Donald Trump has settled upon a campaign trope that belongs in the archives of unintentional comedy, casting himself as the law and order candidate, which is like peddling Newt Gingrich as your go-to guy for family values.
The GOP nominee used Chris Christie to float this trial balloon during his introduction Monday in Virginia, and our governor – now a sad pastiche of fear-stoker and celebrity appendage – downshifted into the cadence one might use while addressing a slow child:
"Law and order," Christie said solemnly, "needs to be once again the first priority in our country. In this coming election, there can be little question about where law and order stands and where lawlessness stands."
If "law" refers to respect for our justice system and the people in uniform who enforce it, everyone's on board. If "order" refers to a wholesome social compact – where the civil rights of all folks are sacred and corrupt public servants are held accountable – sign us up.
Indeed, Trump and Christie are trying to exploit a political opening by declaring that crime is "out of control," as Trump tweeted a few days back, and they think they can sell it with a brand of bumper-sticker politics that touts their hyper-masculinity.
The problem is that this strategy is based on a lie, starting with the obvious: Violent crime rates are down. Property crime rates are down.
As it trampled on Trump's new narrative Tuesday, PolitiFact consulted the director of the Northeastern University School of Criminology, who said, "As a nation, we are far better off than anytime for the past several decades. Crime rates are low, and there is no reliable indication that things are getting worse."
Still, Trump and Christie need a meaty leitmotif that will stir the paranoia of white voters. For Christie, it's a familiar race-bait: In December, he called the Black Lives Matters an example of "lawlessness," and alleged that it "calls for the murder of police officers."
So on Monday, Trump mentioned that there is "a substantial rise in the number of officers killed in the line of duty. Very big rise."
Actually – fortunately – that number has declined in three of the last four years, and it's trending still lower for 2016. In the last seven years, an average of 147.7 cops died in the line of duty (48 by gunfire) annually; during the previous administration (slightly skewed by 9/11), an average of 176.5 died (55 by gunfire) annually.
But crime is a tough subject for Trump.
He doesn't exactly grasp metrics: In November, he tweeted an image that depicted a dark-skinned man with a handgun and a set of talking points. One read: "Whites killed by blacks – 81%"
The actual number is 15 percent. He retweeted the image from a neo-Nazi group.
And he's still new at responding to man-made tragedy: After 50 died in the Orlando massacre, Trump responded to it by tweeting thanks to followers for praising his clairvoyance in calling for America to "get tough."
So at a time when anyone else would have expressed grief, he went for ego.
In terms of policy, Trump is for electing judges to make them "more accountable." He is for a return to cruel and unusual executions because "lethal injection is too comfortable a way to go." He favors concealed carry in all 50 states, because the cops can't do it alone.
Maybe Christie can help him shave the rough edges. Crime has been part of this relationship since Trump said of his sidekick, "The George Washington Bridge, he totally knew about it."
Because the task of leading your transition team should go to someone that you've accused of committing a federal crime, a good clue that he is familiar with matters of law and order.
#1: Justified To: Willie Green (#0)
Not nearly as much as Clinton's law and order for everyone else but them!
I do not think that there is anything Clinton's do that is good for America. I can not think of anything that Clinton's would do that is better for America as a whole than Trump.
Trump may or may not be good for America but I do know that Clinton would be the end of the free republic. I will take my chances with Trump since the only other person that can win is Clinton.
Justified posted on 2016-07-13 09:01:58 Reply Private Reply
#2: misterwhite To: Willie Green (#0)
Well, that's the problem with statistics. It's all in how you interpret them.
"According to Ann Coulter, FBI records for 2008 “show that, out of 520,161 interracial violent crimes, blacks committed 429,444 of them against whites, while whites committed 90,717 of them against blacks.”
Focusing only on black-on-white and white-on-black violent crimes, black-on-white accounts for 82.5% of them.
misterwhite posted on 2016-07-13 09:41:04 Reply Private Reply
#3: Willie Green To: Justified (#1)
No more Snookerthons?
Well every cloud has a silver lining, I suppose!!!
Willie Green posted on 2016-07-13 10:45:06 Reply Private Reply
#4: Deckard To: Willie Green, Justified (#3)
Clinton wining the election would be the best thing that could happen for Freak Republic.
Deckard posted on 2016-07-13 10:50:35 Reply Private Reply
#5: Justified To: Willie Green (#3)
If you want the destruction of America and possible civil war then Clinton is the ticket for you.
If you like seeing the corrupt get richer while the middle class dissolve away then Clinton is the ticket for you.
But for me I prefer to make America better and stopping the bleeding is the first step to saving the patient.
Justified posted on 2016-07-13 10:55:02 Reply Private Reply
#6: Justified To: Deckard (#4)
Nope and you have to be crazy to think so. If civil war or super corrupt turning America into a socialist/Fascist country makes you tingle in your pants then pray for Clinton to be the next
leaderto run over America.Just remember they have bigger guns and your money to support their mercenaries who will be told that its a bunch of white supremacist trying to take over America not patriots.
Justified posted on 2016-07-13 11:00:34 Reply Private Reply
#7: Deckard To: Justified (#6)
Seriously?
Rim Job and Rush Limbaugh are both salivating at the thought of a Clinton presidency.
It will raise their ratings through the roof.
Deckard posted on 2016-07-13 11:03:25 Reply Private Reply
#8: Deckard To: Justified (#6)
Not at all, but you keep on being a tool.
Deckard posted on 2016-07-13 11:04:25 Reply Private Reply
#9: Justified To: Deckard (#8)
You have to be mentally disturbed to think so. Im for freedom and recognize Trump is not perfect but OMG you have to a complete freaking idiot to think Clinton would be good for America. There is no logical thought process that you can come up with to make such a claim. If there is please share!!!!!
Justified posted on 2016-07-13 11:21:56 Reply Private Reply
#10: Deckard To: Justified (#9)
I'm not claiming that Clinton would be good for America.
As far as Trump goes - he's a loose cannon. Honestly, I think he's better have some top-of-the-line security watching his back 24/7. He's made enemies of Republicans and Democrats alike.
He would be foolish to pick and insider like Gingrich to be his VP.
That being said, if I were forced to choose between the two, I'd choose Trump.
Deckard posted on 2016-07-13 11:44:26 Reply Private Reply
#11: Justified To: Deckard (#10)
I would not want Gingrich either.
Looks like maybe mike pence who I do not know. I guess he could surprises us with someone not even known.
All we can do is have a good long stiff drink and hope for the best because the down side is really really deep!
Justified posted on 2016-07-13 13:35:03 Reply Private Reply
#12: Deckard To: Justified (#11)
I have met a few.
If Trump picks Christie for VP, the White House won't be big enough to handle the arrogant egos of the both of them.
Deckard posted on 2016-07-13 13:57:17 Reply Private Reply
#13: nolu chan To: Willie Green (#0)
The article is a broadside dump on Trump et al., but fails to state why anyone should be terrified.
Are you terrified? If so, why?
Even if true, as alleged, that "Trump and Christie are trying to exploit a political opening by declaring that crime is 'out of control,' as Trump tweeted a few days back, and they think they can sell it with a brand of bumper-sticker politics that touts their hyper-masculinity," why would that terrify anyone?
Wouldn't Hillary's blatant disregard for national security be more terrifying?
nolu chan posted on 2016-07-13 15:35:53 Reply Private Reply
#14: Willie Green To: nolu chan (#13)
No... Jorge Arbusto flushed this country down the tubes well over a decade ago... The damage is done and cannot be fixed.
Willie Green posted on 2016-07-13 16:51:28 Reply Private Reply
#15: Justified To: Willie Green, nolu chan (#14)
It was a lot more than bush. Clinton's were right there with them doing it too. Both Bush and Clinton with China, illegal aliens and one sided free trade. Clinton's with their demand that people get loans they can not possible pay back or send bankers to jail. Which worked for awhile until people could not pay them back which caused non stop stock market crashes. Clinton's ignored foreign affairs and Bushes with their over reactions.
We will not begin to talk about how bad Obama is!!
Justified posted on 2016-07-13 18:10:48 Reply Private Reply
#16: Justified To: Deckard (#12)
I pray Christie is not picked. Thats a few steps up from Lady graham. I would rather have Dan Quayle at that point!
Justified posted on 2016-07-13 18:14:17 Reply Private Reply