Following violence at Donald Trump’s raucous rallies, Hillary Clinton says that violence has no place in politics. But what about the violence in hers?
Violence Has No Place in Politics
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
32 Comments. Leave new
Exceptionalism = OUR genocide don’t stink.
«Exceptionalism = OUR genocide don’t stink.» Indeed ! And further, as equality is a transitive operation : Exceptionalism = OUR genocide doesn’t stink = OUR genocide isn’t genocide, but R2P («responsibility to protect»)….
Henri
I find the whole thing liberating.
The nomination race has been the first time in my memory that a really progressive candidate has run a campaign with enthusiasm (and not given up in a month) advocating for things I can agree with.
And he’s up against a candidate who can’t even give us single payer healthcare, won’t even dream that big because it simply CAN’T be done. It’s unpossible. No one in the world has it (except for all the places in Europe that people wistfully say, “Oh, I wish I could go there on my vacation” about).
And he’s losing. He hasn’t lost yet, but it’s pretty long odds. He’s going to need a series of big wins, and it’s a win either way (for me at least).
See, this is the perfect storm. Sanders is the right candidate. He has the right ideas. He represents government-for-the-people thinking. Not government-for-the-elites-who-run-the-country thinking. And he’s up against one of the most scandal-tainted politicians in American history. The odds will never be more in favor of a progressive election.
And if people vote Hillary in, then so be it. I’m done. I see no point in continuing the farce. I won’t vote for her because I do not want to scrub the blood off my hands from the war she’ll be told to get us into. I will finally be able to devote all the time and energy I spend on politics into something more rewarding for myself.
The likelihood of Hillary Clinton winning the presidency is just about zero. The Republicans are already primed to hate her. She can’t even get rid of Sanders. The contest will go to June. And five seconds after the counting is done, Trump will start in on her. The polls have her beating Trump by about seven points right now.
Clinton will lose the independents. She will lose the “low-information” voters who will finally start to realize, “Wow. She really, really is wrapped up in every dirty deal in the last 25 years, isn’t she?”
The Republicans will launch an investigation on the e-mails. And about Bill Clinton’s alleged violations of campaign law in Massachusetts and Illinois. And you know what Trump will say, at the beginning of every single ad and every single speech?
“Say, Hill? Have you released those Goldman Sachs speeches like you said you would? Or was that another lie out of your mouth? See, folks, that’s all she does. Lie. Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire.” And when Hillary finally says something about it to him, Trump’s reply will be, “Well, go to my website. My Goldman speeches will be up there by midnight. You have my word on it. I’d ask for Hillary’s word, but we all know what that’s worth.”
I cannot believe the Democratic Party leadership can’t figure this out.
Even if she wins — which I don’t believe can happen unless her friends pull one from the Bush playbook — the Senate and House will simply block her on everything.
So are you saying you’ll take this as proof that Americans reject progressivism and socialism?
I will say that Democrats on the whole are dumber than I thought. Sanders’ message is “I’ll give you free shit.” A disaster waiting to happen, but that’s as appealing a message as is gets with the proles. And it’s certainly more appealing than Hillary’s complete lack of appeal, yet Hillary wins.
Jack,
If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination in this election cycle, it means that there are simply too many chumps for the rest of us to make any headway.
I could go into agonizing detail, but here’s the short form: And I’m going to lift it right out of Malcolm X’s autobiography. “Well, I am one who doesn’t believe in deluding myself. I’m not going to sit at your table and watch you eat, with nothing on my plate, and call myself a diner. Sitting at the table doesn’t make you a diner, unless you eat some of what’s on that plate.”
And I, for one, figured out a long time ago that other people were getting a lot better service than I was. And here comes Hillary Clinton telling me to be happy with what I’ve got. What bullshit. I know what I’ve got. A rigged system that deprives me of things that every goddamned developed nation in the world provides to its citizens: healthcare regardless of whether I’m still hanging on to a job or have been “rightsized” right out on my ass, and education that actually will let me earn a living worth having without having to dig myself so far into a hole that I can never get out of it.
And if it were just me, or a tiny cohort of people, or if I was one lazyass piece of shit, I’d chalk it up to my own damned foolish ways and have a couple bottles of wine while I complain. But it isn’t just me. It’s a whole lot of people. And the entire system keeps trying to tell us to smile more as we choke down the same shit as last time and the time before that.
If enough of us can’t figure it out THIS time around, what the hell will it have to be like NEXT time to snap people out of it?
“War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.”
– Carl von Clausewitz
“War is the last refuge of the incompetent.”
– Isaac Asimov
Sorry to be pedantic, but I am a college professor – it’s “violence is the last refuge of the incompetent,” from The Foundation Trilogy. I have a signed copy somewhere. Thought is the same…
Damn. My only qualification is a lifelong dedication to the holy trinity (Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein) It’s obviously time to reread the classics.
So no A on this one, eh, prof? 😉
CrazyH
Haven’t you heard of grade inflation? Easy A 🙂
And yet the Leftists here call for bloody revolution. So are you admitting incompetence and hypocrisy or would you insist your violence is somehow exempt from your Asimov quote?
«And yet the Leftists here call for bloody revolution.» Which «Leftists here» can you cite, «Jack Heart» who are calling for «bloody revolution» ? None ? Thought not ; you exhibit here your consuetudinal mendacity and contempt for evidence….
Henri
Take a ride on the clue bus, Jack. Peace protesters are lefties, war hawks are righties. We chain ourselves to trees while you participate in armed take-overs or wildlife preserves. We want to reduce the number of guns on the street while you want to increase them. We light candles to honor unarmed citizens murdered by police, while you defile their memories and contribute to the killer-cops’ defense funds.
The overwhelming number of us who want change (“Progressives”) want peaceful change. Bloody revolutions are no fun to participate in and leave the infrastructure in shambles.
Henri chooses to deny the obvious.
CH takes the non sequitur route.
Here’s Ted calling for violence. It’s kind of his thing as you all well know. Note that I’m not knocking it, but CH did above.
here
I’m leaving this at one link. After all, I don’t have all the time in the world to point out the obvious. Such self-styled intellectuals as yourselves can surely be bothered to do a couple google searches. It’s not as if you often back up your own claims.
Other Leftist violence off the top of my head:
Soros orchestrating Maidan.
That nut trying to attack Trump on stage.
The countless death threats against Trump on Twitter and beyond.
Hillary’s destruction of Libya. (Sorry. No one but you “progressives” thinks she’s on the Right.)
BLM calling for the death of cops.
Feminists calling for the murder of Roosh V.
Ecoterrorists.
——
Try using Google, CH. It’s helpful for keeping you from looking so foolish.
Once again, Jack – you fail to understand the concept of “burden of proof” – it’s not up to us to disprove your nonsense, but rather it is up to you to prove it.
You’re trying to prove that “Leftists here call for bloody revolution” – one scrawl on the wall of one CARTOON does not prove your assertion. That’s pretty pathetic even by your standards.
If you can show multiple posts by Henri and my humble self calling for such a thing, then you’ve achieved your goal. Otherwise, you’re just making it obvious that you can’t prove it. (as if it weren’t obvious in the first place)
«After all, I don’t have all the time in the world to point out the obvious» – which statement, for those unused to that peculiar version of the English language employed by «Jack Heart», should be interpreted as «I am both unwilling and unable to find support for my claims»….
Did Ted «call for violence» or a «bloody revolution» in his cartoon dated 13 April 2011 ? My understanding of the cartoon is rather that he recognises that chickens have a certain tendency to return home to roost, and that deliberately «losing» paperwork in order to profit from foreclosing mortgages may in the future have consequences not imagined by the those who do so. That «Jack Heart» doesn’t find the pointing out of the consequences which can ensue from activities under the present regime of violence (which «Jack Heart» seems to support) palatable is hardly surprising, nor that s/he chooses to ignore the fact that the vast majority of political violence, not merely in the United States but elsewhere as well, is perpetrated by persons on her/his end of the political spectrum….
Henri
And I suppose that whole Anti-American Manifesto overthrow the gov’t thing was just a joke.
If you think I “support the present regime,” then you, sir, are a fucking idiot.
«If you think I “support the present regime,” then you, sir, are a fucking idiot.»
Well, «Jack Heart», once again you bring your egregious failure in reading comprehension to the attention of readers of these threads ; the statement to which you ostensibly refer in that well-fromulated comment I cite above is the following : «That «Jack Heart» doesn’t find the pointing out of the consequences which can ensue from activities under the present regime of violence (which «Jack Heart» seems to support) palatable is hardly surprising, nor that s/he chooses to ignore the fact that the vast majority of political violence, not merely in the United States but elsewhere as well, is perpetrated by persons on her/his end of the political spectrum…». As is clear from the above, my beef with the «present regime» is its violence ; when you, on the other hand, proclaim, that you do not «support the present regime», your reference, as is obvious to all who have followed your «contributions» here, is to the Obama administration, which you have made clear you hate. But you never comment on the violence it – and its predecessors and likely successors – inflict upon people both within and without the country in which you happen to reside. From what you write, your dislike (calling it «opposition» would be to give credit where none is due) of the Obama administration seems mainly to be due to its being headed by a black man ; never have I seen you criticise, for example, its vicious foreign policy….
The difference between us, dear Sir or Madam as you may be, is that while I have indeed been known to fuck, I am not an idiot….
Henri
@Jack, Dude, you’re voting for Trump. Do you really think he is going to change the regime that made him a billionaire? If so, you have no room to cast aspersions on other peoples’ intelligence.
@Henri – one supposes that Jack considers himself to be a non-fucking genius. We can’t verify the first half of that epithet; but it’s easy to believe given his vigorous misogyny. However, we do have ample evidence to falsify the second half.
I’m here because I largely like Ted’s views on foreign policy. I oppose drones, torture, and nearly all foreign interventions and have said as much. How you can deny this is a mystery to me. Maybe you have a short memory. Or maybe it’s just selective. Or perhaps you haven’t been here as long as I have.
It’s just as much of a mystery that you would assert that I seem to support the violence of the system. I don’t like any of our modern presidents for starters. And again, have said as much. Reagan. Bad president. Bushes. Even worse. Nixon. Worst of all. These guys did not care about America. They did not care about veterans. They did not care about fiscal conservatism or small government. Etc. They were not conservative in any meaningful way. And they were often violent for no good reason.
I don’t expect you ever to understand this. You sit there and think, “Oh gosh, he’s not a progressive. He’s voting for Trump. He must looove the system and violence.” People are voting for Trump because he’s bucking the system. Get a clue. We can’t know for sure what he’ll do, but it’s got to be better than more of the same.
No really. C’mon. Show me just where I have supported the violence of the current system. Put up or shut up. Prove it. You can’t. Always wanting proof of my claims when your own are so often baseless.
My claim : «But you [i e, the person who here chooses to use the sobriquet «Jack Heart»] never comment on the violence it – and its predecessors and likely successors – inflict upon people both within and without the country in which you happen to reside.» (Nota bene, «Jack Heart»’s cri de coeur to the effect that «Show me just where I have supported the violence of the current system», is, typically enough, irrelevant here ; what I have claimed above is not that he has supported the violence of the system, but rather that he has refrained from commenting upon it.)
«Jack Heart’s claim» : «I’m here because I largely like Ted’s views on foreign policy. I oppose drones, torture, and nearly all foreign interventions and have said as much. How you can deny this is a mystery to me.»
Judging between these two claims should be simple enough – if «Jack Heart» can point to earlier comments on these threads in which he has «oppose[d]» foreign interventions undertaken by the US government (those which s/he did, indeed, oppose) and in which drones and torture were employed, then I shall stand corrected. If s/he cannot or will not (under the device «I don’t have links and while I’d like them I don’t need them»), then my claim will be substantiated….
As an example of what s/he regards as «[o]ther Leftist violence off the top of my head» in addition to the example of Ms Clinton, whom s/he persists for some reason (stupidity ? mendacity ? a combination ?) in describing as Leftist, s/he writes: «Soros orchestrating Maidan». It should be noted that György Schwartz, aka «George Soros» had quite a lot of help, not least a certain Victoria Jane Nuland, in orchestrating Maidan (and the Putsch of 22 February 2014) and that describing either of these figure as «Leftist»requires a fevered imagination and a degree of mendacity of the type that «Jack Heart» exhibits on these threads. But of course, misrepresenting one’s adversaries is an ancient trick of those unable to support their arguments by other means….
With regard to US foreign policy and war, the two of which, alas, are so intimately intertwined, none of the candidates of the two major US parties seem, alas, to be greatly interested in turning US policy towards more peaceful paths. Here is what On the Issues has to say about Trump and Sanders, respectively. More specifically, on war and peace, we see the following for Trump and for Sanders. I must say that while the policies advocated by both these candidates have grave faults, they are vastly preferable to those of the warmongers and neocons (in particular those of Ms Clinton) who are their competitors in this race. If I were able to choose between the two on these issues – a choice which I hope US voters will be allowed – I’d go for Mr Sanders, not least because I deem his record tells us more about how he would act in the future than does that of Mr Trump….
Henri
@Jack – “No really. C’mon. Show me just where I have supported the violence of the current system. Put up or shut up. Prove it.”
uhhh, Jack? Haven’t I warned you about saying stupid things in a condescending tone? It doesn’t turn stupid into smart, quite the opposite, it merely serves to highlight the stupidity.
So near as I can tell, the statement you have evidently misread is “s/he chooses to ignore the fact that the vast majority of political violence, not merely in the United States but elsewhere as well, is perpetrated by persons on her/his end of the political spectrum…»”
But since you asked, just the other day you were defending cops who kill unarmed blacks. Have you forgotten already?
I also remember you defending Cliven Bundy – who took up arms against the lawful government of the United States.
You’ve also preached Islamophobia, which is one of the leading causes of violence in the world today.
«But since you asked, just the other day you were defending cops who kill unarmed blacks. Have you forgotten already?
I also remember you defending Cliven Bundy – who took up arms against the lawful government of the United States.
You’ve also preached Islamophobia, which is one of the leading causes of violence in the world today.» Alas, CrazyH, citing «Jack Heart» to demonstrate that s/he did say what he claims s/he did not or did say what s/he claims s/he did is futile, «Jack Heart» obviously participates in that peculiar «exceptionalism» enjoyed by the US government and which means that s/he, like that government, is never responsible for what s/he does or says….
Henri
Sorry, some typos managed to smuggle their way into my reply to CrazyH above. The sentence in question should read :
«Alas, CrazyH, citing «Jack Heart» to demonstrate that s/he did say what he claims s/he did not or did not say what s/he claims s/he did is futile, »
Apologies
Henri
Lmfao. Oh, the poor, poor, “lawful government of the United States.” I’m pretty sure it’s the system. Not Bundy.
And it’s radical Islam and the Deep State that accounts for so much violence. Not “Islamophobia.” I know you don’t mind Muslim migrants raping and murdering European women (It’s a small price to pay in your minds for “tolerance”), but it’s something I oppose (“misogynist” that I am).
And no, I will not assume that I know every cop to be guilty of murder. An unarmed man can still be dangerous. However, I have sided with you on most of these cases, but alas, most is not enough.
If you weren’t such racists, you’d be talking about ALL unjustified deaths by cops. Not just black ones.
By the way, you didn’t demonstrate anything. No links. And your examples are pathetic.
> “Muslim migrants raping and murdering European women ”
Right. That’s what I said. “Islamophobia”
> However, I have sided with you on most of these cases, but alas, most is not enough.
Uh, one actually – to the others you replied “if they hadn’t been breaking the law, they wouldn’t be dead today”
> By the way, you didn’t demonstrate anything. No links. And your examples are pathetic.
Oops, my bad. Here’s one that demonstrates Islamophobia and racism against blacks both.
You just don’t know when to quit, do you?
The violence seen at Trump rallies is mostly the work of agent provocateurs courtesy of the powers that be in both parties who want to derail Trump’s campaign. Investigative reporter Wayne Madsen has learned political fixers such as George Soros and Karl Rove are behind much of the mayhem.
Links? Those are explosive allegations.
I don’t have links and while I’d like them I don’t need them. It is far more likely than not that that they are agent provocateurs. It’s a very easy and common strategy and both the Left and the establishment Right have made their fierce opposition well known. This strategy will backfire however as it will only make Trump seem even more like the tough outsider.
«I don’t have links and while I’d like them I don’t need them.» Of course, you don’t, «Jack Heart», people like yourself don’t require sources or evidence for their claims, they make them up out of the whole cloth. Tell us something new….
Henri
Henri, you and CH are robotic in your predictability. Maybe you’re just scripts.
Rather than considering the logic or probability of my position, you reflexively ridicule. I did not claim certainty, only high likelihood. Odd that for all the talk on this blog of the machinations of TPTB, you find it hard to believe that they would use dirty tricks against an anti-establishment candidate.
The case is made well here. The source mentioned above is behind a paywall, but as usual, you couldn’t be bothered to look into anything yourself.
«Politics has no place in our violence !» Brilliant, Ted – a classic !…
Henri