Killing Trump onstage to save democracy

[ProdigalHorn]

I got an email from the Public Theater today, defending its decision to recast Julius Caesar as Donald Trump, and have him killed by minorities in the final scene. They lost several sponsors - much as they would have if they had done the play four years ago and cast him as Barak Obama.

A NOTE ABOUT JULIUS CAESAR AT THE DELACORTE

The Public Theater stands completely behind our production of Julius Caesar. We understand and respect the right of our sponsors and supporters to allocate their funding in line with their own values. We recognize that our interpretation of the play has provoked heated discussion; audiences, sponsors and supporters have expressed varying viewpoints and opinions.

Such discussion is exactly the goal of our civically-engaged theater; this discourse is the basis of a healthy democracy. Our production of Julius Caesar in no way advocates violence towards anyone. Shakespeare's play, and our production, make the opposite point: those who attempt to defend democracy by undemocratic means pay a terrible price and destroy the very thing they are fighting to save. For over 400 years, Shakespeare’s play has told this story and we are proud to be telling it again in Central Park.

I certainly believe that they did not intend to encourage violence against anyone, any more than Kathy Griffin would have really chopped Trump's head off with an ax and have her picture taken with it. And I particularly agree with the following statement:

"Shakespeare's play, and our production, make the opposite point: those who attempt to defend democracy by undemocratic means pay a terrible price and destroy the very thing they are fighting to save."

While I'm not sure that having Donald Trump killed by people of color is necessarily the opposite of promoting violence, I think it's fantastic that after eight years of remaining silent through the rush of executive orders, unscrupulous surveillance, extortion-based lawsuits against corporations as a means of funding leftist activist groups, stacking courts with judges intent on pushing a political agenda rather than going through the constitutional process of legislation (which I believe is what the Public Theater terms "democracy"), that the Public Theater has finally awakened to its responsibility to defend and promote the democratic process against a president intent on pushing his own agenda against the will of the people.

Kudos to the Public Theater. My faith in the Arts has been restored.

 

[Musburger1]

Here's the real play:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/06/patrick-j-buchanan/civil-war-near/

President Trump may be chief of state, head of government and commander in chief, but his administration is shot through with disloyalists plotting to bring him down.

We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of the sovereign and its own restoration.

Thus far, it is a nonviolent struggle, though street clashes between pro- and anti-Trump forces are increasingly marked by fistfights and brawls. Police are having difficulty keeping people apart. A few have been arrested carrying concealed weapons.

That the objective of this city is to bring Trump down via a deep state-media coup is no secret. Few deny it.

Buy Gold at Discounted Prices

Last week, fired Director of the FBI James Comey, a successor to J. Edgar Hoover, admitted under oath that he used a cutout to leak to The New York Times an Oval Office conversation with the president.

Goal: have the Times story trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor to bring down the president.

Comey wanted a special prosecutor to target Trump, despite his knowledge, from his own FBI investigation, that Trump was innocent of the pervasive charge that he colluded with the Kremlin in the hacking of the DNC.

Comey’s deceit was designed to enlist the police powers of the state to bring down his president. And it worked. For the special counsel named, with broad powers to pursue Trump, is Comey’s friend and predecessor at the FBI, Robert Mueller.

As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: “Look at who Mueller’s starting to hire. … (T)hese are people that … look to me like they’re … setting up to go after Trump … including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. …

“This is going to be a witch hunt.”

Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War.

The State Department was tasked with working out the details.

Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for sanctions policy, he received “panicky” calls of “Please, my God, can you stop this?”

Operatives at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected, collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded.

“It would have been a win-win for Moscow,” said Tom Malinowski of State, who boasted last week of his role in blocking a rapprochement with Russia. State employees sabotaged one of the principal policies for which Americans had voted, and they substituted their own.

Not in memory have there been so many leaks to injure a president from within his own government, and not just political leaks, but leaks of confidential, classified and secret documents. The leaks are coming out of the supposedly secure investigative and intelligence agencies of the U.S. government.

The media, the beneficiaries of these leaks, are giving cover to those breaking the law. The real criminal “collusion” in Washington is between Big Media and the deep state, colluding to destroy a president they detest and to sink the policies they oppose.

Yet another example is the unfolding “unmasking” scandal.

While all the evidence is not yet in, it appears an abnormal number of conversations between Trump associates and Russians were intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies.

On orders higher up, the conversations were transcribed, and, contrary to law, the names of Trump associates unmasked.

Then those transcripts, with names revealed, were spread to all 16 agencies of the intel community at the direction of Susan Rice, and with the possible knowledge of Barack Obama, assuring some would be leaked after Trump became president.

The leak of Gen. Michael Flynn’s conversation with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, after Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for the hacking of the DNC, may have been a product of the unmasking operation. The media hit on Flynn cost him the National Security Council post.

Trump has had many accomplishments since his election. Yet his enemies in the media and their deep state allies have often made a purgatory of his presidency.

What he and his White House need to understand is that this is not going to end, that this is a fight to the finish, that his enemies will not relent until they see him impeached or resigning in disgrace.

To prevail, Trump will have to campaign across this country and wage guerrilla war in this capital, using the legal and political weapons at his disposal to ferret out the enemies within his own government.

Not only is this battle essential, if Trump hopes to realize his agenda, it is winnable. For the people sense that the Beltway elites are cynically engaged in preserving their own privileges, positions and power.

If the president cannot rewrite Obamacare or achieve tax reform, he should not go around the country in 2018 wailing about Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. They are not the real adversaries. They are but interchangeable parts.

He should campaign against the real enemies of America First by promising to purge the deep state and flog its media collaborators.

Time to burn down the Bastille.

 

[Crockett]

If the president cannot rewrite Obamacare or achieve tax reform, he should not go around the country in 2018 wailing about Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. They are not the real adversaries. They are but interchangeable parts.

He should campaign against the real enemies of America First by promising to purge the deep state and flog its media collaborators.

Just a big wacky left wing conspiracy? I know it's frustrating for some, but our Constitution's checks and balances are one of our strengths. It's not completely irrelevant that more US voters cast ballots in Presidential and Congressional races for the party that is out of power, but still retains significant power. Health care reform in our Constitutional Republic, where special interests have a lot of political power, is always going to come up with a pretty awkward resolution because while most of us would benefit from policies that control costs, some of us benefit enormously from out of control costs.

 

[Musburger1]

Left wing conspiracy is a misnomer. The main players here are globalist ideologs either presiding within the organs of power (State Department, Intel Agencies, Pentagon, etc.) or in the corporatocracy with ties to governmental agencies (Google, Amazon, Wall Street, and many, many others) that benefit from neoliberal globalism. Any reproachment with countries outside the sphere of neoliberalism (China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela) and any nationalist oriented trade policies threaten profits of the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, and multinational corporate profits. Trump must go.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Sponsors and donors are within their rights to pull their support. It sounds like the depiction is over the top even though I'd agree that Trump's authoritarian style is reminiscent of Cesar.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Someone pointed out that in fact, a play in 2012 featured a tall, thin black man who they presumed to represent Barak Obama as Caesar, so it's certainly factually true that at some point, someone has cast the play with Caesar as Obama.

Of course, the political climate is completely different now than it was five years ago. We've just gone through a situation that caused CNN to sever ties with Kathy Griffin over a picture of her and Trump's severed head. We've had a year where assassination fantasies have become basically the norm for progressive social media posters. At this point, a sponsor knows perfectly well that people are on a hair trigger where this is concerned, and it would foolish to encourage more. There's no question that Obama had his share of hateful detractors, but at the same time, I'm fairly sure no one would have believed that a national theater troupe was rabidly anti-Obama to the point that they wanted him gone. (Not to mention it was put on by different people, so it has no relation to whatever the Public Theater may have intended when they cast this latest play.)

Ultimately my issue is not with the fact that they chose to stick Trump into the play and kill him. I just think they should have been honest about the idea of casting a polarizing figure that they view as a tyrant and a threat to democracy, and the depths of desperation and hatred to which it has driven many in NYC. Don't pull some language out about "varying viewpoints" or defending democracy divorced of politics or ideology.

When the public theater reimagines Othello as a man who kills his wife after his activist progressive friend Iago convinces him she's a racist, then they can talk about "varying viewpoints."

 

[Seattle Husker]

If Trump has many more Cabinet meetings like this than we should all exclaim "Hail Trump!" This was beyond weird.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Of course, the political climate is completely different now than it was five years ago.

Which political climate is that? This one?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

You're going to pour that weak sauce on this dish, SH? Pathetic.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Which political climate is that? This one?

Enlighten me. I'm clearly not as smart as you are and just can't pick up the logic where your post refutes my point. Particularly when you're using a debunked talking point which even if it were true, would seem to be a lot more in line with the point I'm making than whatever point it is that you're trying to make.

 

[Joe Fan]

Is it surprising to anyone that something like this would come out of this current climate?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Enlighten me. I'm clearly not as smart as you are and just can't pick up the logic where your post refutes my point. Particularly when you're using a debunked talking point which even if it were true, would seem to be a lot more in line with the point I'm making than whatever point it is that you're trying to make.

I'm reinforcing your point while also countering the prevailing sentiment by some on this board that the rancor is the fault of "liberals". It's a bipartisan problem that was escalated by our current POTUS, IMHO.

 

[mchammer]

I'm reinforcing your point while also countering the prevailing sentiment by some on this board that the rancor is the fault of "liberals". It's a bipartisan problem that was escalated by our current POTUS, IMHO.

Really? Obama WH called Scalise "David Duke without the baggage".

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...uke-without-the-baggage-claim/article/2558203

 

[Seattle Husker]

Really? Obama WH called Scalise "David Duke without the baggage".

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...uke-without-the-baggage-claim/article/2558203

Did you read the article?

Earnest was referring to a recent claim from a longtime Louisiana reporter who writes for the New Orleans Advocate that Scalise described himself as “David Duke without the baggage” in an exchange with her nearly 20 years ago when he was just starting out in the Louisiana legislature.

The reporter, Stephanie Grace, said she believed Scalise was disavowing Duke’s past and his racist and anti-Semitic views, but was struck that he would try to strike any similarities with the former KKK wizard.

“Scalise may have been naïve about how to express himself to a newcomer, but he was already a savvy politician who knew that, even though Duke had lost the governor’s race a few years earlier, Duke voters were still around,” she wrote. “And those Duke voters also were potential Scalise voters.”

Obama was repeating a quote from a journalist who claimed Scalise described himself that way. It wasn't as if Obama coined the term "little Marco" or "low energy Jeb" or "crooked Hillary".

 

[mchammer]

Did you read the article?



Obama was repeating a quote from a journalist who claimed Scalise described himself that way. It wasn't as if Obama coined the term "little Marco" or "low energy Jeb" or "crooked Hillary".

First, claimed. Second, the WH used the quote pejoratively without the context.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

It's a bipartisan problem that was escalated by our current POTUS, IMHO.

So you think that a debunked talking point about Trump being rude to a reporter is equivalent to the constant drumbeat of claims that the GOP "has blood on its hands" for its stance on Obamacare? You can't raise a generation of kids with the idea that the GOP literally wants to kill people with its policy and not expect attitudes like this:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If the shooter has a serious health condition then is taking potshots at the GOP house leadership considered self defense?</p>&mdash; Malcolm Harris (@BigMeanInternet) <a href="">June 14, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...alth-care-obamacare-gop-ryan-turmp/101334682/

Let’s be brutally honest about what House Republicans “achieved” on Thursday by passing the American Health Care Act. They killed people. Not yet, but that’s coming. More Americans will die because the GOP made it all but impossible for them to afford the medical care they needed, care to which they would have had access under Obamacare.

Everyone who supported the American Health Care Act — all Republicans, of course — will have blood on their hands. That’s not hyperbole. The good news for them is that the dead will mostly come from those in need, the poor and the elderly about whom the Republicans who voted for this bill apparently care little. But the GOP made sure to secure a big fat tax cut for the wealthy that will help destroy health insurance for millions. That’s what really mattered.

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9154

“They should be lined up and shot,” Professor John Griffin posted to his Facebook, according to a screenshot of the post obtained by Campus Reform, even clarifying that he wasn’t being hyperbolic, saying “that’s not hyperbole; blood is on their hands.”

That's not coming from ticked off weirdos on the Internet. That's coming from academics and published "journalists" (which probably says more about the media's desire to print whacko progressive drivel than it does their view of him as an actual journalist.)

And yet... still waiting for that outbreak of right-wing violence that's been due for 12 years now. It only took one polarizing president to violate enough safe spaces to start the ball rolling.

“Scalise may have been naïve about how to express himself to a newcomer, but he was already a savvy politician who knew that, even though Duke had lost the governor’s race a few years earlier, Duke voters were still around,” she wrote. “And those Duke voters also were potential Scalise voters.”

Well as we've seen, if you're naive about how you express yourself, that's as good a reason as anyone to hope someone dies, right?

 

[Seattle Husker]

So you think that a debunked talking point about Trump being rude to a reporter is equivalent to the constant drumbeat of claims that the GOP "has blood on its hands" for its stance on Obamacare?

Debunked or rationalized? I'll see your "has blood on its hands" with "death panels". See how that works? It's a bi-partisan problem so I appreciate you continuing to drive home my point.

You can't raise a generation of kids with the idea that the GOP literally wants to kill people with its policy and not expect attitudes like this:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If the shooter has a serious health condition then is taking potshots at the GOP house leadership considered self defense?</p>&mdash; Malcolm Harris (@BigMeanInternet) <a href="">June 14, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...alth-care-obamacare-gop-ryan-turmp/101334682/



http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9154



That's not coming from ticked off weirdos on the Internet. That's coming from academics and published "journalists" (which probably says more about the media's desire to print whacko progressive drivel than it does their view of him as an actual journalist.)

I'll do you one better. Our POTUS said this on the campaign trail.

"If she picks her judges, nothing you can do, folks," Mr. Trump said as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: "Although the Second Amendment people -- maybe there is, I don't know."

He also advocated for his supporters to beat up protesters. While you point to Obama as being the problem, I agree with Mark Sanford and Trump's role in escalating the issue. Obama certainly contributed to the problem although I don't agree that his approach to exposing and talking about race relations problems was one of them.

 

[OUBubba]

Enlighten me. I'm clearly not as smart as you are and just can't pick up the logic where your post refutes my point. Particularly when you're using a debunked talking point which even if it were true, would seem to be a lot more in line with the point I'm making than whatever point it is that you're trying to make.

Debunked? You really don't believe he was mocking the reporter? Seriously?

They did they play with Obama as Caesar. Get over it SNOWFLAKES!

 

[Seattle Husker]

Debunked? You really don't believe he was mocking the reporter? Seriously?

They did they play with Obama as Caesar. Get over it SNOWFLAKES!

There was an article that tried to debunk the "Trump mocks reporter" that provided a video of him using all the same actions but the cocked hand to mock media. To some, this absolved Trump from being held accountable for mocking the disability of this reporter. It was a rationalization, not a debunking of what should be universally abhorrent behavior, especially by someone that at the time was seeking to represent us all. I chalked it up to political blinders.

 

[Crockett]

It's been about 40 years since I read Julius Ceasar. If I recall correctly, he wasn't a villain in the story and his murder turned into anything but a triumph for the perps.

The Western World observed the Julian Calendar until 1582 and next Month is named in honor of a man whose ego size was in the same upper skinny end of the bell curve with our current president.

 

[mchammer]

There was an article that tried to debunk the "Trump mocks reporter" that provided a video of him using all the same actions but the cocked hand to mock media. To some, this absolved Trump from being held accountable for mocking the disability of this reporter. It was a rationalization, not a debunking of what should be universally abhorrent behavior, especially by someone that at the time was seeking to represent us all. I chalked it up to political blinders.

As a result, the media says Trump mocked a disabled reporter, but they don't make the distinction whether Trump was mocking the reporter or his disability. Apparently, Trump met him once 18 years ago and it is not for certain why Trump would remember his disability. As pointed out above, Trump has made similar hand motions when mocking other abled people. So, did Trump mock the reporter or the disability? I believe the evidence supports the former, whereas obviously biased reporters would believe the latter.

 

[I35]

You're going to pour that weak sauce on this dish, SH? Pathetic.

It's hard to take this guy serious. No valid points ever. I guess we shouldn't expect that he would being a hardcore Lib where logic isn't in his vocabulary.

 

[Seattle Husker]

As a result, the media says Trump mocked a disabled reporter, but they don't make the distinction whether Trump was mocking the reporter or his disability.

The fact that you are trying to make a distinction reinforces my point that the rancor in political discussions is bi-partisan. Really, should it matter whether he was mocking the man as a reporter or for his disability? The fact that mocking anyone like that is OK speaks to the garbage level of our political discourse, IMHO.

Apparently, Trump met him once 18 years ago and it is not for certain why Trump would remember his disability. As pointed out above, Trump has made similar hand motions when mocking other abled people. So, did Trump mock the reporter or the disability? I believe the evidence supports the former, whereas obviously biased reporters would believe the latter.

No, it was the crooked hand that Trump didn't use in the video. I'll give you face, voice inflections and shaking hands he used in the video attempting to debunk it but not the deformed right hand when he was specifically speaking about this reporter. What's lost in the discussion is that neither were appropriate in a civil discussion on policy during a campaign. Of course, he wasn't talking policy but rather attacking others which I'll say again is contributing to the problem and was an escalation of previous rancor.

 

[I35]

No, it was the crooked hand that Trump didn't use in the video.

I believe I saw on video that he did the exact same thing to Ted Cruz.