Here's my take. There are two elements to Trump's statement. One is that his supporters are ardently committed to him. That is presumably what he was intending to convey. Everybody gets that. You keep arguing that as though people don't get it and have not acknowledged it. You are beating the proverbial dead horse while missing the point.
The corollary, which you miss, is that, in doing so, his supporters provide yet another demonstration of their apparent indifference to and even admiration for the scofflaw in him, his repudiation of institutions and norms and even the law. His supporters, for whatever reason, don't find that effect a negative in him let alone a fatal flaw as do the rest of us.
So, WaPo attacks the voters for not reacting angrily to Trump's comment. Makes sense.
So, by not recognizing the corollary, you misinterpret the mention of it and create a strawman that his voters would be expected to react angrily against Trump for having said it. Then you argue against the strawman rather than the real issue.
Which is that his statement made light of gun violence in the face of rampant gun violence. Which is, at best, in bad taste and potentially contributing to more gun violence.
The reasonable, objective, thoughtful, adult response from Trump supporters would instead be 1) "yeah, us," followed by 2) "but he really shouldn't have framed it that way" rather than blaming and beating mercilessly on anyone who mentions that "he really shouldn't have framed it that way." |
