Sort of shaking my head at this latest release…
“STOP HATE DUMP TRUMP” CAMPAIGN LAUNCHED BY COALITION OF DIVERSE
ADVOCATES, ACADEMICS, FAITH LEADERS, ARTISTS
TO RESPOND TO DIVISIVE RHETORIC, IMPACT OF GOP FRONTRUNNER WITH www.stophatedumptrump.com
HARRY BELAFONTE, EVE ENSLER, KIMBERLE CRENSHAW, KERRY WASHINGTON,
NOAM CHOMSKY, ALICE WALKER, JANE FONDA, LILY TOMLIN, VIJAY PRASHAD, FEKKAK MAMDOUGH, HUNDREDS OF OTHERS SIGN ON TO AMPLIFY VOICES AGAINST HATE, CALL FOR MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITYNew York, NY, January 20, 2016…….A diverse coalition cutting across race, gender, religion, sexual orientation and party affiliation has organized to give voice to Americans calling out Donald Trump for his hate speech, misogyny, Islamaphobia, and racism. A new web site,http://www.stophatedumptrump.
com, will provide a platform for those who do not and will not stand for the continued threats, rhetoric and fear mongering by the Republican Presidential front-runner. “Trump is a frontrunner candidate who promises to ‘build a wall’ on our borders, humiliates and denigrates Muslims, women, immigrants, racial minorities as part of his ‘stump speech,’ allows protesters to be beaten at his rallies and in fact encourages hostility toward anyone who disagrees with him,” said Eve Ensler, activist and playwright.
“We are offering Americans a chance to be heard and engage in action, as Trump’s campaign gain momentum even as he increases his hateful and divisive rhetoric,” continued Ensler. “We also intend to put the media and political institutions on notice that they are accountable for normalizing Trump’s extremism by treating it as entertainment, by giving it inordinate and unequal air time and by refusing to investigate, interrogate or condemn it appropriately,” concluded Ensler.
“We hope that the diverse and passionate group of individuals that immediately agreed to sign on to this campaign will inspire a collective awakening amongst Americans to speak out, create and join initiatives that bring attention to the many who reject Trump’s vision for the country,” said Kimberlé Crenshaw, law professor at Columbia and UCLA Law Schools, who spearheaded “Say Her Name” a campaign to draw attention to Black women killed and sexually assaulted by the police.
“In a true democracy, there has to be a line between deliberative debate and mob rule,” said Crenshaw. “Trump has crossed the line and much of the media has exacerbated the problem by treating his remarks as entertainment, effectively encouraging his competition to do the same. We have already seen the hateful and exclusionary rhetoric taking place at his rallies, where opponents have been beaten, threatened and ejected. This is not a made for TV movie. This is real. If we don’t want this country to take another step down that road, then we all need to speak up. Our democracy cannot be left in the hands of those who would rather watch or participate in a train wreck than stop it,” concluded Crenshaw.
For more information go to www.stophatedumptrump.com
So… who thinks this group is going to have an impact on anyone’s thinking regarding Donald Trump? I mean, you know, bless their hearts for wanting to stand up and be counted and all, but the people who need to be influenced are the people who might conceivably vote for Trump. And I’m just not seeing a lot of overlap between that group and the set of people who care what Noam Chomsky and Jane Fonda think.
I mean, they’re not even going to listen to a centrist like me. What makes you think they’ll listen to y’all?
Related Posts
This must be a joke, right? I’m going to have egg on my face for reporting it straight, right?
It gets even wilder when you go to the group’s website, where you find such names as:
Cornel West
Angela Davis
Michael Moore
Gloria Steinem
Rosie O’Donnell
Tom Hayden
No, really. I’m not making it up. I mean, I didn’t know Angela Davis and Tom Hayden were still ALIVE…
Where are Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn? Don’t they CARE…?
Do you know any voters who actually believe they are NOT reasonable centrists, Brad? Come on.
Your definition of “centrist” is being defined by Merriam Webster’s based upon subjective tenets from ____?____.
My guess, is that your definition of “centrist” has been provided by the totally disproportionate incumbency of elected lawyers —- what informed centrists term the “Lawyer Political Complex (please relax now, Bryan). ( :
You can’t just average out extreme positions and call yourself a centrist. Being on the far right on the military and far left on single payer doesn’t put you in the middle. Nor does being ultra pro life and ultra pro amnesty for illegal immigrants. That’s not centrist. A centrist would find middle ground on each issue. You’re more if a statist: one who believes there is a government solution to every problem.
As I’ve said before, “centrist” is a terribly inadequate word. Although in this case I think it’s fairly safe to say I’m to the right of Noam Chomsky and Tom Hayden, and to the left of Trump and Cruz.
And the pols I tend to like are ones generally described as center-right and center-left. But yes, the term is imperfect, and sometimes even misleading.
Doug, I agree with you on this. Brad is more statist than centrist. He was among the very last holdouts to keep the blue laws.
The names of such notables would compel me to send money to the Donald’s campaign. Thank goodness he’s not accepting contributions…
Thank Goodness, indeed…
Is Trump the one that paleoconservatives prophesized would immanentize the eschaton?
I don’t know if the name Samuel Francis rings a bell, but in 1996 that old paleoconservative (one of the nicer appellations used to describe him and his views) wrote “From Household to Nation” in the March 1996 issue of the Rockford Institute’s Chronicles magazine. Its subtitle was “The Middle American Populism of Pat Buchanan.”
In it Francis wrote that Buchanan could certainly win the nomination and the presidency if he were willing to put himself before his cause and the GOP:
Francis’s argument was that Middle America had been so put upon that a nationalist, populist candidate could win in a landslide, and none of the conservative factions or GOP establishment cliques had anything in the way of philosophy or policy to support the kind of message and candidate the country needed.
This looks to be the sort of message and approach Trump is taking, or so argues Michael Brendan Dougherty in The Week magazine in “How an obscure adviser to Pat Buchanan predicted the wild Trump campaign in 1996”. Dougherty starts off with a morsel of red meat from Francis’s article:
Then Dougherty continues in his own hand:
Rush Limbaugh mentioned Dougherty’s article and theory on his show today. It strikes me as apt, one of the better explanations of Trump’s success. He’s latched onto an unknown size of the electorate by using an approach that was described as a sure thing 20 years ago.
We’ll find out shortly if it is a sure thing, if Trump’s supporters actually do turn out to caucus and vote.
Only one more year to Inauguration Day!
Trump won’t win.
If folks select an idiot like Donald Trump, Hillary will coast to a fairly easy win because a lot of people like me simply won’t vote
and there aren’t enough angry white folk to elect Trump.
It’s still too early to worry about that for either party, a lot can happen.
But, if anxiety is your drug, put “Trump luntz blacks” into the search engine of your choice (without the quotes) and you’ll see that Trump’s support among blacks and Hispanics is unusually high for a Republican. As you can see from the search results, Republican pollster Frank Luntz has been pushing that notion for about six months, but according to Politico, apparently other pollsters who won’t go on the record are seeing the same thing.
Poll results are only as good as the screening, answer rate, and a host of other variables and some eye of newt, and nobody has a good handle on how many of Trump’s supporters will actually show up at a GOP caucus or turn out to vote.
Heck, according to the latest polls you and I are only one point below O’Malley… But that’s because he’s got only 1%…
I already have my “Hillary for Prison, 2016” sign and am just waiting to plant it in the front yard… I first have to escape the Snowmageddon that’s going to hit Virginia on up on Friday…
Prison for what? Last time I checked you need to commit a crime to go to prison.
Hypothetical question for you, bud:
What evidence would have to be presented to you in order to convince you that Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information to a degree or in a manner which amounted to a criminal offense?
Bryan..move on. It’s all in the past. Nothing in the past matters.
That sounds about like Hillary’s campaign slogan. Hillary 2016: Nothing in the Past Matters!
Hillary and the truth are polar opposites.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 5— After nearly two years of searches and subpoenas, the White House said this evening that it had unexpectedly discovered copies of missing documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s law firm that describe her work for a failing savings and loan association in the 1980’s.
Federal and Congressional investigators have issued subpoenas for the documents since 1994, and the White House has said it did not have them.
Due process Bryan. Due process. Until such time as she, or anyone else including Rick Snyder or Chris Christie, are convicted in a court of law they are innocent and thus not a criminal.
Okay. Your answer has been noted for the record. 🙂
Maybe the latest revelation about information on her personal computer that was so sensitive even the CIA had to be cleared before they could access and read it? If this is accurate information, then she did commit a crime and it is punishable. Just ask Petraeus and his sharing of sensitive information with his mistress. Is Hillary really above the law and not accountable the same as Petraeus was held accountable?
Even NBC supposedly investigated and then ran the story and for the MSM, that is major. It was not FOX, the dreaded misinformation network, it was NBC!!! WOW!!!
But,he is.Send your donation,HERE
https://secure.donaldjtrump.com/donate/
I have to admit, I have spend considerable time wondering what Lily Tomlin’s political candidate preference might be.
Thank goodness I know now.
Spend = Spent
oh how I wish you had an “edit” function.
Don’t we all.
An unwillingness to go beyond labels or to examine what a person is actually saying or promoting no matter what their name might be doesn’t indicate “centrist” to me. I think it feeds into our lazy tendency to form opinions and dig into positions based on bumper-sticker summaries, empty rhetoric, and listening for stuff that fits our mindset and biases.
So what are you saying? That you think Trump supporters DO care what Noam Chomsky and Tom Hayden think?
Otherwise, I’m not following you…
I doubt if many of Trump’s supporters have heard of either. My contention is that valid positions can come from a Fonda, a Chomsky, a Republican, a Dixiecrat, a “democratic socialist,” or TEA partier or even a journalist. Dismissing any idea without examining it based on a label or who the source might be is a poor way to develop positions or problem-solve. As a “no labels” guy, I would expect you to go beyond being dismissive based on surface factors, but that sometimes isn’t the case. Of course, I think you are sometimes just trying to have fun and it doesn’t translate.
Trump is a symptom. Politicians are the disease.
When I read a list of names who support a particular candidate, no matter if the candidate is Democrat or Republican, or if the list of names is against a candidate, a red flag goes up immediately for me. The list provided just about exhausted my supply of red flags for one day. To be fair, I have a list for the other side as well.
Trump may have Palin’s endorsement but in the end, outside of her dedicated followers, she does not carry much weight or exert much influence. However, she is good for a lot of press, mostly negative.
Doug’s comment about Trump being a symptom is accurate but I would describe Trump as a manifestation of the hidden underbelly of frustration and anger for a greater number of voters than the experts and pundits ever imagined. Politicians talk in circles and most never come direct to the point. Trump doesn’t talk in circles, he comes direct to the point, sometimes exaggerated, sometimes on the money but speaks his mind. It would be interesting for he and Putin to sit across the table and Trump to tell Putin, “You’re Fired!” after failing to reach an agreement. Oddly enough, Putin would probably like Trump for being so direct.
I don’t like labels but I guess centrist is as close to my core beliefs as any label could. We spend too much time trying to put each other into comfortable categories but in reality, most of us do share many of the same values whether one is a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, liberal, or conservative.
I still have a suspicion that Trump is getting tired of the whole processes and has made some attempts to get the exit process started. Although he likes the attention, he can go back along his usual self-indulgent path and claim victory because candidates, press, and pundits let him drive the narrative for a while. The rigorous job that goes along with seriously campaigning and governing if one wins can’t appeal to one with Trump’s makeup. He’s getting the paragraph in history that Ross Perot got without spending nearly the money, and won’t have to plod the long campaign trail until November. He’ll probably continue to make reckless pronouncements and unsupportable bluster until he gets an excuse to exit while touting his greatness for heating the pot to boiling and stirring it up.