Donald Trump is probably the most casually dishonest serious candidate for president that this country has ever seen. He lies so easily, so shamelessly, and so regularly that media outlets have largely given up trying to factcheck his more, er, problematic assertions.
Politifact, a site that exposes politicians’ lies, awarded their Lie of the Year prize last year to “the campaign misstatements of Donald Trump.” There were so many they couldn’t pick just one.
Trump is worse than a mere fibber; as more than a few observers have noted of late, he’s also a master gaslighter, as are the political operatives closest to him. Gaslighting is a favorite tactic of abusers who’ve mastered the art of lying so baldly that their victims are led to doubt what they’ve seen and experienced, and begin to think they’re literally going mad.
Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski responded to reporter Michelle Fields’ claim that he had assaulted her at a Trump event by declaring her “delusional” — a favorite ploy of gaslighters everywhere — even though, as footage of the event now conclusively shows, he did in fact grab her and pull her away from Trump, just as she said he had. Lewandowski’s employer, whose own story on the assault has undergone a number of mutations, is now accusing her of changing her story, which has been consistent from the start. Add to this a heaping helping of old-fashioned misogynistic victim-blaming, and you’ve got a nasty smear campaign going.
But Trump’s latest claim about the Lewandowski incident is so over-the-top ludicrous that it transcends mere gaslighting. During a CNN town hall last night, Trump tried to convince the world that Lewandowski’s assault was perfectly justified because the pen she was holding could just maybe have been, you know, some sort of James Bond style pen-bomb.
“She had a pen in her hand,” he declared, “which Secret Service is not liking because they don’t know what it is, whether it’s a little bomb.”
Never mind that there was a Secret Service agent right there, and he didn’t deem Fields to be enough of a threat to intervene.
Oh, and never mind that A PEN BOMB!!? YOU CAN’T BE FREAKING SERIOUS.
And that’s a bit of a clue as to what is going on here. Trump can’t possibly be serious. The pen-bomb claim is almost certainly a bad-faith attempt to derail the discussion and to draw public attention away from the surveillance video showing Lewandowski grabbing Fields.
This is what trolls do. Trump is pulling the same sort of bad-faith nonsense that anti-Semitic trolls do when they declare that they can’t possibly be anti-Semitic because Arabs are Semites too; when a certain far-right fantasy author declares that he can’t possibly be a white supremacist because he has a bit of American Indian blood in his genes, a fact that he discovered only recently and which he gleefully trots out every time he’s accused of racism.
The trouble is that these tactics, however transparent they are to most observers, work. As David Marcus notes in The Federalist, Trump’s energetic gaslighting has managed to distract the media from the real issues and shroud the Lewandowski incident in doubt.
Now that Lewandowski has been arrested and video shows that his account is patently false, Trump is lowering the lights. Well, he says, she touched me too, can I get her charged? He says, well, how do we know she didn’t already have those bruises (which she photographed the next day). As the lights dim, those most tragic figures, cable news anchors, fall into his frothing sea of who knows what the hell happened?
And when those claims began to wear thin, Trump started talking about pen-bombs.
Donald Trump is a troll. He’s been trolling us all from day one of his campaign.
So it’s no wonder that the Anime Nazis have embraced Trump so enthusiastically. It isn’t just his racism that’s appealing to them, or his not-so-subtle encouragement of physical violence against protesters, more than a little bit reminiscent of Nazi electoral thuggery.
It’s because he’s one of them, a born troll.
I half expect Trump himself to take up the joke slogan of his trolly followers and promise voters that he will make anime real. After all, that’s a claim no more absurd than Trump’s contention that he will build a wall on our southern border and make Mexico pay for it.
Like most successful trolls — paging Milo Yiannopoulos — Trump has attracted a rabid following of trolls happy to troll and smear on his behalf. However ridiculous their memes get, their support for Trump is sincere, and their attacks still sting.
And that’s the problem with trolls. Their ironic stances have a tendency to calcify into sincerely held beliefs. Cartoon fascism becomes real hatred. Donald Trump the media-trolling buffoon becomes Donald Trump the dangerous demagogue. Some of his more over-the-top pronouncements may be mostly hot air, but his racism and misogyny are real. And to those who bear the brunt of Trump’s (and his followers’) attacks, a smear is a smear, even if the smearer knows he’s spouting bullshit.
But trolls can’t bend reality completely to their liking. Lewandowski’s attempts to smear Fields as an attention-hungry confabulator came up against the hard reality of the surveillance tapes. We need to keep calling out the endless lies. Trump’s fans may believe the lies — or they may find it convenient to pretend that they do — but I don’t think most Americans are quite as gullible as Trump and his troll buddies think they are.
EDIT:
Who even mentioned Sanders?D’awwww, widdle fuzzies!!
Thanks Makroth. Let me add some more.
http://www.mjmccarthy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/happy-puppy-in-a-box-shredding.jpg
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0224/1915/files/bunny.jpg?22110
http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/346549/slide_346549_3649682_free.jpg
OMG IT IS AN OCELITTLE!
The power of cuteness compels you.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/oracle_watching/Kitty/kittenlookingup.jpg
Carisma says we should cook something delicious.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ce5AvdpUsAA2OEU.jpg
I think the brain bleach was really needed.
Also, this is an interesting development: https://newrepublic.com/article/132283/anonymous-hacked-donald-trump
Considering the date they plan to attack on, i’m predicting they will reveal they were never planning to reveal any information. That would be a clever thing to do. We’ll see.
Personally, I’d prefer Trump to Cruz. Trump isn’t acting as if he’s running for head of government; he’s acting like he’s running for king. He can’t run the country by himself and he’s pissed off a lot of people on his way up. I don’t doubt he’d do some damage, but without the rest of the government behgind him the damage he can do would be somewhat limited.
Cruz on the other hand seems to sincerely believe in the ghastly things that Trump say to win approval, and hasn’t been burning any bridges. Cruz is far, far more likely to achieve his goals, and none of them are particularly nice.
Makroth, is that a dog nursing raccoons? I have to hear the whole story.
@banned
It’s a picture i found on Google images while looking for baby raccoons.
Here’s the source: https://www.reddit.com/comments/h1f34/
My comment which was at the bottom of Page 2 is now at the top of Page 3! Time to look for new comments!
I haven’t caught up on this thread yet, but I wanted to get back to WWTH and anyone else who’s seen questionable ads on the site.
If you see something in the Taboola ads (the “sponsored links” ones on top of the page, under posts, low down in the sidebar), send me the headline and I can block that specific ad (well, any ad that uses that language). I blocked the “girlfriend activation” one that WWTH mentioned.
With the adsense ads, I can block categories rather than individual ads; I’ve blocked a couple of categories –dating ads and ads with sexual content. So that stuff shouldn’t be showing up. I know that ads for Republicans have shown up for some people, but I’d rather not block all political ads. Every time you see one, you’re costing these guys a little bit of money, so there’s that.
Regardless, if you see anything else that bugs you let me know, sending the text of the ad headline for Tabloola ads and sending me a description/screenshot for the adsense ads.
(If some of you besides WWTH commented about ads here, I’ll get back to you when I’ve caught up with the thread.)
Unrelated: uomeone said something about my reference in the OP to “Lewandowski’s employer” — that was a sort of roundabout way of referencing Trump. Maybe too roundabout.
@David: I got what you meant, at least.
@Lightcastle –
Wow, thanks for correcting me.
I had completely missed (forgotten? I think I’ve read it somewhere, but it’s gotten buried) that Dominionists are postmillennialists rather than premillennialists. The two are each scary, but in slightly different ways 😉
With that in mind – that his goals would require more explicit laying of foundations and coalition building rather than just “REBUILD THE TEMPLE N’ LOOK FOR THE ANTICHRIST!” (or “[…] N’ AWAIT THE RAPTURE” if they’re Dispensationalists”) – Trump’s fear-based authoritarian nightmare edges out Cruz’s OT-heavy authoritarian nightmare as far as the plausibility of inciting “mob rule and pitch forks” scary shit.
*makes face*
There’re enough culture warriors in positions of power to make a Cruz presidency plenty destructive, though.
sunnysombrera, that doggie looks like Calvin!
If only a Preterist would run for president instead. (They believe that all the major prophesied events have already happened, to the extent that many of them don’t believe in an “end of the world” at all).
Where exactly is the line between negative campaign ads and a candidate pointing out differences between themselves and other candidates? Hillary *has* taken money from Wall Street types and others. Hillary has super PACs run by people who have been affiliated with her to help deflect negative information while Bernie doesn’t. Both candidates also have PACs that work on their behalf without any sort of approval or affiliation because anyone* can form a PAC for any reason.
*such as Stephen Colbert during the last Presidential election cycle
Meanwhile, Rupert Murdoch’s ex-wife is reportedly dating Vladimir Putin.
I can’t wait to see how all the white supremacists who currently support Putin will react to his dating a Chinese woman.
Not to mention the people who hold up Putin as a paragon of “family values” once they realize he divorced his previous wife, and is himself dating a divorced woman….
@ Hu’s On First
Meh. Authoritarians are notorious for not giving a shit about their leaders violating rules and moral strictures.
It’s everyone else who has to toe the line….
@Hambeast
Exactly what I would’ve said if I hadn’t already had enough of Alan’s trolling for one day. It’s impossible to run a campaign while pretending the opponent doesn’t exist. If stating the simple fact that Hillary has a SuperPAC is “negative”, then why the fuck does she have a SuperPAC.
There has to be room for a candidate to say “this is a difference between me and the other candidate”. It’s not a dirty trick to state your positions.
Hambeast,
IN my personal opinion, there’s nothing wrong with negative campaigning if a candidate is going after the opposition’s actual record. Nasty personal attacks, dogwhistles etc are what’s the problem.
Alan, you and I grate on many of the same people. It may well be that some of what I’m about to say makes me a hypocrite. If so — well, so be it. Hypocrisy doesn’t mean I’m wrong. But also I hope (and trust) that someone will take me to task as well. I want to talk about language. Personally, I find it difficult to guess how bothered I’d be by your positions if not for the extreme condescension with which you often impart them. It’s been flagrant and persistent enough that I feel you cannot be fully ignorant of it, but it’s possible that you’re unaware of how pervasively disrespectful your conduct is.
I think that if you made a disciplined effort to show a little humility and a little respect for other posters, it would take you a long way. I can’t speak for anyone else, of course. And I don’t mean to imply that the substance of your comments isn’t offensive, because it is. However, although changing your demeanor wouldn’t make that offense go away, I do think your language contributes to the feeling that you’re not worth bothering with.
For instance, it’s the tabloid-style title “hypocrite Sanders,” that pushed your first comment from “annoying” to “insufferable” in my book. It implies that Sanders’ hypocrisy is (a) widely known, (b) universally acknowledged, and (c) his defining quality. I would prefer that you acknowledged it as opinion (“People may know that I often find Sanders hypocritical. . .”), but if you must present it as objective fact, it’s better to assert it than assume it. “Sanders is a hypocrite. He ejects protesters from his rallies.” is better than “hypocrite Sanders ejects protesters from his rallies,” because it acknowledges that others might not know or not agree that he is one.
Then there was this:
Others have said that to compare authorizing non-harmful use of force by security staff with encouraging mob violence is appalling. I agree with them, but I’ll go further. You either knew or should have known we would feel that way. If you really don’t think the distinction matters, you should have made that case. A rhetorical question (“how’s he different?”) is basically a statement (he’s no different); you didn’t support that statement with argument or evidence even though you surely knew we’d vehemently disagree. Making provocative statements without supporting them is trolling, in my book.
If you’re going to stick around, I hope you will strive to
–Phrase opinion as opinion.
–When expressing opinions you know to be controversial, either make an argument, acknowledge that some may disagree, or bother.
–Be more cautious about claiming expertise. (No lawyer I respect would invoke professional authority to opine on legal actions they weren’t involved with in countries where they didn’t practice
–Refrain from telling people what they know or believe*
*A more serious example above, but my personal favorite has always been the time you said we probably all knew about an Egyptian cat god**, then ignored me when I pointed out that Google doesn’t believe she exists***.
**Not Bastet, who is real****. It was supposed to be “Putsh” or “Ptuch” or something.
***In fairness, the thread was pretty much over and you might not have seen me. But it was my first encounter with you and it set the tone.
****Well, not real, in my opinion. But you know what I mean.
I’m gonna defend both Sanders and (OMG, can’t believe I’m doing this) Trump in terms of ejecting loud, disruptive protesters. When I go to see someone speak, i want to hear them speak. Right? I have protested candidate stump speeches before. I went to a Dan Quayle rally with signs and a t-shirt. And I stood at the edge and didn’t say anything and just jostled my sign up and down a little. That was enough. People got the point. And I got plenty of glares. But I certainly didn’t interrupt his speech. People spoke to me – a bit aggressively – but y’know there was no actual trouble or threats. I was supporting choice and it’s an emotive issue and they challenged me on the issue. No one challenged my right to be there, they didn’t like it though. My old boss, an ex-marine, happened to be there, too and said he thought it was getting ugly and was ready to step in to protect me – but it wasn’t needed and nor did I ever feel that it was that ugly. (I don’t know what to make of him being there but turns out his wife who I didn’t know very well then but friended me on FB after I friended her husband is a pretty hardcore Dem)
The difference between Sanders and Trump is that if you showed up in your animal rights shirt, etc. and didn’t say anything at a Sanders rally, I don’t believe that you would be forcibly ejected. Whereas people just wearing t-shirts and not saying diddly have been pointed out by the crowd and forcibly and sometimes violently ejected and Trump verbally encourages them to do that.
And I’m a Hillary supporter 100% and really don’t like Sanders for a number of reasons.
@ Makroth
On the previous page, in the post where you embedded four images (four incredibly adorable images), the third one down appears to be a pair of tiny creatures that look like a cross between a mouse and an antelope.
Do you (or anyone else) know what they are?
@Rugbyyogi,
Sanders himself actually defended Trump right’s to have disruptive protesters removed. Sanders is opposed to disruptive action and says that people can and should protest outside Trump events but that he should be allowed to speak.
However, not all ways of ejecting disruptive people are equal. It’s one thing to have trained security escort them out. It’s quite another to tell your audience you’ll defend them in court if they assault a protester.
EDIT: @Alan,
Oh yeah, I forgot about your “usual detached rationality.” Setting aside for the moment the question of whether “detached rationality” is a virtue, being rational is like being cool. If you say you are, you’re not.
@Gaebolga: I think they’re chevrotain, or mouse deer.