist things written or done "by supporters in your name." Trump jumps on a false flag interpretation:
TRUMP: ...And some of it - can I be honest with you? And this has to do with racism and horrible things that are put up. Some of it written by our opponents. You do know that. Do you understand that?...
The last question is: "You’re the president now. What are you going to do about it?" Clarification is sought and it seems to be about bringing the country together. Trump's answer is basically that the country was divided when he got here. It's "a divided nation." But: "I am going to try - I will do everything within my power to fix that." And on that note, he closed it down.

Donald Trump's plan to use the presidency to propound and enforce American ideology.

Here's the full transcript of Trump's speech on terrorism. I've edited it down, adding boldface, to highlight the battleground that is the human mind:
In the 20th Century, the United States defeated Fascism, Nazism, and Communism. Now, a different threat challenges our world: Radical Islamic Terrorism....

We cannot let this evil continue. Nor can we let the hateful ideology of Radical Islam – its oppression of women, gays, children, and nonbelievers – be allowed to reside or spread within our own countries.

We will defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism.... Anyone who cannot condemn the hatred, oppression and violence of Radical Islam lacks the moral clarity to serve as our President....

In winning the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan repeatedly touted the superiority of freedom over communism, and called the USSR the Evil Empire. Yet, when President Obama delivered his address in Cairo [in 2009], no such moral courage could be found. Instead of condemning the oppression of women and gays in many Muslim nations, and the systematic violations of human rights, or the financing of global terrorism, President Obama tried to draw an equivalency between our human rights record and theirs....

Military, cyber and financial warfare will all be essential in dismantling Islamic terrorism. But we must use ideological warfare as well. Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam.

While my opponent accepted millions of dollars in Foundation donations from countries where being gay is an offense punishable by prison or death, my Administration will speak out against the oppression of women, gays and people of different faith. Our Administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, and will amplify their voices.

This includes speaking out against the horrible practice of honor killings, where women are murdered by their relatives for dressing, marrying or acting in a way that violates fundamentalist teachings. Over 1,000 Pakistani girls are estimated to be the victims of honor killings by their relatives each year. Recently, a prominent Pakistani social media star was strangled to death by her brother on the charge of dishonoring the family. In his confession, the brother took pride in the murder and said: “Girls are born to stay home and follow traditions.”

Shockingly, this is a practice that has reached our own shores. One such case involves an Iraqi immigrant who was sentenced to 34 years in jail for running over his own daughter claiming she had become “too Westernized.” To defeat Islamic terrorism, we must also speak out forcefully against a hateful ideology that provides the breeding ground for violence and terrorism to grow....

A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern all decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people. In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.

In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law. Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country. Only those who we expect to flourish in our country – and to embrace a tolerant American society – should be issued visas....

The Ft. Hood Shooter... proclaimed that “we love death more than you love life!” These warnings signs were ignored because political correctness has replaced common sense in our society.

That is why one of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions. The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization. This commission will be used to develop new protocols for local police officers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners....

But just like we couldn’t defeat communism without acknowledging that communism exists – or explaining its evils – we can’t defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism unless we do the same.

This also means we have to promote the exceptional virtues of our own way of life – and expecting that newcomers to our society do the same. Pride in our institutions, our history and our values should be taught by parents and teachers, and impressed upon all who join our society. Assimilation is not an act of hostility, but an expression of compassion. Our system of government, and our American culture, is the best in the world and will produce the best outcomes for all who adopt it.
This approach will not only make us safer, but bring us closer together as a country.

Renewing this spirit of Americanism will help heal the divisions in our country. It will do so by emphasizing what we have in common – not what pulls us apart.

This is my pledge to the American people: as your President I will be your greatest champion. I will fight to ensure that every American is treated equally, protected equally, and honored equally. We will reject bigotry and oppression in all its forms, and seek a new future built on our common culture and values as one American people.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

"According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing '25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad' and 51% of those polled, 'agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.' Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women. Mr. Trump stated, 'Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.'"

So says a press release from Donald J. Trump.

ADDED: What are people saying about Trump's statements? Condemnations all around? But what if — perhaps today — 10 sleepers awake in 10 towns in the United States and there are 10 San Bernardinos? What if 100?

"Over the course of centuries, black churches served as 'hush harbors' where slaves could worship in safety..."

"... praise houses where their free descendants could gather and shout hallelujah... rest stops for the weary along the Underground Railroad; bunkers for the foot soldiers of the Civil Rights Movement," said President Obama in his eulogy for Clementa Pinckney.
... We do not know whether the killer of Reverend Pinckney and eight others knew all of this history. But he surely sensed the meaning of his violent act. It was an act that drew on a long history of bombs and arson and shots fired at churches, not random, but as a means of control, a way to terrorize and oppress. An act that he imagined would incite fear and recrimination; violence and suspicion. An act that he presumed would deepen divisions that trace back to our nation’s original sin.

Oh, but God works in mysterious ways. God has different ideas.  He didn’t know he was being used by God. Blinded by hatred, the alleged killer could not see the grace....

The alleged killer could not imagine how the city of Charleston, under the good and wise leadership of Mayor Riley... how the state of South Carolina, how the United States of America would respond — not merely with revulsion at his evil act, but with big-hearted generosity and, more importantly, with a thoughtful introspection and self-examination that we so rarely see in public life.

Blinded by hatred, he failed to comprehend what Reverend Pinckney so well understood -- the power of God’s grace.... As a nation, out of this terrible tragedy, God has visited grace upon us, for he has allowed us to see where we’ve been blind. He has given us the chance, where we’ve been lost, to find our best selves. We may not have earned it, this grace, with our rancor and complacency, and short-sightedness and fear of each other — but we got it all the same. He gave it to us anyway. He’s once more given us grace. But it is up to us now to make the most of it, to receive it with gratitude, and to prove ourselves worthy of this gift....
I've highlighted the most religious part, including the brief exploration of the notion that God used Dylann Storm Roof pursuant to his famously "mysterious" ways. I've left out the material that was more specific to the individual man, Clementa Pinckney, and the various policy proposals — take down the Confederate battle flag, improve the schools, deal with possible racial bias in prison systems and in policing and job hiring, restrict guns. You can read all that at the full transcript at the link.
"If you read his speech and listen to it carefully, much of it is thinly-veiled innuendo calling us white supremacists, calling us racists, calling us every name in the book, calling us people who don't tell the truth."Trump enthuses over earmarks.

Report "Althouse"

Are you sure you want to report this post for ?