Murphy’s mistake

Re: Nazifying Trump; Rex Murphy, Dec. 1

I only hope Rex Murphy was attempting to bait people into acknowledging the truly frightful nature of Donald Trump by going on as he did in his column. If that is the case, I think he accomplished that goal one quarter of the way through his column, wasting the rest of the space, with loquacious piffle.

One doesn’t have to be one of the manic “Hillaryites” to suggest Trump is a bigot and a hateful person.

While certainly some of Trump’s critics use hyperbole and inflammatory rhetoric, I do not think for a moment they do so with the intent of “slackening the meaning of the Holocaust.”

I find comment opportunistic. Would Murphy have preferred comparisons with Stalin or Mao — or would he have found other politically expedient reasons to find fault therein?

Trump is infamous for firing off tweets at all hours, many times within moments of actions he finds offensive.

Yet he remained silent when innocent people marching in support of racial equality and civil rights were deliberately run down and injured. Trump’s first words were not to condemn those marching to advance the cause of white supremacy — rather, to point out there are “two sides.”

I agree — you are a racist, or you are not.

It saddens me that Murphy takes umbrage with Trump’s critics being so vocal and determined to jolt society into recognizing the hateful nature of one of the most recognized people on the planet. I wish he would join them instead of defending someone of such misanthropic nature.