Mr. Hitler, in the past you have called Jews ‘vermin’ and other nasty…”

Mr. Stalin, in the past you have called Christians…”

Mr. Pot, those you had killed in Cambodia, you have called them…”

  So, would the following, ala’ Trump, have been an acceptable response?
 

The number one problem… is political correctness.

  You know, Donald? While not “number one,” I kind of agree, but I’m sure not in a way you would approve…
  The politically correct defense; more an attack, essentially is often people saying, “Shut the #@!& up, you can’t criticize me and I don’t have to defend myself.”
  Why, yes, you do, Mr.Trump: just like any other candidate or public figure. You, who use the ultimate form of political correctness through name calling, smearing and, blasting anyone in very personal ways: anyone you would rather just shut up by demeaning them because they’re a woman.
  Is this kind of goosestepping, billy club over the head, dictatorial behavior what we would expect from a Trump presidency?
  Reminds me a tad of the first Adams who, from the day he was inaugurated, had those who criticized him thrown in jail.
  I have to thank Donald for the inspiration here. Of course Megyn Kelly had every right to bring up Trump’s nasty, demeaning, dehumanizing, objectifying, marginalizing, villain-zing, name calling directed at many women: not just Rosie. Indeed she would have been doing a disservice in a debate if she hadn’t.
 If only Meghan could claim purity here in her own rhetoric when, at other times, she’s merely posing as a “journalist.”
  As an aside I’m surprised she did bring it up, since making any Republican look bad, or Democrat look good, might just be a terminating offense at FOX.
  Yeah, that was a joke.
  Kind of.
  Sort of.
  But that brings up another aspect, I’m not surprised by any of this. Calling people names and then attacking anyone who criticizes by trying to make them look ignorant of the intended “humor,” with a smarmy, “I was joking,” has become a method of preventing those who might point to using questionable rhetorical as a serious character flaw from doing so.
 Using the after the fact “I was joking” ploy is like the kid caught with his hands in the cookie jar claiming he was only checking to be sure the cookies “were safe in there.”
  “I was joking, ha, ha, ha…” (Long fade into the phoniness of the moment.)
  But she did bring it up, and Trump’s dismissal accompanied by a threat to get nastier only underlines the bad boy, bully, behavior. And it shows Trump is the last one of all the candidates who was on that stage who should be president.
  And massive support for Trump, because he “says what he thinks,” only shows the shallowness behind any thought, if any, put into supporting our candidates by some. There’s literally not an ounce of intelligence in any voter who would vote based on that criteria. And those who would vote for Trump for that reason may be proving the movie Idiocracy might one day be viewed as a documentary explaining how we got so stupid.

                                                    -30-
  Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
©Copyright 2015
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all right reserved