I certainly do not disagree with your point, only the degree to which it applies to the current situation.
I just don’t think ‘the line’ is quite where you have drawn it, or that Trump has crossed as far beyond it as you say he has.
Again, I do agree with the substance of your argument, that a fighting style would be more advantageous if it did not alienate more than it enlisted.
Trump has said things that I have wished he hadn’t said, or had said a different way. I sort these into three categories:
First, things he simply should not have said. For example, questioning McCain’s heroism based on his having been captured.
Second, things that should be said and need to be said, but that are deemed taboo by the political correctness enforcers on the left. These things sound harsh and shocking to many ears because even the most vigilant and liberty minded among us are at least partially brainwashed, and many are completely brainwashed. For example, saying “All lives matter” instead of “black lives matter” or “the minimum wage should be $0 per hour” are considered horribly insensitive and racist statements, even though true, and Trump seems to be the only one that dares utter them.
Third (and this is the most difficult one), things that do not need to be said and are perhaps rude, boorish, even cruel, but which we have a right to say - a right which must be exercised regularly to make it clear that no one can dictate what we can say for any reason, whatsoever. If we can be censored on the grounds that something is unsubstantiated, racist, or rude, then there is no right of free speech. What better way to demonstrate this right than to say something rude, racist or unsubstantiated? Examples of this are the cartoons making fun of Allah or Mohamed, or any number of Trump comments.
I don’t like the limits of what can be said being dictated by the left, and being enforced only when a Republican crosses the line. Trump is purposely defying those standards (double standards, really) on a daily basis with the aim of destroying them along with their inherent duplicity, and I think that’s a good thing.
I look forward to resurrecting standards of decency in a post Trump society, as long as they are not double standards, which favor leftism, and obliterate all reason and accountability.
Examples of this are the cartoons making fun of Allah or Mohamed, Trump is purposely defying those standards (double standards, really) on a daily basis with the aim of destroying them along with their inherent duplicity, and I think that’s a good thing.
While I applaud the service you have rendered in distinguishing among types of speech, I cannot say that Donald Trump utters a single word out of principle but only motivated by his narcissism.
Consider the category of, "making fun of Allah." We must ask ourselves, how did Trump behave when someone actually made fun of Allah? He accused the victim, Pamela Geller, he did not stand on principle for free speech rather he raised his voice against it.
There is nothing in Donald Trump's biography that suggests that he ever did anything on principle which did not benefit Donald Trump. There is no utterance that I can think of in which Donald Trump stood for principle where it did not advantage Donald Trump. In fact, when it counted, Trump attacked the victim and stood against free speech.
The double standard I see has always been applied by Trump supporters who will tolerate anything from Donald Trump and nothing from other candidate.
