Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
 Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week! | How To Invest
Search Politics
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week! | How To Invest
Search Politics

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (6) |
Post New
Author: wzambon ✶🐝 HONORARY
SHREWD   😊 😞
Number: of 77762 
Subject: Lest We Forget…
Date: 04/26/26 9:49 AM
Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 22
At last night’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner, a gunman, armed with multiple weapons stormed a security checkpoint, fired shots, and forced the evacuation of the president of the United States, journalists, lawmakers, and military leaders. A Secret Service agent was hit, saved only by a bulletproof vest.

This isn’t normal. It isn’t random.

And no matter how loudly the MAGA movement insists, it isn’t the fault of Donald Trump’s critics.

The argument that criticism of Donald Trump somehow incites violence against him isn’t just wrong. It’s an inversion of reality so brazen that it demands to be confronted directly.

Because over the last decade, no figure in American life has done more to normalize violent rhetoric than Donald Trump.

Let’s begin with the obvious because clarity matters.

No one is responsible for an attempted assassination except the person who pulled the trigger.

Political violence is always the responsibility of the perpetrator. Full stop.

But rhetoric, language and repetition matter.

Donald Trump has spent 12 years saturating the American bloodstream with violent imagery, threats, and suggestions that are sometimes explicit and sometimes coy, but they are always deliberate.

This is the same man who, during the 2016 campaign, mused that “the Second Amendment people” might be able to “do something” about his opponent.

During a 2020 presidential debate, Trump told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.”

This is the same man who has repeatedly invoked apocalyptic language, warning of a “bloodbath” if he loses power.

This isn’t stray rhetoric. It’s a pattern of suggestion and menace.

It’s a pattern of telling supporters that violence is both inevitable and, at times, justified.

And here is the essential point that must not be lost: Donald Trump doesn’t speak like other politicians.

He speaks in a language of implication.

He constructs a world in which enemies are not just wrong, but existential threats.

He frames elections not as contests, but as battles for survival.

He always hints that there are people who can act where he can’t.

Now comes the grotesque inversion.

In the aftermath of the shooting at the Correspondents’ Dinner, Trump and his allies are already advancing the argument that criticism of Trump is responsible for violence against him.

Think about that after a decade of rhetoric that includes calls for punishment against political enemies, praise for supporters who use force, and language that casts opponents as traitors, vermin, or existential threats.

The claim is that criticism — speech, journalism, dissent — is the danger.

It’s absurd.

It’s dishonest.

And it’s dangerous because it attempts to criminalize dissent, while absolving the most powerful megaphone in American politics of any responsibility for the climate it has helped create.

https://open.substack.com/pub/steveschmidt/p/a-dec...
Print the post


Author: Steve203 ⎊🐝  😊 😞
Number: of 77762 
Subject: Re: Lest We Forget…
Date: 04/26/26 10:05 AM
Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 4

In the aftermath of the shooting at the Correspondents’ Dinner, Trump and his allies are already advancing the argument that criticism of Trump is responsible for violence against him.

In his statement last night, Trump the God advanced the narrative that it is only the really impactful people that are targeted. Really impactful, like himself?

What are Garfield and McKinley known for? There were too attempts on Jerry Ford. Was he "impactful"?

Steve
Print the post


Author: Steve203 ⎊🐝  😊 😞
Number: of 77762 
Subject: Re: Lest We Forget…
Date: 04/26/26 10:07 AM
Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 0
too

ARGH. two

Steve
Print the post


Author: wzambon ✶🐝 HONORARY
SHREWD   😊 😞
Number: of 77762 
Subject: Re: Lest We Forget…
Date: 04/26/26 10:16 AM
Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 0
too

ARGH. two

To bad……
Print the post


Author: g0177325 ⎊🐝  😊 😞
Number: of 77762 
Subject: Re: Lest We Forget…
Date: 04/26/26 10:32 AM
Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 1
too

ARGH. two

To bad……

Et tous, wzambon?

(Just piling on the running joke, and yes, I know it's really "et tu". Plus I'm not sure whether tous/tout/etc is more "grammatical", though neither is appropriate here. See https://lingoculture.com/blog/grammar/tous-vs-tout...)
Print the post


Author: AlphaWolf ✸🐝  😊 😞
Number: of 77762 
Subject: Re: Lest We Forget…
Date: 04/26/26 10:55 AM
Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 3
too

ARGH. two

Just blame autoconnect.
Print the post


Post New
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (6) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Ticker or Board Name Author

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds