July 16, 2024 • 20 mins
On this special episode of The Fuzzy Mic, we break from our usual format to confront the disturbing recent assassination attempt at President Trump's campaign rally.
We contextualize this event within historical precedents like Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 shooting. With invaluable insights from a retired Secret Service Agent, we reveal the intricate security challenges at high-risk political events and underscore the difficulty in thwarting attacks by determined perpetrators.
But the conversation doesn't stop there; we trace the roots of political rage back to the early days of American politics, examining the tumultuous relationship between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Despite the somber tone, we remain optimistic, highlighting America's resilience and progress since 1800.
As we close this intense discussion with a touch of humor and a heartfelt thank you, inspired by NBC News anchor Jose Diaz-Balart, we remind you to keep faith in a brighter future and to cherish the time we spend together. Join us for a thought-provoking episode that delves deep into our political landscape and its enduring challenges.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Fuzzy Mike, the interview series, the
podcast, whatever Kevin wants tocall it.
It's Fuzzy Mike, hello, andthank you for joining me.
Well, this is going to be quitepossibly the furthest departure
from a normal episode of theFuzzy Mike that there could ever
be.
Why?
Because I'm going to dosomething that I rarely do in
(00:23):
private and never do in public,and if you're watching this on
YouTube, you'll notice that I'mfully clothed.
So, no, it's not that Jeezpeople.
No, I'm going to enter thepolitical realm for a bit.
I'm going to do this because ofwhat happened this past
Saturday at President Trump'scampaign rally the shooting, the
(00:48):
assassination attempt, theRussian false flag, the CIA-led
Antifa strike, the WWE-stylestoryline created by Trump
himself to garner more votes andsecure an election win those
are all descriptions I've eitherheard or read in the media and
or in the comment section ofonline news stories.
(01:10):
By the way, regarding thegetting shot to secure the win
theory, well and I learned thisfrom my sister-in-law, who is a
college professor and historianIf, as someone has suggested,
this was a purposeful design toget shot, thinking that would
(01:31):
secure an election win, gettingshot is not an automatic path to
the White House.
We know this because October 14, 1912, during a campaign speech
in Milwaukee, theodoreRoosevelt was shot in the chest.
He survived, ended up losingthe election to Woodrow Wilson.
This is our country Again.
(01:53):
If you're watching this onYouTube, you'll notice that I
have a red, white and blue shirton Not an accident.
I was wearing an all red shirtfor a video shoot that I had to
do, but I decided to change intothis multicolor shirt because I
didn't want the appearance thatI was favoring one party over
another.
(02:13):
So I changed and I picked thisshirt.
I did purposely, because it hasthe three colors of America,
the concept I'd like to see allof us get back to.
Whether you love Donald Trump orhate Donald Trump, there is no
denying that Donald Trump wasthe 45th president of the United
(02:36):
States of America.
I am adamant about this.
The office of the president ofthe United States of America is
to be respected, regardless ofif your person is occupying that
office or if their person isPeriod.
No US president should ever beshot.
(02:59):
We've had four presidentsassassinated In 1865, it was
Lincoln.
In 1881, it was Garfield,william McKinley in 1901, and
John F Kennedy in 1963.
Additionally, three presidentshave been injured in attempted
assassinations Ronald Reaganwhile he was in office in 1981,
(03:23):
ronald Reagan while he was inoffice in 1981, as the
aforementioned, theodoreRoosevelt and now Donald Trump.
None of those should have everhappened.
Yet here we are and thisshooting will get as scrutinized
(03:47):
, or even more than Kennedy'sshooting was I say even more
than JFK because we have more TVchannels, so more camera crews.
Plus, with our phones, we'reall professional photographers,
so there's more footage, bothstill and moving.
Now I am very fortunate to knowtwo members of the US Secret
Service.
One is still active and theother is retired.
For the people who are callinginto question the actions on
(04:11):
Saturday of the Secret Service,I'm going to say this and it's
based on personal knowledge andinteraction the two men I know
that are in the Secret Serviceare of impeccable character, the
highest morals, deepestdevotion to their profession and
their country.
I'm going to say that again thetwo men I know in the Secret
(04:34):
Service are of impeccablecharacter, the highest morals
and deepest devotion to theirprofession and country.
My retired friend.
Of all the people I've known inmy life, he ranks at or near
the top of class humility,dedication and selflessness.
(04:56):
He is why I do not believe anynarrative that claims the Secret
Service did anything wrong oreven had a hand in the attempt
on 45's life.
I'd love it if my personalendorsement of my friend CF's
character was enough to put torest any Secret Service
(05:17):
conspiracy theories.
But I'm a realist and I knowthat beliefs are hard to damn
near impossible to changethrough opinion only.
Well, you're in luck becauseI'm going to share with you a
message that was sent to me andit's written by my retired
Secret Service buddy.
He writes let's talk about themechanics of this assassination
(05:42):
attempt.
Number one the service, meaningsecret service, cannot control
out to rifle distance.
It's impossible withoutquadruple the manpower, at least
Two.
So what's the answer?
Outside the perimeter, you do agood survey and assess problem
(06:03):
areas outside your perimeter andassign some badass
motherfuckers to scan thoseareas for threats and train them
to kill out to 1,000 meterswithout hesitation and without
asking for permission.
Again, this is insight from aretired Secret Service member.
Number three what is thedrawback of that plan?
(06:24):
There might be six dozenproblem areas, from dense tree
lines that need close scrutinyto buildings with up to dozens
of windows facing the event thatcould each pose a potential
problem.
Scanning means it takes time toreturn to problem area and
recheck it for security changes.
Number four you can post apolice officer to stand at every
(06:49):
threat area, but again,manpower constraints are an
issue.
You have to find ways to paredown your footprint to available
manpower and still have answersto the security holes.
We're only halfway through thisand already you're getting the
sense that it's a no-winsituation.
Number five this is textbookexample of someone oh, what
(07:13):
we're seeing with the Trumpshooting.
This is textbook example ofsomeone willing to trade their
life for the protectee's life.
The Secret Service looks likethey did everything right in the
plan.
Maybe there are problems We'llsee but I see none so far.
(07:34):
If someone hopes to get awaywith it, they are easier to
thwart because they will takeless risk.
But if you are truly ready todie for your attempt, it makes
preventing the attack infinitelymore difficult.
This isn't me saying this, thisis my friend CF, retired Secret
(07:56):
Service Personnel.
Reason number six the responsefrom the detail was textbook.
Was it sloppy A little bit?
But come on, have you ever doneanything, even if you practiced
(08:17):
it 100 times perfectly, thefirst time, you had to do it
under the worst stress of yourlife?
Of course not If you reallywant a tiny quibble from me
again, my friend CF SecretService member, I would have had
the press pushed off the riserbefore I moved him.
President Trump, but that is sominor as to almost be a joke to
(08:37):
bring up Number seven.
They responded very quickly.
Human processing of information, formulating a plan and then
implementing that plan, is nevergoing to be zero seconds.
I'll stop there.
I will insert my own thoughthere.
We saw this with the Sullyflight that landed in the Hudson
(09:02):
.
They tried to blame him for notmaking a faster decision.
They tried to blame him for notmaking a faster decision.
You only have X amount ofseconds to make this decision
and zero seconds is not anoption.
The human brain doesn't workthat way.
Back to CF.
You can train that responsetime down, but it will never be
(09:23):
instantaneous.
They were on him quickly andthey executed the extraction
quickly.
According to CF, trump is 6'3and over 300 pounds, surrounding
him with body armor, and movingas a unit to the armored limo
is difficult.
It's going to look unwieldy.
They responded within the scopeof their training and we should
(09:46):
all be proud of them.
Everyone Number eight, someoneclaiming they quote told the
cops there was someone on theroof with a gun.
End quote.
So what?
Do you have any idea how longthat process takes, from telling
the officer to the officer,relaying it to the services?
The officer was likely assigneda post.
(10:11):
He cannot leave his post period.
Leaving his post means openinga huge hole in the security plan
.
Telling that information to anofficer could be a diversion to
get that officer to leave hispost.
To get that officer to leavehis post.
Finally, number nine so he callsit in relays to the service.
The service identifies the areaand radios the appropriate
(10:35):
assets to monitor and respond.
This is not a five-secondprocess.
A gunman can get on the roofand start taking shots in a
couple of minutes or less, farfaster than the response team
can get there.
The counter snipers can get onhim quickly and neutralize the
threat, but they still have toscan to find him and engage.
(11:00):
In the end, the only answer tothe problem is more manpower.
The Secret Service doesn't setits own budget.
It can only do what it can withthe funds available.
And here's the final line of myfriend CF's message.
I beg of you, ignore thepundits on TV, especially those
(11:23):
from outside the Secret Servicethat have no idea how difficult
close protection of a high valueprotectee is.
That's the end of the message.
It made a ton of sense to me,and it should, because it was
written by an actual SecretService agent, one who's trained
for the job, one who's done thejob.
(11:45):
So if the secret service isn'tto blame, then what is found?
An interesting opinion piecethe other day and it shed a very
bright light on what is toblame.
The headline of the article readthe attempted assassination of
trump is not nearly assurprising as it should be.
(12:07):
It appeared on thehillcom andit was written by Jonathan
Turley.
Jonathan Turley is a publicinterest law professor at George
Washington University.
I figured the article was goingto cite the somewhat
commonplace of our presidentsbeing shot, so therefore it
should come as no surprise.
Commonplace, klein, what?
(12:28):
Yeah?
As I listed earlier, we've hadfour US presidents assassinated
and now three who have been shotat and survived.
Seven of our 46 presidents havebeen shot.
Had two guns not misfired onJanuary 30th 1835, that stat
(12:50):
would be eight out of 46.
But Andrew Jackson doesn't makethe list because a bullet never
struck him.
Seven out of 46.
I've asked this question somany times.
It begs to be asked again whywould anybody want that job?
Anyway, that's not what thearticle was about.
(13:13):
In addition to hisprofessorship, jonathan Turley
authored a recently releasedbook entitled the Indispensable
Right Free Speech in an Age ofRage.
I'm not going to read theentire article, but here are
some excerpts from the article.
For months, politicians, thepress and pundits have escalated
(13:37):
reckless rhetoric in thiscampaign on both sides.
That includes claims that Trumpwas set to kill democracy,
unleash death squads and makehomosexuals and reporters quote
disappear.
President Biden has stoked thisrage rhetoric Again.
This is not me saying this.
This is from the articlewritten by Jonathan Turley.
(13:57):
In 2022, biden held hiscontroversial speech before
Independence Hall, where hedenounced Trump supporters as
enemies of the people.
Biden recently referenced thespeech and has embraced the
claims that this could be ourlast democratic election.
We are living through an age ofrage.
It is not our first, but it maybe the most dangerous such
(14:21):
period in our history.
Some of us have been saying foryears that this rage rhetoric
is a dangerous political pitchfor the nation.
While most people reject thehyperbolic claims, others take
them as true.
They believe that homosexualsare going to be disappeared, as
claimed on ABC's the View, orthat Trump death squads are now
(14:45):
green-lighted by a conservativeSupreme Court, as claimed by
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
Rage is addictive andcontagious.
It is also liberating.
It allows people a sense oflicense to take actions that
would ordinarily be viewed asrepulsive.
We know all too well howunhinged people can find
(15:07):
justification in the incendiaryrhetoric of our politics.
This moment did not occur in avacuum.
It occurred in a time when ourleaders long abandoned reason
for rage.
That's the end of that part ofthe article.
What's scary as turley pointsit out but doesn't say why is
(15:28):
that this is the most dangerousage of rage period in our
history.
I have a theory why.
A couple of reasons.
First, the 24-hour news cycle,the number of channels we have
that we choose from, it'sprogramming and information
overload.
Outrageous comments are saidand instantaneously released.
(15:49):
When are emotions most high?
Right after something occurs oris said.
Back, when it was onlynewspapers, there was time lag.
Now there's no lag time.
Everything is immediate today.
The second reason why this isthe most dangerous age of rage
(16:09):
period in our history, and thisis where we tie in the focus of
the fuzzy mic to this episode,and this is where we tie in the
focus of the fuzzy mic to thisepisode.
More than 20% of the US adultpopulation live with a mental
illness.
Jonathan Turley says that thisis the most dangerous age of
rage period in our history.
Now, if you're like me, maybescratching your head at that
(16:32):
statement, I thought that wewere in unprecedented times with
the political hate speech beingspoken in our country right now
.
We've had other age rageperiods before in America.
Believe it or not, we have, andthe perpetrators of this
previous age of rage will shockyou, because it did me.
(16:53):
Jonathan Turley writes we havecome full circle to where we
began as a republic.
In the 1800 election,federalists and Jeffersonians
engaged in similar rage rhetoricas today.
Federalists back in 1800 toldcitizens that if Thomas
(17:14):
Jefferson were elected quotemurder, robbery, rape, adultery
and incest will be openly taughtand practiced, the air will be
rent with the cries of thedistressed and the soil will be
soaked with blood and the nationblack with crimes.
End quote Jeffersonians warnedthat if John Adams were
(17:37):
re-elected quote chains,dungeons, transportation and
perhaps the gibbet, which is agallows, awaited citizens and
they would instantaneously beput to death.
Both sides stoked the public'sanger and fears, and violence
(17:58):
obviously was seen across thenation.
In our current age of rage,politicians have sought to use
the same anger and fear to rallysupport at any cost.
This is the cost.
End of the article.
This is the cost End of thearticle.
(18:23):
I was unaware that ThomasJefferson and John Adams were
the original purveyors of ragerhetoric.
Thomas Jefferson, john AdamsBoy, you think you know people.
Now I don't want to leave thison a sour note.
It's basically been a sour notethe entire episode I know.
So let me offer thisobservation that we can end with
(18:44):
.
We've grown a lot since 1800when rage rhetoric was
introduced into Americanpolitics.
So the positive there and thisis going to sound presidential
state of the union-esque is thatwe've gotten through this kind
of divisiveness before and seenunity and prosperity on the
other side of it.
So we can get past it again andgo on to greater prosperity as
(19:07):
a country.
Thank you, and God bless America.
Wait, sorry, I got a littlecarried away there For laughter
on the weekly.
How's that for hipping it up,dang?
Sorry, I got a little carriedaway there For laughter on the
weekly.
How's that for hipping it up,dang Klein, a regular old making
the stallion you so hip Forlaughter.
Check out the Tuttle Kleinpodcast.
New episodes every Wednesday.
(19:28):
I'm going to end this with whatI believe to be the greatest
sign-off ever created by abroadcaster.
It comes from NBC News weekendanchor Jose Diaz-Balart, and
it's exactly the way I feelabout you for joining me and
listening to the Fuzzy Mikeevery week.
Jose always says thank you forthe privilege of your time.
(19:49):
Damn, jose, that's so good.
That's it for the Fuzzy Mike,thank you.
The Fuzzy Mike with Kevin Kline.
Fuzzy Mike.
Welcome to the Fuzzy Mike, the interview series, the
podcast, whatever Kevin wants tocall it.
It's Fuzzy Mike, hello, andthank you for joining me.
Well, this is going to be quitepossibly the furthest departure
from a normal episode of theFuzzy Mike that there could ever
be.
Why?
Because I'm going to dosomething that I rarely do in
(00:23):
private and never do in public,and if you're watching this on
YouTube, you'll notice that I'mfully clothed.
So, no, it's not that Jeezpeople.
No, I'm going to enter thepolitical realm for a bit.
I'm going to do this because ofwhat happened this past
Saturday at President Trump'scampaign rally the shooting, the
(00:48):
assassination attempt, theRussian false flag, the CIA-led
Antifa strike, the WWE-stylestoryline created by Trump
himself to garner more votes andsecure an election win those
are all descriptions I've eitherheard or read in the media and
or in the comment section ofonline news stories.
(01:10):
By the way, regarding thegetting shot to secure the win
theory, well and I learned thisfrom my sister-in-law, who is a
college professor and historianIf, as someone has suggested,
this was a purposeful design toget shot, thinking that would
(01:31):
secure an election win, gettingshot is not an automatic path to
the White House.
We know this because October 14, 1912, during a campaign speech
in Milwaukee, theodoreRoosevelt was shot in the chest.
He survived, ended up losingthe election to Woodrow Wilson.
This is our country Again.
(01:53):
If you're watching this onYouTube, you'll notice that I
have a red, white and blue shirton Not an accident.
I was wearing an all red shirtfor a video shoot that I had to
do, but I decided to change intothis multicolor shirt because I
didn't want the appearance thatI was favoring one party over
another.
(02:13):
So I changed and I picked thisshirt.
I did purposely, because it hasthe three colors of America,
the concept I'd like to see allof us get back to.
Whether you love Donald Trump orhate Donald Trump, there is no
denying that Donald Trump wasthe 45th president of the United
(02:36):
States of America.
I am adamant about this.
The office of the president ofthe United States of America is
to be respected, regardless ofif your person is occupying that
office or if their person isPeriod.
No US president should ever beshot.
(02:59):
We've had four presidentsassassinated In 1865, it was
Lincoln.
In 1881, it was Garfield,william McKinley in 1901, and
John F Kennedy in 1963.
Additionally, three presidentshave been injured in attempted
assassinations Ronald Reaganwhile he was in office in 1981,
(03:23):
ronald Reagan while he was inoffice in 1981, as the
aforementioned, theodoreRoosevelt and now Donald Trump.
None of those should have everhappened.
Yet here we are and thisshooting will get as scrutinized
(03:47):
, or even more than Kennedy'sshooting was I say even more
than JFK because we have more TVchannels, so more camera crews.
Plus, with our phones, we'reall professional photographers,
so there's more footage, bothstill and moving.
Now I am very fortunate to knowtwo members of the US Secret
Service.
One is still active and theother is retired.
For the people who are callinginto question the actions on
(04:11):
Saturday of the Secret Service,I'm going to say this and it's
based on personal knowledge andinteraction the two men I know
that are in the Secret Serviceare of impeccable character, the
highest morals, deepestdevotion to their profession and
their country.
I'm going to say that again thetwo men I know in the Secret
(04:34):
Service are of impeccablecharacter, the highest morals
and deepest devotion to theirprofession and country.
My retired friend.
Of all the people I've known inmy life, he ranks at or near
the top of class humility,dedication and selflessness.
(04:56):
He is why I do not believe anynarrative that claims the Secret
Service did anything wrong oreven had a hand in the attempt
on 45's life.
I'd love it if my personalendorsement of my friend CF's
character was enough to put torest any Secret Service
(05:17):
conspiracy theories.
But I'm a realist and I knowthat beliefs are hard to damn
near impossible to changethrough opinion only.
Well, you're in luck becauseI'm going to share with you a
message that was sent to me andit's written by my retired
Secret Service buddy.
He writes let's talk about themechanics of this assassination
(05:42):
attempt.
Number one the service, meaningsecret service, cannot control
out to rifle distance.
It's impossible withoutquadruple the manpower, at least
Two.
So what's the answer?
Outside the perimeter, you do agood survey and assess problem
(06:03):
areas outside your perimeter andassign some badass
motherfuckers to scan thoseareas for threats and train them
to kill out to 1,000 meterswithout hesitation and without
asking for permission.
Again, this is insight from aretired Secret Service member.
Number three what is thedrawback of that plan?
(06:24):
There might be six dozenproblem areas, from dense tree
lines that need close scrutinyto buildings with up to dozens
of windows facing the event thatcould each pose a potential
problem.
Scanning means it takes time toreturn to problem area and
recheck it for security changes.
Number four you can post apolice officer to stand at every
(06:49):
threat area, but again,manpower constraints are an
issue.
You have to find ways to paredown your footprint to available
manpower and still have answersto the security holes.
We're only halfway through thisand already you're getting the
sense that it's a no-winsituation.
Number five this is textbookexample of someone oh, what
(07:13):
we're seeing with the Trumpshooting.
This is textbook example ofsomeone willing to trade their
life for the protectee's life.
The Secret Service looks likethey did everything right in the
plan.
Maybe there are problems We'llsee but I see none so far.
(07:34):
If someone hopes to get awaywith it, they are easier to
thwart because they will takeless risk.
But if you are truly ready todie for your attempt, it makes
preventing the attack infinitelymore difficult.
This isn't me saying this, thisis my friend CF, retired Secret
(07:56):
Service Personnel.
Reason number six the responsefrom the detail was textbook.
Was it sloppy A little bit?
But come on, have you ever doneanything, even if you practiced
(08:17):
it 100 times perfectly, thefirst time, you had to do it
under the worst stress of yourlife?
Of course not If you reallywant a tiny quibble from me
again, my friend CF SecretService member, I would have had
the press pushed off the riserbefore I moved him.
President Trump, but that is sominor as to almost be a joke to
(08:37):
bring up Number seven.
They responded very quickly.
Human processing of information, formulating a plan and then
implementing that plan, is nevergoing to be zero seconds.
I'll stop there.
I will insert my own thoughthere.
We saw this with the Sullyflight that landed in the Hudson
(09:02):
.
They tried to blame him for notmaking a faster decision.
They tried to blame him for notmaking a faster decision.
You only have X amount ofseconds to make this decision
and zero seconds is not anoption.
The human brain doesn't workthat way.
Back to CF.
You can train that responsetime down, but it will never be
(09:23):
instantaneous.
They were on him quickly andthey executed the extraction
quickly.
According to CF, trump is 6'3and over 300 pounds, surrounding
him with body armor, and movingas a unit to the armored limo
is difficult.
It's going to look unwieldy.
They responded within the scopeof their training and we should
(09:46):
all be proud of them.
Everyone Number eight, someoneclaiming they quote told the
cops there was someone on theroof with a gun.
End quote.
So what?
Do you have any idea how longthat process takes, from telling
the officer to the officer,relaying it to the services?
The officer was likely assigneda post.
(10:11):
He cannot leave his post period.
Leaving his post means openinga huge hole in the security plan
.
Telling that information to anofficer could be a diversion to
get that officer to leave hispost.
To get that officer to leavehis post.
Finally, number nine so he callsit in relays to the service.
The service identifies the areaand radios the appropriate
(10:35):
assets to monitor and respond.
This is not a five-secondprocess.
A gunman can get on the roofand start taking shots in a
couple of minutes or less, farfaster than the response team
can get there.
The counter snipers can get onhim quickly and neutralize the
threat, but they still have toscan to find him and engage.
(11:00):
In the end, the only answer tothe problem is more manpower.
The Secret Service doesn't setits own budget.
It can only do what it can withthe funds available.
And here's the final line of myfriend CF's message.
I beg of you, ignore thepundits on TV, especially those
(11:23):
from outside the Secret Servicethat have no idea how difficult
close protection of a high valueprotectee is.
That's the end of the message.
It made a ton of sense to me,and it should, because it was
written by an actual SecretService agent, one who's trained
for the job, one who's done thejob.
(11:45):
So if the secret service isn'tto blame, then what is found?
An interesting opinion piecethe other day and it shed a very
bright light on what is toblame.
The headline of the article readthe attempted assassination of
trump is not nearly assurprising as it should be.
(12:07):
It appeared on thehillcom andit was written by Jonathan
Turley.
Jonathan Turley is a publicinterest law professor at George
Washington University.
I figured the article was goingto cite the somewhat
commonplace of our presidentsbeing shot, so therefore it
should come as no surprise.
Commonplace, klein, what?
(12:28):
Yeah?
As I listed earlier, we've hadfour US presidents assassinated
and now three who have been shotat and survived.
Seven of our 46 presidents havebeen shot.
Had two guns not misfired onJanuary 30th 1835, that stat
(12:50):
would be eight out of 46.
But Andrew Jackson doesn't makethe list because a bullet never
struck him.
Seven out of 46.
I've asked this question somany times.
It begs to be asked again whywould anybody want that job?
Anyway, that's not what thearticle was about.
(13:13):
In addition to hisprofessorship, jonathan Turley
authored a recently releasedbook entitled the Indispensable
Right Free Speech in an Age ofRage.
I'm not going to read theentire article, but here are
some excerpts from the article.
For months, politicians, thepress and pundits have escalated
(13:37):
reckless rhetoric in thiscampaign on both sides.
That includes claims that Trumpwas set to kill democracy,
unleash death squads and makehomosexuals and reporters quote
disappear.
President Biden has stoked thisrage rhetoric Again.
This is not me saying this.
This is from the articlewritten by Jonathan Turley.
(13:57):
In 2022, biden held hiscontroversial speech before
Independence Hall, where hedenounced Trump supporters as
enemies of the people.
Biden recently referenced thespeech and has embraced the
claims that this could be ourlast democratic election.
We are living through an age ofrage.
It is not our first, but it maybe the most dangerous such
(14:21):
period in our history.
Some of us have been saying foryears that this rage rhetoric
is a dangerous political pitchfor the nation.
While most people reject thehyperbolic claims, others take
them as true.
They believe that homosexualsare going to be disappeared, as
claimed on ABC's the View, orthat Trump death squads are now
(14:45):
green-lighted by a conservativeSupreme Court, as claimed by
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
Rage is addictive andcontagious.
It is also liberating.
It allows people a sense oflicense to take actions that
would ordinarily be viewed asrepulsive.
We know all too well howunhinged people can find
(15:07):
justification in the incendiaryrhetoric of our politics.
This moment did not occur in avacuum.
It occurred in a time when ourleaders long abandoned reason
for rage.
That's the end of that part ofthe article.
What's scary as turley pointsit out but doesn't say why is
(15:28):
that this is the most dangerousage of rage period in our
history.
I have a theory why.
A couple of reasons.
First, the 24-hour news cycle,the number of channels we have
that we choose from, it'sprogramming and information
overload.
Outrageous comments are saidand instantaneously released.
(15:49):
When are emotions most high?
Right after something occurs oris said.
Back, when it was onlynewspapers, there was time lag.
Now there's no lag time.
Everything is immediate today.
The second reason why this isthe most dangerous age of rage
(16:09):
period in our history, and thisis where we tie in the focus of
the fuzzy mic to this episode,and this is where we tie in the
focus of the fuzzy mic to thisepisode.
More than 20% of the US adultpopulation live with a mental
illness.
Jonathan Turley says that thisis the most dangerous age of
rage period in our history.
Now, if you're like me, maybescratching your head at that
(16:32):
statement, I thought that wewere in unprecedented times with
the political hate speech beingspoken in our country right now
.
We've had other age rageperiods before in America.
Believe it or not, we have, andthe perpetrators of this
previous age of rage will shockyou, because it did me.
(16:53):
Jonathan Turley writes we havecome full circle to where we
began as a republic.
In the 1800 election,federalists and Jeffersonians
engaged in similar rage rhetoricas today.
Federalists back in 1800 toldcitizens that if Thomas
(17:14):
Jefferson were elected quotemurder, robbery, rape, adultery
and incest will be openly taughtand practiced, the air will be
rent with the cries of thedistressed and the soil will be
soaked with blood and the nationblack with crimes.
End quote Jeffersonians warnedthat if John Adams were
(17:37):
re-elected quote chains,dungeons, transportation and
perhaps the gibbet, which is agallows, awaited citizens and
they would instantaneously beput to death.
Both sides stoked the public'sanger and fears, and violence
(17:58):
obviously was seen across thenation.
In our current age of rage,politicians have sought to use
the same anger and fear to rallysupport at any cost.
This is the cost.
End of the article.
This is the cost End of thearticle.
(18:23):
I was unaware that ThomasJefferson and John Adams were
the original purveyors of ragerhetoric.
Thomas Jefferson, john AdamsBoy, you think you know people.
Now I don't want to leave thison a sour note.
It's basically been a sour notethe entire episode I know.
So let me offer thisobservation that we can end with
(18:44):
.
We've grown a lot since 1800when rage rhetoric was
introduced into Americanpolitics.
So the positive there and thisis going to sound presidential
state of the union-esque is thatwe've gotten through this kind
of divisiveness before and seenunity and prosperity on the
other side of it.
So we can get past it again andgo on to greater prosperity as
(19:07):
a country.
Thank you, and God bless America.
Wait, sorry, I got a littlecarried away there For laughter
on the weekly.
How's that for hipping it up,dang?
Sorry, I got a little carriedaway there For laughter on the
weekly.
How's that for hipping it up,dang Klein, a regular old making
the stallion you so hip Forlaughter.
Check out the Tuttle Kleinpodcast.
New episodes every Wednesday.
(19:28):
I'm going to end this with whatI believe to be the greatest
sign-off ever created by abroadcaster.
It comes from NBC News weekendanchor Jose Diaz-Balart, and
it's exactly the way I feelabout you for joining me and
listening to the Fuzzy Mikeevery week.
Jose always says thank you forthe privilege of your time.
(19:49):
Damn, jose, that's so good.
That's it for the Fuzzy Mike,thank you.
The Fuzzy Mike with Kevin Kline.
Fuzzy Mike.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!