Patterico's Pontifications

9/24/2016

Patterico Joins RedState

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 3:42 pm

I am pleased to announce that I have joined RedState as a contributor to their front page. I’m pleased to join a group that shares my fundamental outlook on politics these days: a commitment to limited government, the Constitution, and the free market, combined with a recognition that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton stand for none of those things.

If you’re a regular reader here, don’t worry; nothing much will change here. I’ll still continue to post as much as always. Most posts I publish there will be cross-posted here, though I will likely toss them an exclusive from time to time, and just link it here.

I’m doing that with my first post there, which I have just published. It is titled The Time Ted Cruz Said: “I’m Going to Tell You What I Really Think”. Go read it. I hope you like it, and I hope y’all will follow my posts over there.

148 Responses to “Patterico Joins RedState”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (bcf524)

  2. Watching the video of Cruz discussing his decision at the Texas Tribune Festival. Offered several times the chance to say Trump is fit to be President, Cruz declined.

    Patterico (bcf524)

  3. Congratulations are in order.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  4. i love how fit Mr. Trump is for the president office he has a glossy sheen and a discerning eye

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  5. The interviewer is FANTASTIC.

    Patterico (bcf524)

  6. Rebuttal to a holier than thou nevertrumper:

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/a-president-trump-to-damage-the-church/

    LBascom (c230be)

  7. oh for the love of shelf-stable bacon products sore loser ted just can’t help himself it’s very distressing

    it’s like in those movies where people are trying to accomplish goals but then they just can’t help themselves

    and it never ends well

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  8. Ted looks similar to the Houston football team after getting beat by a third string quarterback.

    mg (31009b)

  9. Okay. Just to get some things straight… (because I believe we are WILDLY in disagreement, and also, becuz maybe I know a few things you maybe don’t know…)

    You said, “a commitment to limited government, the Constitution, and the free market, combined with a recognition that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton stand for none of those things.”

    A) “a commitment to limited government” What really do you mean by that? In the present realistic context, history, and landscape? Fair warning: Prepare to be ambushed.

    B) “the free market” What really do you mean by that? I agree with you on the importance of a free market, but I suspect that we have VERY different reasons for believing this. I have a VERY simple, economically informed, and logical inclination towards the methodology of free markets. Do you? Prepare to be ambushed.

    C) “a recognition that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton stand for none of those things.”

    Fair enough. Really. But unfortunately, this sort of wack-a-doodle imbecile named William Shakespeare once said, “There’s small choice in rotten apples.” Discuss.

    hunson abedeer (80144e)

  10. i know a place that’s safe and warm

    from the crowd

    into your arms oh oh into your arms

    I can go

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  11. This is a nice surprise. Excellent first post, and kudos to Red State for choosing my favorite blogger.

    DRJ (15874d)

  12. I have a VERY simple, economically informed, and logical inclination towards the methodology of free markets. Do you?

    Yes.

    Voluntary exchanges in the unhampered market economy maximize the benefit of exchange to all parties. Interference with those exchanges minimizes that benefit.

    Patterico (bcf524)

  13. It saddens me to say this but I don’t think Cruz can convince us he’s the guy we can trust. Someone else will come along who says what Cruz says but who hasn’t *yet* betrayed his followers. The *yet* is the key because every politician does have times when they wobble but victory goes to the one who wobbles after the election, not before.

    DRJ (15874d)

  14. Be careful, Patterico – hunstopia maxedeer is out to ambush you. It’s a trap!

    Leviticus (03bf59)

  15. >a commitment to limited government, <

    a plausible plan for how to achieve that, not so much

    newrouter (94f0ce)

  16. Be careful, Patterico – hunstopia maxedeer is out to ambush you. It’s a trap!

    Patterico (bcf524)

  17. perhaps you will bring a perspective that leon wolf and erickson lack,

    http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/09/24/breaking-ankle-holster-clearly-visible-police-release-keith-scott-shooting-video/

    narciso (d1f714)

  18. You are a good match with Red State, Patrick. I hope you accept the results of the election.

    I won’t be reading your Red State posts but I will continue to read this blog as long as some common sense is present.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  19. At least now there’s no doubt about being paid by #neverTrumpers. I shall inform the alt-right troll army that still considers Redstate an eyeball-drawing platform forthwith.

    Dystopia Max (76803a)

  20. Congrats are in order, I hope.

    DNF (755a85)

  21. 12 Voluntary exchanges in the unhampered market economy maximize the benefit of exchange to all parties. Interference with those exchanges minimizes that benefit.

    Two problems.

    Many people for a variety of reasons make bad decisions and are easily taken advantage of.

    Voluntary exchanges can and often do adversely affect third parties.

    James B. Shearer (76e73a)

  22. they both involve people, but bureaucracies often get it wrong,

    narciso (d1f714)

  23. insty:

    THAT’S OKAY, YOU CAN ALWAYS RELY ON THE DISCRETION OF PROSECUTORS: This New Court Ruling Could Make Changing a Baby’s Diaper a Crime.

    Last week, a ruling in the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona determined that any act that involves “intentionally or knowingly” touching a child under fifteen’s “private parts” would be deemed child molestation – and one of those very acts could be diaper changing. What?!

    Essentially, it has to do with semantics. One of the problems in the ruling – which came after a man convicted of molestation appealed the court to interpret that the “touching” part of the ruling require sexual intent. Unfortunately, the court refused and upheld the original language.

    That would mean even a doctor or a parent changing a baby’s diaper would be breaking a law, even though they’re just doing their jobs, according to the report. Yes, that sounds crazy, but the majority ruled that the laws should be applied literally, and “therefore require no mental state beyond a person’s intentionally or knowingly touching a child’s ‘private parts.’”

    The law is an ass.

    DNF (ffe548)

  24. the narrative factories have been churning out flak for a quarter century,

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440361/police-shootings-black-white-media-narrative-population-difference

    narciso (d1f714)

  25. This guy is taking votes from no one we know:

    http://moonbattery.com/?p=76511

    DNF (ffe548)

  26. we need a whole other word for chutzpah,

    https://twitter.com/yesnicksearcy/status/779718937088897024

    narciso (d1f714)

  27. Great effin’ job there with your kids #nevertrump:

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/09/dismissing-history-week-in-higher-education/

    And you are paying their way, #numbnuts, having taught them GenXers are insufferable monomaniacs.

    DNF (755a85)

  28. “Voluntary exchanges in the unhampered market economy maximize the benefit of exchange to all parties.”

    What level of tariff impediment would be justified for trade with slave economies? Should slave harvested sugar from Cuba or slave produced goods from North Vietnam, North Korea and China be freely traded in the US without imposition of tariff punishment? Should oil from a (currently) slave based economy such as Venezuela not incur a tariff penalty?

    An “unhampered” market is as much a theoretical construct today just as it was when Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations. I would think that reciprocity regarding access to markets would be a minimum requirement prerequisite prior to relaxation of tariff barriers.

    Rick Ballard (102f97)

  29. now it could be coincidence that urban has not been a fan, but you want to take those odds,

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/terror-alert-budapest-huge-explosion-8909276

    narciso (d1f714)

  30. The 32nd Amazon review of “Trump the Press”

    From J. Alewyn:
    Don Surber Gets It Right
    We all remember the story:
    Trump’s not going to run, he’s just promoting himself.
    Well, sure, he’s running but he’s not really serious.
    Okay, he’s sort of serious but he just wants to shape the debate. He’ll bail when the going gets tough.
    He’s trying to lose by saying outrageous things that nobody believes.
    He can’t possibly get enough delegates.
    Brokered convention.
    Okay, he’s got the delegates, but they’re going to walk out.
    Okay, they nominated him, but he can’t win because he’s not spending any money on ads.
    He can’t win because Hillary is spending tens of millions on ads.
    Oh sure, Trump’s pulled even with Hillary but he still can’t win. Because… because… er…
    Trump’s ahead in several key swing states, but, well, you see…

    DNF (755a85)

  31. query, they think the salafis can’t rig a gas main, that has been tried since columbine,

    narciso (d1f714)

  32. 37. Not perfect, just sane.

    DNF (755a85)

  33. and the middlesex merrygoround re amirault, and the reno travismockasham, the fuster,

    narciso (d1f714)

  34. It amazes me how many people who are guests here at Patterico’s site lack the class to avoid trying to score points, be weird and snarky, or just be hateful.

    I salute the folks who say to Patterico: congratulations and best of luck.

    Best wishes, and thanks for this forum as well good luck at Red State.

    Simon Jester (3dbc42)

  35. rogue state apparatus are all too common, voldemort wouldn’t exist without it, they protect the razorback camarilla hammer and tongue, they incite violence and protect predators, something red state has increasingly lost sight of, in it’s two minute hate,

    narciso (d1f714)

  36. Congratulations, Patterico.

    It is sad to see not only how many people choose security over freedom, but how many demand that choosing freedom over security is bad, not merely on a practical, but a also on the moral and philosophical levels.

    Kishnevi (c62fd3)

  37. #43 kishnevi,

    What are we choosing when illary wins?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  38. let us say the frameworks for liberty are increasingly frayed,

    http://invisibleserfscollar.com/chocolate-cities-strangled-by-white-nooses-hacking-out-the-rights-of-the-citizen/

    now after three quarter century of jim crow, that may be inevitable, but I’d like to think not,

    narciso (d1f714)

  39. 42. Well, the battle is won if the war is going badly versus, for men, an insuperable foe.

    But we already knew our fight has many fronts.

    DNF (755a85)

  40. as the comments relate, the trap may have already been planted around endor, per admiral ackbar,

    narciso (d1f714)

  41. as o’brien said to winston smith, we are eliminating the language that makes freedom possible as a thought

    narciso (d1f714)

  42. you should realize the texas tribune is salieri to cruz’s mozart, van helsing to perry,

    narciso (d1f714)

  43. it is no good

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  44. #50 Mr happyfeet, Depeche Mode said the same thing back in the late ’90s!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  45. shooter is turkish fan of red queen

    narciso (d1f714)

  46. 45. Frankly, I don’t see us, the amorphous Right, at the starting block. Too much fiddling with the drapery.

    Here’s another quote from someone at that Oxford Conference we covered in the last post, Eldar Shafir, writing to support a new book by Cass Sunstein called The Ethics of Influence: Government in the Age of Behavioral Science.

    “We typically consider ourselves rational actors, whose dignity derives from our autonomy. In fact, our behavior is easily shaped by other actors and by external factors, often outside our awareness and control. When government intervenes to influence our behaviors, often to improve our lives, we recoil. But if government remains uninvolved while other interests are free to shape our world, how autonomous are we then? Sunstein confronts our naivete with a penetrating discussion about how to balance government influence against personal dignity, manipulation against autonomy, and behavioral facts against political ideals. The book is an engrossing read.”

    We have this faction, #nevertrump, hoping a tweak here, a hem there and we’ll have a perfectly framed window from which government will see rightly to rule. In fact behind the curtain on the exterior plywood paneling is installed.

    DNF (755a85)

  47. that is vance packard/sloan wilson deconstruction of rational choice,

    narciso (d1f714)

  48. they were riding a giant squirrel, to ignore the reality,

    http://nypost.com/2016/09/24/heres-proof-that-nyc-bomber-ahmad-rahami-is-no-lone-wolf/

    narciso (d1f714)

  49. love them

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  50. Wow. “Paranoid hostility”? And yet here you are, at Patterico’s party.

    I appreciate your proving my point.

    Simon Jester (3dbc42)

  51. Gennifer Flowers @gennflowers
    Hi Donald. You know I’m in your corner and will definitely be at the debate!…💋
    2:28 PM – 24 Sep 2016

    DNF (ffe548)

  52. What are we choosing when illary wins?

    The same thing as what you choose if Trump wins: less freedom in the name of increased security.

    If you want freedom, you must accept insecurity.
    If you want security, you must accept loss of freedom.

    Just because Trump wants to use big government for a purpose you approve of, does not mean it becomes limited government.

    Kishnevi (c62fd3)

  53. Nasty isn’t an expression but a spirit.

    DNF (ffe548)

  54. Good post, Patterico.

    Eppur si muove. That’s Italian for “Trump still sucks, even if Cruz did change his mind”.

    nk (dbc370)

  55. 60. Sorry kid, your aim is indiscriminate. Security is no more a unifying, overarching theme of the Right than freedom, jobs, what have you.

    You’ve been reading Brock’s talking points to excess.

    DNF (ffe548)

  56. Well, back on topic!

    Congrats on the new gig! Hope you enjoy the experience over there. I was shocked that Wolf was headed to Blaze, but, they bounced nicely. I like Bermans stuff over there too. I’m a daily reader, and have been since the early primaries. I’m just as disappointed as many others, but will respect the decision Cruz made, because he knows alot more about what’s going on in DC than I or most any other armchair quarterbacks. I’m sure there are lots more surprises yet to come, but, a thought struck just after reading your RS piece, what if Cruz is offered Attorney General. I wonder if he might take that. Or being a Senator offers him a better launching point for future endeavors. I know he would not take the Supreme Court if offered. Too restricting.

    David L (d36b11)

  57. 63.
    Trump promises to keep you safe from migrating Mexicans, militant Muslims, and marauding muggers. His whole spiel is that he will make you safe using government.

    That means he wants you to give up freedom for the sake of security.

    Kishnevi (c62fd3)

  58. Patterico: “Voluntary exchanges in the unhampered market economy maximize the benefit of exchange to all parties. Interference with those exchanges minimizes that benefit.”

    Wrong, and David Ricardo needs to be dug up and have another stake put through his idiot heart, but well, I’ll give you this much credit: at least you didn’t spout some silliness about “because muh freedomz.” So, that’s getting somewhere. But (and this was not my original purpose, just something which needs to be dealt with), what do you mean (or what can anybody mean who isn’t Lev Trotsky) by “unhampered”, “maximize,” “benefit,” “all parties” and “interference”? As part of a frat initiation gag, I was once ordered to buy a stack of newspapers with my own money, then stand right in front of an actual news-stand and offer to give them away for free. You can imagine the amusement which followed. What was the benefit? What was the actual exchange? Who got what from whom?

    Here’s the reality: free markets (insofar as any market is ever “really” free, which is quite rare) are much more useful than other market systems, simply because they are much better at establishing accurate prices, what we might call the “true” value of prices. They tell you what people want, and what they are willing to pay for what they want. I collect art, I am willing to pay thousands of dollars for a piece of paper with some charcoal or pastel oil sketched on it exactly so. Other people would much rather have a used car for the same money. What are the prices of these things? We can do a better job of adjusting the world accurately, once we know this vital information, which cannot be determined a priori by any sort of ideology. We know much better what a cup of coffee or a new carburetor (pace Roger Taylor) actually costs, if we have a free market.

    But once we have this rather valuable knowledge, then there are other considerations, which is where most current political and social and economic thinking falls flat.

    Now let’s talk about “limited government”, another butterfly without a net.

    hunson abedeer (80144e)

  59. are they abiding by the social compact, that would be a dubious consideration, as noted constructivism is hardwired from the old country, ie the soviet regime, which is antithetical to liberty,

    narciso (d1f714)

  60. Huh. There used to be a lot of bloggers writing stuff for Redstate. I read moelane’s blog and he always linked to his articles there. Then came the convention and Moe posted that he just took a big hit in income and would not be blogging about politics anymore. Redstate fired them all.
    Apparently, there is not a big market for 24/7 #nevertrump articles.

    fred-2 (ce04f3)

  61. 63. Cont. As a few might know, the reason we, our CIA, our Navy, our Special Ops, etc., are in Syria, and multitudes of refugees are available to destabilize the West is at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    Qatar, no friends of the Sauds, have gas and are major supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia wants to sell more oil, together they want us to defeat and oust Assad who prevents their plan of a pipeline to the Med

    DNF (ffe548)

  62. 63. Cont. As a few might know, the reason we, our CIA, our Navy, our Special Ops, etc., are in Syria, and multitudes of refugees are available to destabilize the West is at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    Qatar, no friends of the Sauds, have gas and are major supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia wants to sell more oil, together they want us to defeat and oust Assad who prevents their plan of a pipeline to the Mediterranean and break a Russian stranglehold on supply to Europe.

    We are incompetent, sick, twisted, obsessed but lost:

    http://daisyluther.com/heres-how-cia-puppet-masters-are-deliberately-picking-a-world-war-iii-level-fight/

    DNF (ffe548)

  63. I’m pleased to join a group that shares my fundamental outlook on politics these days…

    Of course you do, Cliffie. Cheers!

    Sometimes you want to go
    Where everybody knows your name,
    and they’re always glad you came.
    You wanna be where you can see,
    our troubles are all the same
    You wanna be where everybody knows
    Your name. – ‘Cheers’ NBC TV, 1982-1993

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  64. you maybe looking at the wrong end of the string,

    http://www.counterextremism.com/extremists/salim-hasan-khalifa-rashid-al-kuwari

    lustbader in a recent bourne outing actually portrayed a fellow like him

    narciso (d1f714)

  65. Patterico: “Interference with those exchanges minimizes that benefit.”

    Whoa, careful with that axe, Eugene. I think what you meant to say was, “Interference with those exchanges REDUCES (or maybe LIMITS) that benefit,” but certainly not “minimizes”.

    If I can’t even trust you with careful stewardship of the English language, then why on Earth would I trust you with a comprehensive theory of human economic activity?

    hunson abedeer (80144e)

  66. one might well say ‘classical liberalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others’
    caldwell, noted that hayek and von mises were struggling against the dirigisme of wagner and moller long before they encountered keynes,

    narciso (d1f714)

  67. The latest confirmation that the US economy continues to deteriorate comes not from the Federal Government but from state-level data, where year-over-year growth in state tax revenues slowed in the first quarter to its lowest rate since the second quarter of 2014, according to the latest data published yesterday by the Rockefeller Institute of Government. Worse, preliminary data for the second quarter show an outright decline in state tax collections relative to the second quarter of last year.

    According to preliminary estimates from Rockefeller, tax collections will be down 2.1% in the second quarter relative to last year, reflecting a decline of 3.3% in personal income taxes and a 9.2% plunge in corporate tax collections.

    DNF (ffe548)

  68. nothing to see here, the odds that there is another fellow in the same vecinity is a little slight,

    https://jailalert.com/arrest-records/arcan-cetin-1640307.html

    narciso (d1f714)

  69. That the experience is fun and lively. That this would stimulate further your intellectual curiosity toward posts that help reshape our nation.

    Jim Morrison did not think we can petition the Lord with prayer, but I disagree. My petition for you is made.

    Best to you.

    steveg (5508fb)

  70. Here’s the reality: free markets (insofar as any market is ever “really” free, which is quite rare) are much more useful than other market systems, simply because they are much better at establishing accurate prices, what we might call the “true” value of prices. They tell you what people want, and what they are willing to pay for what they want.

    I agree with this. And the reason that accurate prices are set is because people are able to voluntarily express their preferences through what they choose to purchase or sell. In this way, voluntary exchanges in the unhampered market economy maximize the benefit of exchange to all parties. Interference with those voluntary exchanges minimizes that benefit (or, if you like, reduces it to the extent that the interference is not complete). When government allows voluntary transactions to take place, efficient allocation of resources is maximized to the extent such transactions are allowed. When government prevents such exchanges, efficient allocation of resources is minimized to the extent that the voluntary exchanges are blocked.

    Patterico (bcf524)

  71. Wrong, and David Ricardo needs to be dug up and have another stake put through his idiot heart, but well, I’ll give you this much credit: at least you didn’t spout some silliness about “because muh freedomz.”

    Oh. Pardon me. Let me amend my answer. Free market economics is the only economic system compatible with full political freedom. Happier now?

    Patterico (bcf524)

  72. Plutarch once cautioned that an imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.

    DNF (ffe548)

  73. I perhaps rely on sallust for my analogy, since he was a caesar partisan, and as such was not keen on the optimates,

    narciso (d1f714)

  74. Well, thanks to the people who are wishing Patterico well on this particular thread.

    As to the folks who like to insult Patterico, well, the question remains why they are present. Obviously, to be jackwagons and to address the various kinks in their psychological garden hoses.

    It’s Patterico’s place. He is actually pretty tolerant of people who disagree with him. Other folks need to push the envelope, I think to find out his limits.

    Again, quite a few folks were decent on this thread (and on some others), so it isn’t all a trollfest deluxe.

    Simon Jester (3dbc42)

  75. Not, by the way, that Patterico needs me or anyone else to defend him. I have reason to know that he stands by people when he doesn’t have to do so. Thus: a rare bird on the internet, indeed.

    Simon Jester (3dbc42)

  76. 79, 80, in defense of free trade.

    Robert Samuelson recently wrote that Globalism should be defended despite its current troubles because it is all that we have.

    In fact, globalism is dead. Ford will find, even with plants solely employing security personnel, it difficult to run its manufacturing out of Mexico on many counts beginning with infrastructure, through political corruption and inadequate staff.

    Currently the EM corporations of the world have taken on $20 Trillion in debt largely denominated in rising US Dollars against their domestic currencies. Foreign reserves have already been liquidated to pay for social goods and EM countries will be unable to defend their currencies as China continues to export deflation.

    Many in Brazil, Nigeria, SE Asia, etc. will starve or die from treatable disease for lack of medicines.

    America has no jobs to purchase EM wares.

    DNF (ffe548)

  77. 84. I’m so glad you’ve found your niche.

    DNF (ffe548)

  78. the grounds for classical liberalism are very fallow indeed, this begins in education, which leads to media, and our errant ruling class, it is so far inside the cave, they known no light, like Asimov’s Aurora if memory serves,

    narciso (d1f714)

  79. 83. “greed, power, and prestige”, do we resemble that?

    DNF (ffe548)

  80. there are certain rhymes, to that effect, metellus is old money prestige, yet by the time of the jugurthan war, lacking a certain something, marius is the brash new man, you can take the parallels as you wish,

    narciso (d1f714)

  81. Congrats! Glad to see you still pissing off the Trumpalos who are all about winning and nothing at all about actually stopping progressivism. I mean, they say they want to, but then support a progressive Democrat from New York who donated to Clinton and Reid. Witness the ones who love them some free market interference.

    You have more tolerance for Cruz that I have. He betrayed the cause. I’m done with him. The ONLY politician I’ve seen never give in was Ron Paul. I know he has his irrational haters, but he never changed his mind for political convenience. Too bad he didn’t teach his son that.

    Anyway, look forward to more great articles!

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (dd9551)

  82. yes, well I’m not a trumpkin, mine is the harry pierce * position ‘if needs must’

    * the cynical boss in the uk’s version of 24, mi-5

    narciso (d1f714)

  83. @91- Well Patrick Henry, glad to see your joy in pissing off your allies in stopping progressivism because they didn’t clear tactics with you. I’ll return the favor.

    You might like to tell yourself Trump is a progressive democrat, but the fact is he is more conservative than 99% of so called conservatives in the Republican party in that he wants to, get this, conserve the nation. Unlike the bought and paid for Chamber of Commerce globalist filth that can’t get enough cheap foreign labour into the country quick enough. Which all the other republican candidates are, including teddy bear Cruz who wanted to massively expand the already out of control and corrupt visa program.

    Which brings us to so called free trade. Which Cruz also loves, only what they call free trade is free trade like the affordable care act is affordable. The friggin name bears no resemblance to what is being talked about. Look around, the rich are doing fabulous, the poor are growing in number, the middle are slowly being squeezed between stagnant wages and inflation.

    Conservatives have been TALKING a good game for decades, and conserving nothing. All you pretty much have at this point is fear and loathing. Conservatives are not leading, refusing to follow, so do the country a favor and get out of the way. You are just sound and fury signifying nothing.

    LBascom (c230be)

  84. That should have been, nevertrumpers are not leading and refusing to follow…

    LBascom (c230be)

  85. It’s not something I would brag about. If there was ever a more Stalinist, control-freak, anti-free-speech outfit on the right, I don’t know what it is.

    Denver Guy (4750ec)

  86. What is RED STATE????? If it’s like PATTERICO, it was PROBABLY once worthwhile.
    No offense.

    GUS (30b6bd)

  87. No, Red State was always particularly awful.

    Denver Guy (4750ec)

  88. I went back through this thread and………good luck Patterico. You’re not worth my time. Seriously friend. You’ve jumped the shark.

    GUS (30b6bd)

  89. #60 Kishnevi,

    I think you’re looking at the election as an academic exercise on paper.
    There are going to be real consequences to electing illary.
    I’d much rather have Chris Christie as AG than Loretta Lynch or Tom Perez.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  90. Congratulations, man.I wish you much success there.

    aphrael (a84103)

  91. @49 narciso

    Mozart’s bad gambling led him to an early pauper’s grave.

    Pinandpuller (60b765)

  92. @67 Kishnevi

    If Trump signed a law that made every state Constitutional carry like Arizona, Wyoming etc. that would increase freedom and security, no? It’s not always a trade off.

    I suppose that would be big government trampling states rights though, huh?

    Pinandpuller (60b765)

  93. It is titled The Time Ted Cruz Said: “I’m Going to Tell You What I Really Think”. Go read it. I hope you like it,

    It’s a good post. It’s not remembered any more. Maybe people some people doubt that tha’s waht ted Cruzz really thinks about Donald Trump. It’s too specific as to what’s wrong with Donald Trumpm and a bit over the top.

    Does Ted Cruz really think:

    Donald, if you hooked him up to a lie detector test, he could say one thing in the morning, one thing at noon, and one thing in the evening, all contradictory, and he’d pass the lie detector test each time.

    Maybe even that, but surely not the next sentence:

    Whatever lie he’s telling at that minute, he believes it.

    Come on, does Ted Cruz believe that?

    Now I think the next sentence after that, maybe he does believe:

    But the man is utterly amoral.

    And he continues:

    Morality does not exist for him. It’s why he went after Heidi directly and smeared my wife. Attacked her. Apparently she’s not pretty enough for Donald Trump.

    I think what happened there was, Donald Trump was going to make one typpe of accusation, related to Goldman Sachs, or borrowing money to finance Ted Cruz’s 2012 Senate campaign, but thought the better of it, or was dissuaded, but, in order not to embarass himself, switched to “spilling the beans” about Ted Cruz’s wife not being pretty (when she’s without make-up?)

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)

  94. Just because Trump wants to use big government for a purpose you approve of, does not mean it becomes limited government.

    I am always impressed by the mind readers in the NeverTrump movement.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  95. hunson abedeer (80144e) — 9/24/2016 @ 4:24 pm

    William Shakespeare once said, “There’s small choice in rotten apples.” Discuss.

    Where?

    Google says: The taming of the shrew Act I, Scene I

    http://nfs.sparknotes.com/shrew/page_38.html translates

    “Faith, as you say, there’s small choice in rotten apples.”

    as:

    “The two choices are about equal, it’s true.” (enduring a public whipping every morning vs. putting up with her every morning)

    But actually rotten apples are all similar, and have the same thinng wrong with them while these things are very different.

    The phrase, “There’s small choice in rotten apples” therefore, is used when some widely disparate things are being said to be equally bad.

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)

  96. For my part, I don’t even know what limited government is. I just don’t want mine, limited or unlimited, run by someone I suspect was buggered by Roy Cohn.

    nk (dbc370)

  97. You think Roy Cohn was not friendly with any heterosexuals?

    What Roy Cohn maybe wanted to make friends with was libertines, of which Donald Trump definitely was one.

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)

  98. Mr. Trump is a good elected person (once he gets elected) cause of how he represents the people.

    This is why people more and more are enthusiasm and felicity when it comes to Mr. Trump. People have great disdain for the pig but that’s been relatively constant however the enthusiasm and felicity on Mr. Trump grows more and more higher.

    I’m proud to call Mr. Trump my executive branch and also my number one constitution buddy.

    He’s a beautiful new day with a sprinkle of mesquite-smoked sea salt! Why can’t we just celebrate that?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  99. happyfeet (28a91b) — 9/25/2016 @ 10:16 am

    People have great disdain for the pig but that’s been relatively constant however the enthusiasm and felicity on Mr. Trump grows more and more higher.

    That isn’t true.

    The disdain for Hillary Clinton has not been staying the same, but growing, and, as for Trump, more people are not getting enthusiastic about Trump, but possibly some people are deciding it might work out all right. Whatever may be going on, it’s not enthusism.

    More people are drifting or may drift to third parties.

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)

  100. we’ll see but i think people are for the most part very excited about closing the door on these dreary food stamp years and stepping out on the town with Mr. Trump

    it’s gonna be a memorable occasion and a time for choosing and a magical magical moment and a spin around the block in a bright red lamborghini

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  101. Donald Trump is gaining in the polls, to the point where he is now nearly break even:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-leading-in-exactly-the-states-she-needs-to-win/

    The key swing state in state-by-state is probably Wisconsin unless Donald Trump can carry Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.

    The snake here shows New Hampshire being the key swing state (Indeed Bush carrying it in 2000 was necessary to a win – he lost it in 2004 but that year win Iowa and New Mexico instead and also gained I think 8 Electorsl votes from reapportionment) but notes that Pennsylvania, Colorado and Wisconsin have all taken their turn as the tipping point state.

    The snake diagram shows Colorado (carried both times by Bush) Pennsylvania (which The Republican Pary always thinks it can win, but is never that close) and Michigan before Wisconsin.

    And Virginia (carried by Bush and Romney) and Maine as harder for Republicans than Wisconsin (but the second district alone is between Missouri and Georgia)

    The ABC poll does show a shift from Gary Johnson to Trump. This may be an artifact oof the polling. Or it could be people learnd more about Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Maybe McMullin is gaining but not polled. On Sept 8, all four add up to 98% but on September 22, they add up to 96%.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-race-narrows-doorstep-debates-poll/story?id=42313593

    The truth is, as Peggy Noonan woter, people’s opiniopns of both of them are pretty much fixed – what is not fixed is waht to do about it.

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)

  102. A red State post led me to a Hot Air one:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/24/obama-used-pseudonym-e-mail-hillary-secret-server/

    It has two bits of information:

    1. Obama used a pseudonym (but a whitehouse.gov address?) to communicate wth some people, including Hillary. That does not prove that he knew she did NOT have a state.gov address. It’s not revealed what they talked about. Huma Abedin at first denied knowing about that alternate Obama e-mail address on April 5, 2016 but then told it belonged to Obama wanted to take away a copy of that message and asked how that was not classified..

    2. When clinronemail.com went down temporarily in 2011 (probably because of an attack by hackers) Hillary opened up a Gmail account and used it during a trip to Croatia.

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)

  103. The truth is, as Peggy Noonan woter, people’s opiniopns of both of them are pretty much fixed – what is not fixed is waht to do about it.

    No, I think the debate tomorrow night will be a huge indicator. Post debate polls may take a week or two and the immediate media spin will be worse than usual.

    Also, we don’t know what may happen in the next month. The news media are minimizing the five person mass murder near Seattle, for example.

    I wonder how many Hispanics will resent being assumed the ethnicity of the shooter who looked middle eastern to me from the photos?

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  104. @59- Alas, apparently she’s not coming.

    But Trump women in the audience surely will arrive in blue cocktail dresses.

    Black berets, of course, will be on sale in the lobby.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  105. @105– More to the point, Shakespeare quilled: “The worm has turned.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  106. Patrick, I wish you great success in your collaborations there, and hope it gets your writing more eyeballs and thus more influence. Carry on!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  107. No one but Cruz and his immediate family (especially his wife and father) have the moral or ethical standing to decide whether or not Trump should be forgiven for his craven defamation of the Cruz family. You & I get to have opinions, but we are not the parties most directly affected. Cruz’ religion teaches us that genuine forgiveness ennobles us, and is the key to our own forgiveness; the best sermon I ever heard in my life included the observation that the word “as” in the Lord’s Prayer is the most meaningful and significant conjunction in the New Testament. I was offended on the Cruz family’s behalf, and I shall have to pray for more strength and wisdom to forgive Trump for this particular trespass; if the Cruz family has already found it, that is a blessing.

    Won’t change my vote, or rather, non-vote, in the presidential election.

    Beyond the question of unearned, unsought, and entirely undeserved forgiveness, though, I suspect — which is purely a matter of conjecture and speculation on my part — that the deciding factor for Sen. Cruz was not concern about his own political future in Texas or elsewhere, but rather fidelity to his written pledge to support the GOP nominee. That is not a pledge that I, or Patterico, or anyone other than the 17 GOP candidates this cycle made. But it remains the single best reason for Cruz to have made the announcement he made last week, in my evaluation. Trump gave Cruz magnificent provocation for declaring that Trump’s attacks on Cruz’ family invalidated the pledge; the fatal flaw with that argument, though, is that no one, and certainly not Ted Cruz, was under any illusions about Donald Trump’s character, honesty, or own willingness to be bound. Trump being Trump, in other words, is not something any decent human being can claim anymore to be a surprise, and Cruz certainly knew about Trump’s personal nastiness and willingness to fabricate claims when Cruz made his pledge.

    The reason I disagree very strongly with part of Patrick’s post at RedState — the conclusion that Cruz’ statement was a “mistake” — because in reaching it, Patrick has imputed intentions and motivations to Cruz that go beyond what he’s actually said. Yeah, if you interpret “his stance,” you can say that he’s acting inconsistently. With due respect, that’s such a general term, though, as to be useless and, in this instance, unhelpful. As quotations and video linked here abundantly make clear, Cruz’ “stance” is not that of a sycophant or disciple. It is that of a man reluctantly keeping his word — not for the benefit of Trump (who doesn’t deserve it), but simply for the reason that he (Cruz) did give his word.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  108. Beldar

    I think you are correct.
    Cruz gave a promise and then got insult.
    Jesus had the same thing going and still fulfilled his promise.
    My gut feeling is Cruz looked at that dynamic within the construct of his faith and decided to fulfill promise. He probably feels anger, remorse, etc in droves, but his faith says: this is the right thing to do even if he feels like Jonah vomited up on the beach.

    That speaks to character and Trump doesn’t hold his balls here… Cruz still does.

    steveg (5508fb)

  109. This is what Ted Cruz actually posted on Friday:

    This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.

    In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

    After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

    I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.

    Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.

    Six key policy differences inform my decision. First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”

    For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.

    Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.

    Third, energy. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry. Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.

    Fourth, immigration. Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama’s lawless executive amnesty. Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders.

    Fifth, national security. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists. Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees.

    Sixth, Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.

    These are six vital issues where the candidates’ positions present a clear choice for the American people.

    If Clinton wins, we know — with 100% certainty — that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country.

    My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.

    We also have seen, over the past few weeks and months, a Trump campaign focusing more and more on freedom — including emphasizing school choice and the power of economic growth to lift African-Americans and Hispanics to prosperity.

    Finally, after eight years of a lawless Obama administration, targeting and persecuting those disfavored by the administration, fidelity to the rule of law has never been more important.

    The Supreme Court will be critical in preserving the rule of law. And, if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties.

    Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.

    A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.

    I think this is more excuses for the public than real motivations. He did get one new concession – Trump came out against the plan to changethe governance of the Internet. But this needs to be prevented this week. So Trump wasn’t actually taking a position.

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)

  110. If we pretend that Trump asked Cruz to be his Veep, and that Cruz accepted, that would have been changing his stance.

    (I’m reminded as I write this, though, that the word “stance” also has a colorful history in fairly recent politics, albeit in quite a different context.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  111. A better link regarding stances.

    Gosh, life seemed simple in 2007.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  112. I hate the fourth and the fifth “reason”

    Ted Cruz doesn’t know what nonsense this “vetting” is that supposedly they can do with otehr countries, but not Syria? What is the vetting that they supposedly cannot do but can do wth otehr countries? Can he describe it? This statement by Ted Cruz preys on people’s ignorance.

    I’ll tell you what it is. Only, this: Reliance on the government of the country in question to tell them who might be a terrorist or who might be a criminal. That’s the vetting they cannot do.

    Like that exists with Pakistan. Like there are not easy ways to tell if you have a grain of common sense. I mean really. It’s not too difficult. Just double-check information. A terrorist has to make up a biography, besides he’s stupid, because he is a terrorist, because if he wasn’t stupid, he wouldn’t be a terrorist. I except the leaders, but they can also be weeded out. and any porcessing delay keeps them out all by itself.

    All that oppposition to refugees from Syria does is encourage Russia to murder people in Aleppo, because if opposition to refugees is strong enough, they won’t be let into Turkey and become refugees – and if there is opposition to intervention in the war as well, or even worse, a alliance allegedly against ISIS, they can murder them to their heart’s content.

    Otherwise there’s a risk people from Aleppo and the areas surrounding it they could become a permanent outside the country opposition. That’s why Russia wants to murder them – they’re lost to the government in Damascus. It is not like Dresden, by the way, but like Grozny. Now they won’t murder them all – yet – because the west is not ready to tolerate it, but Donald Trump sounds like he would.

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)

  113. narciso @122.

    This post by Nate Silver summarizes the situation as estimated by the polls

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-leading-in-exactly-the-states-she-needs-to-win/

    New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have taken turns as the tipping point state – the first state (in order of probability) that must not go for Hillary in order for her to lose.

    Iowa, in this diagram, goes Republican before Ohio, and then North Carolina, (where Hillary is very active) Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire (the key state at the moment) Colorado, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Virginia. And then the rest of Maine – the 2nd district alone being positioned well into red territory.

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)

  114. In the linked video, when asked by the interviewer, “Are those characterizations of him [i.e., of Trump — referring to a long list of unflattering terms Cruz had used to describe Trump during the primaries] accurate?” Ted Cruz replied (at 12:30 in the transcript):

    What I’m going to tell you is this [audience laughter at his blunt verbal sidestep]. We’re in a general election now. I don’t think it is productive for me to criticize the Republican nominee today. So you can ask me to, but I’m gonna decline to. I have made my concerns with him very clear. And right now the voters are faced with a binary choice [yada yada] ….

    That’s the nub of it. Cruz is complying with his promise. He could have done so in a grudging, lawyerly, and Clintonesque fashion, with broad winks and elbow-ribbing, maybe some air quotes to make the dripping sarcasm abundantly clear.

    He does not go that route. He marshalls his very best arguments for why he made the statement he did, and as Patrick correctly notes, the interviewer is brilliantly capable — not just funny, but scrupulously respectful and non-snarky — so the effect is of Cruz being under intense, prolonged, and skillful cross examination. This guy could give lessons to about 9/10ths of the national media, at least on how to play the game with due regard to old-style conventions. (The sponsoring organization, with which I assume he’s affiliated, is the Texas Tribune — one of the last redoubts of Texas Democrats/progressives and the leading liberal organ of the Left, as they say, published in Sodom-on-the-Colorado aka Austin aka Berkeley-in-Texas.)

    I could do that, if obliged to be someone’s advocate against my will. For example, I’m sure I could have come up with a six-point list of “Nice things about Pol Pot.”

    But Cruz actually did pick the very best things he thought he could truthfully say to persuade voters not only to vote against Hillary, but to vote for Trump. The Trumpkins will never be satisfied. But I think Cruz can justify the tightrope he’s walked; I don’t characterize this as a “mistake,” but rather an abhorrent but necessary (for Cruz (not me)) duty performed. He performed it as persuasively as he could without being dishonest. And indeed, his arguments will likely move some identifiable number of GOP primary voters who preferred Cruz over Trump to hold their noses and vote for Trump as well.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  115. I’d say that Chris Christie is who most changed his stance — his wide stance, indeed.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  116. As quotations and video linked here abundantly make clear, Cruz’ “stance” is not that of a sycophant or disciple. It is that of a man reluctantly keeping his word — not for the benefit of Trump (who doesn’t deserve it), but simply for the reason that he (Cruz) did give his word.

    Nothing has changed since the GOP convention to make that pledge worth fulfilling now. Either Cruz should have reluctantly honored his pledge when Trump was nominated, or he should have stuck to his guns that voters should vote their consciences.

    DRJ (15874d)

  117. DRJ, Cruz addresses exactly that point in the video. He conceded that many of his reasons had, as you point out, not changed since the GOP convention. But he did indeed have a principled answer to the “What changed?” question, which was (my paraphrase) Trump’s public commitment that anyone he names to the SCOTUS will be chosen exclusively from among the 21 names (now including Mike Lee) on Trump’s new list. He noted that Trump’s earlier lists have not come with any commitment at all, and that Trump had previously left himself free, in his public statements, to nominate someone else. And Cruz was very candid in describing this as an explicit change that he (Cruz) had suggested and requested during Cruz’ discussions with Mike Pence. He didn’t use the phrase “new and independent consideration,” even if it’s only the ritual “$10 cash in hand received plus other good and valuable consideration” — but that’s what the discussion sounded like to me. (He also mentioned the internet position paper as a secondary but newly-topical justification; lawyerly belt & suspenders, nontrivial but concededly not as weighty a topic as the SCOTUS.)

    It definitely sounded, as I wrote, like what Cruz would say if obliged to argue a difficult position for a repellant client — e.g., as if you or I might have tried our bests to do, back in the day when our law licenses were fresh, had we been unexpectedly appointed to represent a self-confessed axe murderer because every other lawyer in the jurisdiction was somehow disqualified.

    Was it chipper? Nope. Was it crisply delivered, grammatically impeccable, rhetorically sign-posted, and all the other things that Ted Cruz does when under close questioning by a very gifted questioner (like, say, Justice Breyer)? Of course. Was it the whole truth? Nope, although there was tons more cross-examination worth watching. I believe that Cruz enjoyed this interchange, as did his interlocutor; it was a lively joust. Was Cruz’ pitch nevertheless truthful as far as it went, sincere as far as it went, and all delivered with a reasonably straight face? I thought so.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  118. Impeccable delivery isn’t his problem. His problem is he seems self-serving and this makes him look twice as bad.

    DRJ (15874d)

  119. I don’t think less of Cruz because of this. Lots of people of worth and good will think “better Trump than Hilary”, and he is a Republican after all. I do regret my disdainful comments about Kasich during the debates.

    nk (dbc370)

  120. Yup, his political self-interest is certainly aligned with his public performance of this distasteful service, so it will be fertile ammo for his opponents to so argue. No one can rule out the possibility that he’s being driven by cynical political self-interest, rather than, as he insists, a new-but-hard-and-slow-found decision to announce this. He says he likewise would have been accused of acting out of self-interest had he gone full-bore #nevertrump.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  121. “Rather than, or in addition to,” I ought have written.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  122. a times contributor emma symons, actually investigated this,

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/24/french-burkini-controversy-was-set-up-by-muslim-activist-family-in-concert-with-television-station/

    Nevertheless, the burkini ban is/was (depending on whether it’s still being enforced despite the court decision) outrageous, and completely unacceptable in any country that pretends to be free. There is simply no justification for banning burkinis, or any other religious garb that does not pose a threat to public safety. Burkas are completely different matter.

    Milhouse (7e779f)

  123. 12 Voluntary exchanges in the unhampered market economy maximize the benefit of exchange to all parties. Interference with those exchanges minimizes that benefit.

    Two problems.

    Many people for a variety of reasons make bad decisions and are easily taken advantage of.

    That’s their problem.

    Voluntary exchanges can and often do adversely affect third parties.

    So what? Why is this a bad thing?

    Milhouse (7e779f)

  124. What level of tariff impediment would be justified for trade with slave economies? Should slave harvested sugar from Cuba or slave produced goods from North Vietnam, North Korea and China be freely traded in the US without imposition of tariff punishment? Should oil from a (currently) slave based economy such as Venezuela not incur a tariff penalty?

    Why on earth not not? If it’s morally offensive to buy it, because that makes the buyer an accessory to the crime, then ban it altogether, and ban all products produced in the same way. But if you don’t want to do that, what right do you have to force us to pay more for it? What right do you have to impoverish American consumers in order to steer business to your favourite parasites?

    An “unhampered” market is as much a theoretical construct today just as it was when Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations. I would think that reciprocity regarding access to markets would be a minimum requirement prerequisite prior to relaxation of tariff barriers.

    Bullshit. A market is unhampered if we don’t hamper it. If the other country hampers trade, hurting its consumers, that’s their problem.

    Milhouse (7e779f)

  125. As part of a frat initiation gag, I was once ordered to buy a stack of newspapers with my own money, then stand right in front of an actual news-stand and offer to give them away for free. You can imagine the amusement which followed. What was the benefit? What was the actual exchange? Who got what from whom?

    That’s easy. The consumers benefited by getting their papers for free. You benefited by getting into the frat you wanted. The newsstand owner did not own those consumers, and had no right to their business, so there is no reason for anyone to care about his loss, and it is pure thuggery for anyone (whether he or the government on his behalf) to use force to prevent your voluntary exchange.

    Milhouse (7e779f)

  126. But once we have this rather valuable knowledge, then there are other considerations, which is where most current political and social and economic thinking falls flat.

    The moment you interfere you no longer have that information.

    Milhouse (7e779f)

  127. I can’t wait until illary becomes president.
    I wonder if kids in Texas will be able to adapt to spelling the name of their state, “Texachusetts.”
    They would never forgot the Alamo, so I suppose they won’t forgot how to spell the name of their own state.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  128. If Trump signed a law that made every state Constitutional carry like Arizona, Wyoming etc.

    On what authority? How would that be constitutional?

    Milhouse (7e779f)

  129. Enforcement of the 14th Amendment, clause 1.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  130. Assuming that “enumerated right” falls under “Privilege or immunity”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  131. Just as they can require bakers to make gay marriage cakes in every state.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  132. Enforcement of the 14th Amendment, clause 1. Assuming that “enumerated right” falls under “Privilege or immunity”

    There is no enumerated right to carry openly or without a permit. It’s nice that some states allow this, but there is nothing in the constitution requiring it.

    Just as they can require bakers to make gay marriage cakes in every state.

    They can’t and don’t.

    Milhouse (7e779f)

  133. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

    LBascom (c230be)

  134. Milhouse, the last was sarcasm regarding how judge-made rights trump enumerated ones.

    But it is not at all clear that the 2nd Amendment does not allow for open carry. A ruling (now scuttled by the 9th circus) said that the state could not ban both concealed AND open carry, as one form of “bearing arms” must be permitted. Can a state require permits under a strict reading of the 2nd Amendment? Clearly if part of the right is a defense against a tyrannical state that would seem an issue.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  135. And in many California cities, bearing arms is only allowed to the select friends of the county sheriff. It would seem that SOME federal law to address that might be in order.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  136. Hey Milhouse. Did your email address go bad? I sent out a notification regarding this change, and yours bounced.

    Patterico (3bdcf5)

  137. @126. I’d say that Chris Christie is who most changed his stance — his wide stance, indeed.

    And he’s in the game on a big show team swinging for the fences.

    Texas leaguer Tedtoo, not so much. Sent down to the minors with an umbrella, collecting splinters.

    “Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. Sometimes, it rains.”– Bull Durham

    ___________

    @129.Impeccable delivery isn’t his problem. His problem is he seems self-serving and this makes him look twice as bad.

    Keen observation. And you can bet he practiced it in the mirror since the convention. Don’t take this the wrong way, DRJ, but with age comes good cheese and wisdom. If you have any extra, FedEx it over to Beldar. The cheese, that is.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  138. SF: “The truth is, as Peggy Noonan wrote, people’s opinions of both of them are pretty much fixed – what is not fixed is what to do about it.”

    Mike K (90dfdc) — 9/25/2016 @ 11:40 am

    No, I think the debate tomorrow night will be a huge indicator. Post debate polls may take a week or two and the immediate media spin will be worse than usual.

    What that means is, while the opinions about them are pretty much fixed, that’s not true about whom or what to vote for.

    Also, we don’t know what may happen in the next month. The news media are minimizing the five person mass murder near Seattle, for example. I wonder how many Hispanics will resent being assumed the ethnicity of the shooter who looked middle eastern to me from the photos

    That didn’t last long so there will be no effect. The attack wasn’t Islamic but the still more common type of shooting like that down in Aurora, Colorado: Somebody wanted revenge against the world or against women.

    There’s actually a lot to learn about Ramadi in the New york metropolitican area. They even know maybe the Mullah in who influenced him in Pakistan. His brother and maybe a sister were also involved, and somebody took pictures of him exploding something. He must have been trained in bomb making because he made 4 different types of bombs, two pressure cooker type and two pipe bombs, similar in some respects to what was published by al Qaeda some years ago.

    It was precipatated maybe by the fact that his father decided not to give him the restaurant after all. They were planning to sell the store and move to Virginia, but then his father gave him to opportunity to take it over and he was managing it – but his father took it back in May, and he took a job at two other places. then he began ordering the bomb material. Now maybe his father took it back because he was abandoning the business.

    He was also not allowed to marry his gielfriend whom he got pregnant (she was Hispanic and not Muslim) and eventually pushed into marrying a woman his father from Pakistan arranged for him. His father had bad contacts obviously.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  139. Hey Milhouse. Did your email address go bad? I sent out a notification regarding this change, and yours bounced.

    Sorry, my mailbox was full. I’ve emptied it now

    Milhouse (7e779f)

  140. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

    Requiring a permit, or banning open carry, don’t infringe.

    Milhouse (7e779f)

  141. But it is not at all clear that the 2nd Amendment does not allow for open carry. A ruling (now scuttled by the 9th circus) said that the state could not ban both concealed AND open carry, as one form of “bearing arms” must be permitted. Can a state require permits under a strict reading of the 2nd Amendment? Clearly if part of the right is a defense against a tyrannical state that would seem an issue.

    And in many California cities, bearing arms is only allowed to the select friends of the county sheriff. It would seem that SOME federal law to address that might be in order.

    Yes, but that’s not “constitutional carry”.

    Milhouse (7e779f)

  142. Well, I won’t argue it, as this “Constitutional Carry” thing seems a bad idea anyway. But Congress has the power to enforce SOME 2nd Amendment rights nationally. What these are remains unclear so nothing at all is obvious.

    Kevin M (25bbee)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6291 secs.