Patterico's Pontifications

11/29/2016

Reminder: Donald Trump Is a Dangerous Demagogue

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:22 pm

Justice Scalia cast the deciding vote that said burning the flag is protected speech under the First Amendment.

But Donald Trump doesn’t give a rip about the First Amendment. And he is going to be President.

I know, I know. He pops off like this and everybody gets spun up, and you feel like an idiot.

Except — did I mention this part? — he is going to be the President. And this is, quite simply, insane talk.

Ken White lets him have it, with humor, here.

347 Responses to “Reminder: Donald Trump Is a Dangerous Demagogue”

  1. Commence tut-tutting!

    If I can get another person to declare that they are going to stop reading this blog because of my deranged obsession with Donald Trump, that would be a bonus.

    Anything but confronting the obvious truth that he is suggesting made-up and totally unconstitutional punishments for a totally constitutional act.

    LET THE SPIN BEGIN!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. @Patterico:he is suggesting made-up and totally unconstitutional punishments

    and therefore of no consequence.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  3. Well, Mike Lee says we should all work with Trump, principled populism.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  4. He’s not a lawyer, you are.

    I don’t know why you insist in suggesting that he should understand principles of constitutional law. That’s why there is a thing called the Justice Department and another thing called the White House Counsel’s Office — to give him guidance on legal principles that have not been part of his everyday life.

    My guess is that there are a lot of things about brand marketing, real estate development, and construction that he could hold court on for a few hours — all of which would be foreign to you and I.

    Being a lawyer is not a job qualification for President.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  5. @kishnevi: I know Hillary sponsored that law. I know. I also know what she said about Citizens United.

    Patterico knows too, don’t worry.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  6. We had a binary choice of two panderers re: flag burning.

    In 2005, Hillary Clinton co-sponsored the Flag Protection Act which, while it did not call for the stripping of citizenship, made flag burning with the intent to incite violence or disturb the peace punishable by a year in jail and a $100,000 fine.

    Clinton was criticized for her stance then, although the criticisms leveled at her targeted Clinton’s perceived political slipperiness, rather than her representing a threat to constitutional liberty. A New York Times piece accused the senator of being “in pander mode.”

    elissa (ed23e5)

  7. @shipwreckedcrew:My guess is that there are a lot of things about brand marketing, real estate development, and construction that he could hold court on for a few hours — all of which would be foreign to you and I.

    If anyone has learned anything about 2016, we should have learned that Trump knows things most people don’t know.

    Maybe, a la Scott Adams, he’s some kind of 50-dimnesional chess genius; maybe a la Glenn Reynolds he’s a Troll: Level, Galactic Overlord. I lean toward he is God’s judgment on us as people.

    But whether he fully understands what he’s doing or not, the things he does seem to be working for him. That’s the evidence.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  8. The 2005 law was most likely unconstitutional, because it singled out flag burning, as Ken explains in his post. But it did at least call for incitement to violence — and it didn’t have as a punishment LOSING YOUR CITIZENSHIP.

    And yes, I am quite aware of Hillary Clinton’s anti-First Amendment stance on Citizens United. But guess what? Hillary Clinton isn’t going to be President. Donald Trump is.

    I don’t know why you insist in suggesting that he should understand principles of constitutional law.

    Gee, I don’t know. Maybe it’s because he’s going to be the President of the United States?

    He could at least TRY to have a fucking clue. But sure, keep on with the soft bigotry of low expectations!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  9. If I can get another person to declare that they are going to stop reading this blog because of my deranged obsession with Donald Trump, that would be a bonus.

    Anything but confronting the obvious truth that he is suggesting made-up and totally unconstitutional punishments for a totally constitutional act.

    LET THE SPIN BEGIN!

    It’s fascinating to note how people ignore both the ability of the SC to change prior rulings and the ability to amend the Constitution. It’s as if they have absolutely no understanding of USSC history at the moment they post that way.

    And to post the inanity of the O.P. without regard to, and acknowledgement of the obvious fact that many people feel that flag desecration should be criminal really demonstrates a loose tie on honesty.

    Just A Guy (08458e)

  10. We had a binary choice of two panderers re: flag burning.

    That we did. Does that insulate Donald Trump from criticism?

    Because that seems to be the argument here.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  11. And to post the inanity of the O.P. without regard to, and acknowledgement of the obvious fact that many people feel that flag desecration should be criminal really demonstrates a loose tie on honesty.

    Yes, the fact that I don’t acknowledge the FEELINGS of people who disagree with the First Amendment shows me to be dishonest. You’re just so on point with that tremendous observation!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  12. Just a Guy,

    On the one hand, Trump’s comments are deranged and show a fundamental lack of understanding of our civil liberties.

    On the other hand, many Americans are equally as deficient in knowledge of civics as he — and their feelings get hurt by free expression. And so they deserve a pat on the head and some understanding, and equal respect. And a pacie in their widdle moufs to keep them from crying when idiots with no respect for our country burn the flag.

    There. Is that better? Is that more honest?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  13. @Just A Guy: acknowledgement of the obvious fact that many people feel that flag desecration should be criminal

    Well, Patterico DID acknowledge that when he used the word “demagogue”.

    I agree with the “demagogue” part but the adjective I would use is “ludicrous” rather than dangerous. Trump is popping off as usual, and as usual he may retract it within hours, or say something completely different, and the chance of him actually trying to do anything about it is pretty much zero, and if he tried he would fail.

    You know the more he makes Presidents look absurd and ineffectual perhaps the better service he is doing this Republic. We have treated our Presidents with far too much deference and it has been unhealthy.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  14. ==Because that seems to be the argument here.==

    Not in my comment. I just like sniffing out hypocrisy and forgetfulness of history whenever I see it in the media.

    elissa (ed23e5)

  15. ISIS is setting people on fire.
    Other Islamic terrorists are setting fires in the wilderness of Israel.

    There are a lot bigger fish to fry than worrying about Trump popping off about flag-burning.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  16. And this is, quite simply, insane talk.

    Apparently you’ve never listened to the Nixon tapes.

    ‘You ain’t head nothin’, yet!’ – Al Jolson

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  17. yes, well we’ve had a quarter century since texas v Johnson, and did we get more respect for our institutions or less,

    narciso (d1f714)

  18. There are a lot bigger fish to fry than worrying about Trump popping off about flag-burning.

    What a silly and pointless comment that is.

    There are a lot bigger fish to fry than commenting on blogs.

    Here is Cruz Supporter commenting about a Twilight Zone episode. Pretty inconsequential compared to ISIS!!!! Actually, pretty inconsequential compared to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, come to think of it.

    I bet I could find other comments by Cruz Supporter that deal with less weighty issues than the First Amendment. I will henceforth note every time Cruz Supporter makes such a comment, in fact.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  19. Apparently you’ve never listened to the Nixon tapes.

    Apparently you’ve never studied Roman history.

    I’ll take non-sequiturs for $200, Alex!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  20. Yes, the fact that I don’t acknowledge the FEELINGS of people who disagree with the First Amendment shows me to be dishonest. You’re just so on point with that tremendous observation!

    They aren’t necessarily disagreeing with the First Amendment, in the broad sense, and you know that. History has shown us, again and again, that the interpretation of the Constitution is not static and final. One can be a strong supporter of an amendment and still not believe certain things should be deemed as protected by it.

    I, personally, disagree with Trump’s take, and I want people to be free to burn the flag if that’s their wish. That doesn’t automatically mean that Trump’s a dangerous demagogue, and calling it a reminder that he is one is an absurdity.

    Just A Guy (08458e)

  21. now this is demagoguery, accusations of internment camp (thank you megyn), beck’s machiatto driven delusion of bannon financing death squads through the dark webb,

    http://www.lifenews.com/2016/11/29/lawyer-behind-roe-worried-about-keeping-abortion-legal-under-trump-its-really-frightening/

    narciso (d1f714)

  22. Texas v. Johnson VS Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

    NJRob (a07d2e)

  23. If he tries to act on this I’m confident Patterico v Trump will take care of it.

    crazy (d3b449)

  24. That doesn’t automatically mean that Trump’s a dangerous demagogue, and calling it a reminder that he is one is an absurdity.

    No, with respect, it isn’t. It’s not JUST that he proposes punishing a constitutional act of free expression, but ALSO that he proposes stripping a citizen of their citizenship for it. That is dangerous demagoguery, and to call it such is not an “absurdity” but instead quite correct.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  25. What if the President-elect was a brilliant brain surgeon who never spent a moment of his higher education considering legal issues, and had no idea what “due process” under the 5th Amendment meant, even though as President he might be called upon to execute a prisoner condemned to death in a federal capital case?

    Its not my “soft bigotry” that’s the issue.

    Its your preening condescension towards Trump because he shown a tendency to address legal issues from a layman’s perspective. Well big surprise — he’s a layman.

    He wasn’t my first choice — or my second choice, or my third choice. Like you, I preferred the smartest guy in the field. Unfortunately he has long had a personality that drives people away, which makes it tough to win over voters who don’t speak constitution-eze. In fact, as my college educated, non-lawyer wife was found of saying about Cruz, “He doesn’t talk, he lectures, and he never listens. Most of my divorced friends describe their ex’s that way.”

    I know you understand that he’s a smart guy. You’re too smart to make the mistake of believing that Trump is an idiot like a lot of his critics.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  26. If he tries to act on this I’m confident Patterico v Trump will take care of it.

    There is no cause for concern if a President proposes an insane and patently unconstitutional punishment of a constitutionally protected act, because if he actually tries it, one can always take him to court.

    If Trump tries to seize a firearm owned by Mr. “crazy” then hey, no harm no foul. The court case of Mr. crazy vs. President Trump will fix that no problem!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  27. I know you understand that he’s a smart guy. You’re too smart to make the mistake of believing that Trump is an idiot like a lot of his critics.

    I guess I don’t fit your definition of smart because I think Trump is a TV-watching moron who doesn’t read and knows fuck-all about the same constitutional principles that my 14- and 16-year-old kids understand.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  28. Patterico,

    were Justice’s Rehnquist, White, O’Connor and Stevens fascist totalitarians?

    NJRob (a07d2e)

  29. What if the President-elect was a brilliant brain surgeon who never spent a moment of his higher education considering legal issues, and had no idea what “due process” under the 5th Amendment meant

    Then he would have no business being the President, not that any of that would keep this chucklehead electorate from choosing such a person.

    I believe a President should have a basic understanding of constitutional issues, and for you to call that “preening condescension” makes me wonder why I ever let you post here. Since we’re getting personal and all.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  30. were Justice’s Rehnquist, White, O’Connor and Stevens fascist totalitarians?

    They were intellectually dishonest.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  31. Did they propose stripping someone of their citizenship for burning a flag? If they did, then I will add fascist totalitarian to the description.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  32. And Justice Brennan the saint and kingmaker of the Court?

    NJRob (a07d2e)

  33. Beat you to it
    Burning the flag should be punished with prison or loss of citizenship ~~~~~

    No. It really shouldn’t. Burning the flag is the recommended method of disposing of tattered and worn flags.
    Pretending it’s not a legitimate form of self expression just greases the way for the Democrat who really doesn’t give a rats ass about freedoms

    That other guy with the tiger is me too

    papertiger (c8116c)

  34. Is Chaplinsky currently valid law?

    NJRob (a07d2e)

  35. And yes, “preening condescension” is plenty personal, shipwreckedcrew.

    If you don’t want to tone it down, fine, but you’re going to get the attitude thrown right back in your face.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  36. No state legislature is going to pass a law that would send someone to jail for flag-burning. Trump’s a businessman who has never spent much time contemplating the Constitution.
    He’s just popping off.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  37. We don’t strip people of their citizenship who commit terrorist acts on our soil. What is your point?

    NJRob (a07d2e)

  38. Patrick @13 — “fundamental lack of understanding of our civil liberties”” ???

    Its not like we’re talking about Plessy or Miranda or Griswold — Texas v. Johnson, where Scalia pronounced flag burning to be protected symbolic speech, was decided in 1989.

    And, it was a 5-4 decision — meaning that four voters in black robes didn’t agree with your view that the right to burn the flag was part of a “fundamental understanding of our civil liberties.”

    And it was an odd lineup in the vote, with Scalia joining three of the most stalwart liberals along with Kennedy, while the remaining conservatives along with Stevens were in dissent.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  39. Is Chaplinsky currently valid law?

    Ken suggests in his post that the answer is not so much.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  40. I dodn’t think stripping someone of their citizenship is a thing.

    Even the worst American crooks and convicts are still American first, then crooks.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  41. You know who else thought that it was ok to criminalize flag-burning? That other famous demagogue, William H. Rehnquist.

    Personally, I think Scalia got it right. But there were plenty of people on the Right who thought it was a bad decision. So many, that Congress amended the Flag Protection Act, to try to get around the decision, and George Bush signed it. That too was overturned.

    But, can’t you disagree with Trump without the name calling and the leftist kind of invectives to describe the facts?

    Anon Y. Mous (9e4c83)

  42. As long as Chaplinsky is considered precedent, there is a valid claim that burning a flag in protest is incitement and a criminal offense.

    Texas v Johnson is bad law because it didn’t overturn Chaplinsky.

    Once they get rid of Chaplinsky and all of its brethren, then justice will be served and we can get back to knowing the 1st Amendment means what it clearly says.

    Till then, it’s all just fighting words.

    NJRob (a07d2e)

  43. And, it was a 5-4 decision — meaning that four voters in black robes didn’t agree with your view that the right to burn the flag was part of a “fundamental understanding of our civil liberties.”

    Hey, any time four Justices can be found to defend a position, that means the position must be defensible!

    And did we miss the part about how Trump’s view about flag burning is the less distressing half of his idiot position?

    The more distressing half being, if you do something he doesn’t like YOU NO GET TO BE CITIZEN AND YOU GO BYE BYE ON ACCOUNT OF MR. TRUMP SAY SO

    Any other view is preening condescension!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  44. I disagree with Ken and so does most of his brethren on the left.

    I would love for that to be the case.

    NJRob (a07d2e)

  45. Justice Scalia cast the deciding vote that said burning the flag is protected speech under the First Amendment.

    But he did season the sauce with his personal recipe:

    “If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag. But I am not king,” Scalia said.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  46. The day we bury another totalitarian Supreme Court decision (Chaplinsky) would be a joyous day.

    NJRob (a07d2e)

  47. Intellectually dishonest???????

    “Fire” in a crowded theater.

    See, the First Amendment does have limits recognized by statutory and case law.

    “Time, place, and manner” restrictions” — see above.

    For what — 210 years — it also banned flag burning, until 5 votes in black robes said otherwise.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  48. @Patterico:f you do something he doesn’t like YOU NO GET TO BE CITIZEN AND YOU GO BYE BYE ON ACCOUNT OF MR. TRUMP SAY SO

    But there isn’t actually any way for him to do either of those things.

    The serious/literally distinction is in play here. I’m pretty sure most Americans accept that Trump is expressing an emotion and not an intention.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  49. But, can’t you disagree with Trump without the name calling and the leftist kind of invectives to describe the facts?

    I can disagree with Trump about, say, whether a tariff on Chinese goods is wise.

    When it comes to his wanting to STRIP OF CITIZENSHIP a person who engages in protected expression, I then call him a dangerous demagogue.

    You’re missing the part where even if flag-burning could be criminalized, you could not strip someone’s citizenship for it.

    You people are all acting as though he never suggested the bit about stripping someone of their citizenship. That’s what makes this extra-special demagoguery, and you’re all pretending like he didn’t say it.

    Because you want to defend him and that part is indefensible.

    So you just pretend it didn’t happen.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  50. although Johnson is more in line with the west Virginia case, but didn’t Jackson say ‘the constitution is not a suicide pact’

    narciso (d1f714)

  51. The serious/literally distinction is in play here. I’m pretty sure most Americans accept that Trump is expressing an emotion and not an intention.

    Yes, it’s the soft bigotry of low expectations. Even though he is going to be President, most people understand that you just can’t take anything he says seriously.

    OK. Then I guess he really is just beyond criticism. The stupider and more insane his statements, the more obvious it is that we should not worry because, hey, he can’t be serious.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  52. “Fire” in a crowded theater.

    Christ, I hope Ken is not reading these comments or you will give him a heart attack.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  53. But he did season the sauce with his personal recipe:

    “If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag. But I am not king,” Scalia said.

    Now THAT’S a man who understood and respected the Constitution.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  54. @Patterico:Because you want to defend him and that part is indefensible.

    So you just pretend it didn’t happen.

    Can’t speak for anyone else but myself here. He’s expressing an emotion, not an intention. There is no way for him to do those things. For him to try to start a process that would actually allow him to do those things would take years of sustained effort which it is not plausible to suggest he has in him.

    The people you think are defending him are taking him seriously, and not literally, because that’s how he communicates.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  55. The idea that flag burning is some kind of highly-effective form of symbolic speech has always eluded me. Not here to make a legal argument, but a limited restriction on flag-burning isn’t exactly the clearest present threat to the First Amendment, which by the way is under assault in a lot of much more concerning ways. I get that it’s better to err on the side of free speech, but I just don’t see banning flag burning as somehow kneecapping the first amendment.

    David Shawver (806c86)

  56. of course, holmes didn’t consider what if the theatre is on fire,

    narciso (d1f714)

  57. @Patterico:Then I guess he really is just beyond criticism.

    You are the only one here who has been saying this.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  58. Patterico,

    It’s because we don’t take what he said seriously. A pen and a phone doesn’t cut it.

    People weren’t this outraged when Obama bombed a terrorist who happened to be a citizen.

    NJRob (a07d2e)

  59. it’s kind of like a Bronx cheer, it requires no reasoning, but it’s the fashion among a certain cohort say Hampshire college, like Wesleyan which has become a sanctuary campus,

    narciso (d1f714)

  60. @narcisco:of course, holmes didn’t consider what if the theatre is on fire,

    He did. The full quote is “falsely shouting fire”.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  61. Yeah, Donnie thinks we should ban flag desecration, like Russia!

    It occurs to me that the Democrats, in order to provide their own equivalent to Donald Trump, should have elected Roseanne Barr. Yes, that right. She has these character traits like our President Elect:
    – She’s a loudmouth
    – She doesn’t always know what she’s talking about
    – She is populist (to a fault)
    – She stands up for the common person
    – She has no experience in politics
    – She “tells it like it is” (a version of anti-PC)
    – She has a few checkers in her past too (e.g., badly singing the National Anthem)

    To name a few.

    Tillman (a95660)

  62. @Patterico:“If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag. But I am not king,” Scalia said.

    Trump said something not very different from this. He is not king, and cannot jail people or strip their citizenship at a word from his royal mouth. He did not, in his tweet, call on Americans to grant him that power.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  63. I’d love your friend Ken to come here and share his thoughts. Just not right now. I need some sleep as I have an early work day tomorrow.

    NJRob (a07d2e)

  64. @Tillman:Yeah, Donnie thinks we should ban flag desecration, like Russia!

    So does Hillary. Co-sponsored the legislation in 2005. Where were you?

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  65. remember when I said the declaration is a dangerous document, well holmes in a time of unrest, was trying to find a limit. however ‘if life liberty and property’ are inalienable, how can they be taken away,

    narciso (d1f714)

  66. @PAtterico: He said only that there “should be consequences”, not that he should have the sole power to determine or enforce them. At one time 4/9 of the Supreme Court agreed. Doesn’t make them right, but does not make the opinion scary, fringe, or a threat of dictatorship or totalitarianism.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  67. @narcisco:however ‘if life liberty and property’ are inalienable, how can they be taken away,

    The things themselves are quite alienable, the rights to them are not.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  68. Gabriel, I don’t have to try to defend Hillary. News flash – she lost.

    Tillman (a95660)

  69. Doesn’t make them right, but does not make the opinion scary, fringe, or a threat of dictatorship or totalitarianism.

    It is indeed all those things.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  70. Patterico, my obviously poorly worded wisecrack was meant to say there are a lot things standing in the way of Trump doing anything about what he spouted off about today and even if he tried to there are a lot of smart people ready to stop him. It seemed to me he was doing more trolling than announcing policy but try a burn a rainbow flag in West Hollywood and get away with it.

    crazy (d3b449)

  71. @55Now THAT’S a man who understood and respected the Constitution.

    If you’re going to burn a flag, at least wear a coat and tie.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  72. #63 Tillman, the Democrats DID nominate a Roseanne Barr type — weren’t you paying attention?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  73. Symptoms: deleterious effect on intelligence, reasoning, telling right from left…

    Diagnosis: tumor on teh Parietal lobe.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  74. this is the challenge posed by hybrid or assymetrical warfare, take the events in Columbus, one man enabled by institution that propagate a fluid immigration system, that generates almost inpervious cultural enclaves, are operating,

    narciso (d1f714)

  75. Trump said something not very different from this.

    What he said is very, very different from this.

    Scalia showed that he understood Constitutional limitations.

    Trump shows he does not.

    That is the difference, and it is huge. You’re just not worried because you know he’s a loose cannon and an idiot so you don’t take him seriously.

    But Presidents have a scary amount of power. I can’t shrug it off so easily.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  76. I blame the mindstone, also the dominators, the twilight zone episode is about the cost of individual conscience in a dystopian world, now there was some irony there since burgess Meredith was ‘blacklisted’ at one point, but the issue there is more about faith than politics,

    narciso (d1f714)

  77. “He’s not a lawyer, you are.”

    So is Star Jones, fed chrissakes…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  78. You tossed the first hammer by pointing to what you called my “soft bigotry”. I simply gave you my view of your attitude in response.

    What has caught my attention here since returning with some regularity a few weeks ago is the fact of your simple refusal to consider any events involving Trump with even a slight bit of objectivity.

    I certainly understood — and understand — the NeverTrump stance, and I never once criticized you for it or made the too obvious “binary choice” rationale as an argument against NeverTrumpers. For me it was all about who would fill out the staff of the executive branch, and who would nominate 2 or 3 Supreme Court Justices so I didn’t see it as a “binary choice” — one candidate was simply unacceptable. For you both were unacceptable. Fine.

    But the election is over. Persisting with a NeverTrump POV is to now stand side-by-side with the “Not My President’ers.”

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  79. #63 Tillman, the Democrats DID nominate a Roseanne Barr type — weren’t you paying attention?

    ISIS is setting people on fire.

    Other Islamic terrorists are setting fires in the wilderness of Israel.

    There are bigger fish to fry than whether Hillary resembles Roseanne Barr.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  80. Wear your safety pin and be done with it!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  81. you should try substituting ‘dutcher of the 13th rule,’ for trump,

    narciso (d1f714)

  82. you realize this is the same reasoned response Netanyahu gets to everything on the Israeli left, as for the eva green looking atty general, the effect is cubed,

    narciso (d1f714)

  83. It’s akin to flying several sorties daily over formerly friendly territory, dropping cluster bombs and returning to the new home base.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  84. But the election is over. Persisting with a NeverTrump POV is to now stand side-by-side with the “Not My President’ers.”

    I never used the term “NeverTrump” to describe myself. Never used the hashtag. Never associated myself with that movement.

    Nor am I saying Trump is “not my President.” He’s the President-elect. Duly elected. Any other view is silly.

    It is also silly to act as though any criticism of him is out of bounds, because a) the election is over or b) he is not Hillary or c) it makes me like the leftists or d) it makes me like Not My Presidenters.

    News flash: I am not a Republican. Donald Trump is the President-elect and I am stuck with him, but he is not “my” guy in the sense that I don’t see myself on his team. I feel zero loyalty to him. None. I have NO OBLIGATION to refrain from criticizing him when he says something so stupid that if my own child said it I would feel I had failed as a parent.

    Put simply, if Donald J. Trump says something stupid, as he did today, I am goddamned well going to feel entitled to criticize him for it. If all the blowback I am getting is intended to make me stop? It ain’t going to work. If you’re on Donald Trump’s team, then you’re not on mine and I’m not on yours. It doesn’t mean we have to be rude to each other. But we’re not on the same team. See?

    The “soft bigotry of low expectations” as you well know is a G.W. Bush quote and it’s not intended as a personal slam at you but a criticism of how little you expect from the single human being who will soon hold the Article II authority under the U.S. Constitution. To me the phrase “preening condescension” seems very sharp and personal. Maybe I’m wrong about this. I feel like you have been snide to me quite a few times lately, so this all has a larger context for me.

    I’m just absolutely astounded that this guy can say something this fucking stupid and when I criticize him then somehow I’M the bad guy. I’m living in freaking Bizarro World.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  85. Wear your safety pin and be done with it!

    Wear your “I’ll defend any fucking thing Donald Trump says or does because I am a mindless partisan” pin and be done with it!

    Are we having fun yet, Colonel?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  86. It’s akin to flying several sorties daily over formerly friendly territory, dropping cluster bombs and returning to the new home base.

    What is? Criticizing a fucking stupid comment by the future President?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  87. and much the same invective will be deployed if this fellow gets into office,

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/why-jews-in-france-might-give-right-wing-populist-fillon-a-chance/

    just like the socialists like Vichy befriending mitterand would refer to thiers and McMahon,

    narciso (d1f714)

  88. ISIS is setting people on fire.
    Other Islamic terrorists are setting fires in the wilderness of Israel.

    There are a lot bigger fish to fry than worrying about Trump popping off about flag-burning.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/29/2016 @ 8:43 pm

    A foreign terror group in a far-off land committing atrocities against their own people does not affect personal liberties here, at home. As for the Israelis, they’re more than capable of taking care of themselves. A recently elected President-elect popping off about how he’s gonna take away someone’s First Amendment rights is a big deal. Someone might want to tell Trump he want’s to dial that back a bit. The path between their rights being taken from them for wrongful speech and yours being taken from you is not long at all.

    Bill H (971e5f)

  89. what would Russell kirk’s view be about this, he believed in the support of vibrant institutions,

    narciso (d1f714)

  90. Patterico, my obviously poorly worded wisecrack was meant to say there are a lot things standing in the way of Trump doing anything about what he spouted off about today and even if he tried to there are a lot of smart people ready to stop him.

    OK, crazy, but you know what? Your faith in these institutions depends on people being willing to stand up and say that what he is saying is bullshit. I should have every commenter here saying Trump’s comments are obviously stupid. Yet people here are more intent on criticizing ME for criticizing Trump’s dangerous and stupid comment, than they are on criticizing Trump for making a dangerous and stupid comment.

    I don’t feel a lot of solace when a future President says something that betrays an utter contempt for our entire Constitutional structure, and the universal chorus is SHUT UP YOU LEFTIST.

    The only real conservatives left are the ones willing to criticize Trump for saying stuff like this. Anyone unwilling to take that simple step should not be allowed to call themselves conservatives.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  91. except the tactics of the west bank have been exported first to Europe, and now to the states, so it’s not as abstract a notion as you would think,

    narciso (d1f714)

  92. A foreign terror group in a far-off land committing atrocities against their own people does not affect personal liberties here, at home. As for the Israelis, they’re more than capable of taking care of themselves. A recently elected President-elect popping off about how he’s gonna take away someone’s First Amendment rights is a big deal. Someone might want to tell Trump he want’s to dial that back a bit. The path between their rights being taken from them for wrongful speech and yours being taken from you is not long at all.

    +1000

    Patterico (115b1f)

  93. The man could propose policies that mirror 1930’s Germany and his adoring fan base would simply nod and find ways to excuse his behavior because he’s an outsider, he doesn’t have authority, he’s just playing multi-dimensional chess, he’s just trolling the media, he’s joking, he’s just a businessman not a constitutional scholar, he’s not a politician, he can’t possibly be held accountable because the Democrats did the same thing years ago, or so what he won get over it stupid head.

    Sean (41ed1e)

  94. except the tactics of the west bank have been exported first to Europe, and now to the states, so it’s not as abstract a notion as you would think,

    Governments taking people’s rights is not as abstract a notion as a lot of people seem to think. Which is why Bill H’s comment is so important.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  95. The man could propose policies that mirror 1930’s Germany and his adoring fan base would simply nod and find ways to excuse his behavior because he’s an outsider, he doesn’t have authority, he’s just playing multi-dimensional chess, he’s just trolling the media, he’s joking, he’s just a businessman not a constitutional scholar, he’s not a politician, he can’t possibly be held accountable because the Democrats did the same thing years ago, or so what he won get over it stupid head.

    Exactly.

    Also you called him Hitler so you are deranged.

    Yes, I am kidding. I know I probably need to make that clear.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  96. Thank God I have a couple of sensible people commenting here. Thank you, Sean and Bill H, for helping to keep me sane tonight.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  97. It’s been a good day for The Donald: he’s got the press chasing a First Amendment rabbit instead of his business interests; saved 1,000 jobs in Indy, got Mitt to eat Manhattan crow; has Jonathan Caphart’s knickers in a twist and has Patterico in a tizzy crying demagogue.

    “Rumson he got married, today, what’ll he do tomorrow?!” – ‘Paint Your Wagon’ 1969

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  98. what would Russell kirk’s view be about this, he believed in the support of vibrant institutions,

    I wish JD were here. We could ask him. Kirk was his mom’s uncle, I learned recently.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  99. It’s been a good day for The Donald: he’s got the press chasing a First Amendment rabbit instead of his business interests; saved 1,000 jobs in Indy, got Mitt to eat Manhattan crow; has Jonathan Caphart’s knickers in a twist and has Patterico in a tizzy crying demagogue.

    You remind me of Herr Zeller from the Sound of Music.

    Oh, how clumsy of me – I meant to accuse you.

    — Captain von Trapp, The Sound of Music

    Patterico (115b1f)

  100. how about that, I would never have guessed, they called poppy a demagogue for merely referring to the pledge, of course the court missed the point, the fine folks of George mason, showed such respect to scalia, regardless,

    narciso (d1f714)

  101. All Trump needs to do is decriminalize the punching of flag desecrators.

    Pinandpuller (2d1af1)

  102. I’m hoping the new guy and the people he surrounds himself with help us all improve conditions for our children, grandchildren and countrymen, Patterico. All I see from you is a Chicken Little with a hard-on for Trump.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  103. well that would be godwin violation on the 50 yard line,

    narciso (d1f714)

  104. “I’m living in freaking Bizarro World.”

    Now you’re talkin’…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  105. Put simply, if Donald J. Trump says something stupid, as he did today, I am goddamned well going to feel entitled to criticize him for it.

    Hear, hear!

    I wish the left had criticized Obama when he said and did things that showed the same contempt for the Constitution that Trump has shown today. But just because the left didn’t criticize their man when they should have does not give us permission to do the same.

    Chuck Bartowski (211c17)

  106. I do not like Donald Trump. Nor do I trust him. I think his primary interest is advancing the cause, and increasing the fortune, of Donald Trump. I don’t think he has a civically-oriented bone in his body. He has a proven track record of saying whatever he must in order to get what he wants…anyone who believed he was going to prosecute Hillary, or build a wall across the entire southern border, is too stupid to vote. I still do not, nor will I ever take him seriously…and every time he spouts off like this, he reminds me of why.

    That said…

    I admit that I have been reasonably okay with most of his picks and hires thus far (Steve Bannon being an obvious exception), and enthusiastic about some. I was very satisfied with his statement on Castro’s death. I was a big fan of his dumping Christie, whatever the reason. He actually appears to be trying to act more presidential, and I’m happy with that. I’m pleased that he’s pushing back on the recount, even if he’s being a little hypocritical in doing so…because this time, I actually think he’s right.

    Don’t get me wrong. Nothing in the second paragraph overrides or modifies anything in the first. But that’s also true going the other way. I will never trust Trump at all, and I will never think he is a good man. But if the best I can do involves, as Milton Friedman might have said, incentivizing a bad man to be a good leader, then I’ll do it. Maybe he’ll do enough good to make me forget the times when he says/does stupid crap.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  107. lets see what happens when he’s actually in office,

    http://babalublog.com/2016/11/29/fidel-castro-cubas-revolutionary-champion-of-the-proletariat-lived-a-life-of-luxury-and-excess/

    bannon is one of his better selections, devos and chou, are less so,

    narciso (d1f714)

  108. #90 Bill H,

    Trump’s not going to take away anyone’s first amendment rights — he was just popping off. No state legislature will send people to jail for burning the flag.
    I was obviously riffing on fires; flag-burning, ISIS setting people on fire, Islamic arsonists setting Israel on fire.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  109. but to say, this has not been a bastion of never trumpers, for the better part of a year, Shirley,

    narciso (d1f714)

  110. @101- Max. You were closer the first time.

    “And the magic word: Julie Andrews!” – George Spiggott [Peter Cook] ‘Bedazzled’ 1967

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  111. Take Trump seriously but not literally. His critics take him literally but not seriously.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  112. @ shipwreckedcrew, #80:

    You can’t say this…

    For you both were unacceptable. Fine.

    …and then say this…

    But the election is over. Persisting with a NeverTrump POV is to now stand side-by-side with the “Not My President’ers.”

    …without invoking the unspoken corollary that while any criticism of a candidate is fine, any criticism of a president-elect is not. Basically, you’re implying that once the election is over, we all just need to fall in line. I wasn’t planning on extending that courtesy to Hillary Clinton, and I’m sure you wouldn’t have either. So why should I extend it to Trump?

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  113. I’m hoping the new guy and the people he surrounds himself with help us all improve conditions for our children, grandchildren and countrymen, Patterico. All I see from you is a Chicken Little with a hard-on for Trump.

    You know what? How about you keep your opinion of me to yourself, and then I won’t feel compelled to tell you what you can do with your snide little safety pin comments.

    Honestly, there are plenty of rah-rah Trump blogs and sites all over the Internet now, folks. They do GREAT traffic. It’s all the rage. If criticism of a comment as stupid as the one Trump made today is going to upset you — any of you — you’re reading the wrong blog. The dramatic flounce is always a great look and now’s as good a time as any to strike that pose.

    It is NOT. MY. FAULT. that Donald Trump says things this dumb. If I criticize him for an idiot statement, the person to blame is the President-elect making the idiot statement.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  114. burning strawmen, didn’t say don’t criticize, just don’t use the same tone as the kaily dos or the puffington host,

    narciso (d1f714)

  115. @86 — where did i say criticism of him is out of bounds? I said IMO its unjustified to expect a layman to understand principles of constitutional law — or to even know the fact that there was a Supreme Court decision in 1989 that protected flag burning under the First Amendment.

    Do you think he knew that and demagouged the issue anyway??

    Or do you think he was genuninely unaware of the case, but fault him for not knowing that?

    I think its the latter, but I don’t fault a layman for not knowing it. I can’t converse with my brother-in-law about fracking in North Dakota, and he doesn’t hold that against me. If Trump is conversant, can he still make energy policy??

    “Preening condescension” — accept my apologies, wasn’t meant to incite. But you’re right, it was a bit sharp.

    I’m not suggesting you “stand down” in criticizing Trump. We’ll share a lot of common views in that regard over 4 years. I just don’t hold this one against him simply because I think it comes from a place of “ignorance” – not meant in a pejorative sense.

    Last thing — you’re not wrong in sensing a bit of bite in some of my posts. But I went away a while ago after having spent a lot of time here — including you doing me a very nice turn by making me a commentator for a while. But since I’ve been back I’ve just been struck by the level of anti-Trump vituperation that flows from your keyboard. I understand it — I see the many of the same faults in him, just not to the same degree. Its your blog — and we’ve discussed what you sacraficed and endured to make it into what it has become pretty much as a one-man show — so I don’t begrudge you the platform to air your views.

    What I like about this place more than anything is the fact that the debate flows back and forth, and the alliances can shift and move depending on the topic. I like being with you on one topic and against you on the next. That means its “anti-sycophantic” — those are the worst blogs.

    This isn’t one of those. I hope it remains that way — dissent should be encouraged and debated because it broadens the base of knowledge.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  116. @110 Cruz Supporter

    Unless you were burning a flag in Gatlingburg,TN. That guy is definitely going to jail.

    And there are a lot of illegal noncitizens setting and causing fires along our southern border that we can deport to satiate the demagogue.

    Pinandpuller (2d1af1)

  117. without invoking the unspoken corollary that while any criticism of a candidate is fine, any criticism of a president-elect is not. Basically, you’re implying that once the election is over, we all just need to fall in line. I wasn’t planning on extending that courtesy to Hillary Clinton, and I’m sure you wouldn’t have either. So why should I extend it to Trump?

    That sure seems to be what you’re implying, shipwreckedcrew. You and a lot of people here.

    I’ve never met a politician yet who didn’t deserve some criticism, and that includes the ones I like. And I don’t like Trump. Why would I fall in line? Would you really admire and respect me if I started praising his “strip flag-burners of citizenship” comments? Or if I just pretended like they didn’t happen, like when someone lets off a noxious fart in church? If so, then maybe you need to direct your admiration towards the Jim Hofts of the world. I understand they’re very popular these days.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  118. Our comments crossed, shipwrecked. I appreciate that last thoughtful comment and I do accept the apology.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  119. I get that it’s better to err on the side of free speech, but I just don’t see banning flag burning as somehow kneecapping the first amendment.

    David Shawver (806c86) — 11/29/2016 @ 9:24 pm

    That’s just the problem though, David. It IS a kneecapping of the 1st. It isn’t a long leap from flag burning- something I would never think to do- to some other form of speech being suppressed. In the national interest, don’t you know.

    Trump’s not going to take away anyone’s first amendment rights — he was just popping off. No state legislature will send people to jail for burning the flag.
    I was obviously riffing on fires; flag-burning, ISIS setting people on fire, Islamic arsonists setting Israel on fire.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/29/2016 @ 10:20 pm

    Doesn’t it alarm you that the President-elect would even think to say something like this? You don’t see that his mind is not thinking of the Constitution, and the 320 or so million people that enjoy its protections?

    Bill H (971e5f)

  120. well that’s enough argument clinic, for now, same bat time, same bat channel tomorrow.

    narciso (d1f714)

  121. burning strawmen, didn’t say don’t criticize, just don’t use the same tone as the kaily dos or the puffington host,

    narciso, I think you and a few others have to decide whether you can come to terms with the fact that I really dislike Donald Trump, for real — and so my criticism of him is going to have a bite, and that is unlikely to change until he stops acting the same way he has acted for 70 years, . . . which is to say, never or when he drops dead, whichever comes first.

    I don’t agree with all the KosKids or HuffPo criticism of him. I don’t see him as a racist because he professed to take a hard line on immigration, for example. But shit like he pulled today is a stark reminder to me that his tendency towards crapping on the Constitution and his authoritarian brand of populism . . . well, those things are just oil to my Constitutionalist water. They’re never going to mix, and no brief period of his pretending to be Mr. Diplomacy is going to fool me into thinking he has suddenly become something other than the narcissistic vapid ghoul he has always been.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  122. your institutions providing a exemplar of uselessness,

    http://theothermccain.com/2016/11/29/notoriously-crazy-felon-barrett-brown-has-been-released-from-federal-prison/

    Some of those things he wrote while in custody were very funny. Let’s hope that he can set aside the less savory stuff he was involved in, and concentrate on being a witty writer.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  123. Its not the way I would prefer to do thing, but like aldrich killian put it’subtlety has had its day’, and in an environment whet there have been at least two assassination aTtempts, yet the press looked askance.

    narciso (d1f714)

  124. I never said – at least I don’t think I did (point out my text if you think I have) — that criticism is out of bounds because he’s now the President-Elect. I just disagreed on this particular point of criticism because I would not have expected Trump to know that Texas v. Johnson was decided in 1989 and the rationale for the decision.

    And I think the fact that 4 Justices dissented in that decision — which I think was correctly decided — means that a contrary view isn’t a reflection of a fundamental lack of understanding of civil liberties.

    That the best Patrick could do with that inconvenient fact was dismiss it as “intellectual dishonesty” only supports the contrary POV.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  125. But sh-t like he pulled today is a stark reminder to me that his tendency towards crapping on the Constitution and his authoritarian brand of populism . . .

    Actually, it’s a reminder of why NBC renewed The Apprentice for over a decade.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  126. I just disagreed on this particular point of criticism because I would not have expected Trump to know that Texas v. Johnson was decided in 1989 and the rationale for the decision.

    How about the part you persistently ignore where Trump proposed stripping people of citizenship for [insert anything here; the fact that he said flag-burning does not matter]?

    Forget flag-burning for a second. Just forget that.

    Concentrate on the “perhaps loss of citizenship” part.

    Because my kids know better than that. They are 14 and 16.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  127. I like being with you on one topic and against you on the next. That means its “anti-sycophantic” — those are the worst blogs.

    Well, this site has been accuse of being another LGF.

    Bill H (971e5f)

  128. Actually, it’s a reminder of why NBC renewed The Apprentice for over a decade.

    If Trump crowns himself emperor, DCSCCSCSCA, I have no doubt that you will be the entire trumpet section.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  129. Well, this site has been accuse of being another LGF.

    Yeah . . . by idiots.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  130. And I think the fact that 4 Justices dissented in that decision — which I think was correctly decided — means that a contrary view isn’t a reflection of a fundamental lack of understanding of civil liberties.

    That the best Patrick could do with that inconvenient fact was dismiss it as “intellectual dishonesty” only supports the contrary POV.

    I read Justice Stevens’s dissent in law school. It was the height of intellectual dishonesty. If something is intellectually dishonest, calling it intellectually dishonest proves it’s not? Mmmm that’s good reasoning.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  131. The fact that the best you could do with my argument was to call it wrong shows that my argument was right.

    /swc logic

    Patterico (115b1f)

  132. The stripping people of citizenship is troubling — but to me, that’s the “You’re Fired” guy.

    Honestly, I don’t think that guy is President. That’s guy’s a character on a TV show.

    Trump is not always an “adult in the room”, and that is going to require some unique management by those surrounding him in the West Wing.

    But what I’ve read about his style of doing business is that he’s not autocratic, he’s a very effective delegator. He’s not Lyndon Johnson picking out bombing targets in North Vietnam.

    I think we are in for 4 years of a “Cheerleader In Chief”, while Pence is in the back room getting stuff done with Congress.

    And I’m ok with that.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  133. @128 — EXACTLY.

    He’s a provocateur.

    Now we just need to the world to learn to take him seriously but not literally.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  134. I never said – at least I don’t think I did (point out my text if you think I have) — that criticism is out of bounds because he’s now the President-Elect.

    I don’t know; what did this mean?

    But the election is over. Persisting with a NeverTrump POV is to now stand side-by-side with the “Not My President’ers.”

    Since I didn’t say “never Trump!” in the post, but just criticized a dumb thing he said, it feels like criticism of him is being criticized by you. If you can explain how the second blockquote doesn’t mean that, be my guest.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  135. There aren’t many conservatives left here, are there?

    The Popehat link is excellent. Too bad so few people here seem to have read or understood it. Popehat criticized Trump because he cares about the Constitution and the Rule of Law — something people here used to say they care about but clearly don’t anymore.

    The President-elect will soon take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution but clearly Trump has no clue what the Constitution means. This matters because understanding, preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution will be Trump’s main job as President. And, amazingly, most people don’t seem to know or care.

    DRJ (15874d)

  136. Calling Stevens dissent “intellectually dishonest” doesn’t make it so.

    And, oddly, Stevens dissent didn’t draw any other Justice to join.

    Rehnquist dissented separately, joined by White and O’Connor.

    Also “intellectually dishonest”??

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  137. Godwin says you can invoke Hitler when it’s relevant. Look it up.

    People laughed at Hitler and didn’t take him seriously.

    FOR CHRIST’S SAKE I’M NOT SAYING TRUMP IS HITLER

    But I am saying that the notion that someone about to assume a lot of power might seem crazy, but hey he’s vaguely comical, so let’s not worry about the crazy shit he says . . . well, that’s historically proven to be a bad argument.

    Presidents have a SCARY amount of power these days. I’m all about weakening that power no matter who it is. They start to think their shit doesn’t stink because they’re surrounded by pathetic sycophants who act like that’s true.

    So stuff that might seem like you can laugh it off — I’m just not so sure.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  138. If Trump crowns himself emperor, DCSCCSCSCA, I have no doubt that you will be the entire trumpet section.

    … at Radio City Music Hall! With the Rockettes!! Because Americans don’t want to be governed. They wish to be entertained.

    “… give the public relations people a week to promote the show. You ought to get a hell of a rating out of that. 50 share, easy.” – Howard Beale [Peter Finch] ‘Network’ 1976

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  139. I think we are in for 4 years of a “Cheerleader In Chief”, while Pence is in the back room getting stuff done with Congress.

    Let’s hope Trump remembers he’s just the cheerleader when the national security and Constitutional problems show up, especially at 3 AM. Is Pence going to be there with Trump for sleepovers?

    DRJ (15874d)

  140. 142.I think we are in for 4 years of a “Cheerleader In Chief”, while Pence is in the back room getting stuff done with Congress.

    Aside from trade deals and infrastructure project, I think you’re right.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  141. Calling Stevens dissent “intellectually dishonest” doesn’t make it so.

    Nor does it make it not so. And yet that was your argument. That calling it intellectually dishonest proved it’s not.

    I am going to bed but I encourage anyone who has not read Stevens’s dissent to do so. It carves out a specific exception for the flag that could apply to a million other special symbols, but somehow only the flag qualifies. Play “God Bless America” in the background while you read it, to get that special patriotic thrill that comes from making up exceptions to the First Amendment because AMERICA!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  142. I love every word of this comment:

    There aren’t many conservatives left here, are there?

    The Popehat link is excellent. Too bad so few people here seem to have read or understood it. Popehat criticized Trump because he cares about the Constitution and the Rule of Law — something people here used to say they care about but clearly don’t anymore.

    The President-elect will soon take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution but clearly Trump has no clue what the Constitution means. This matters because understanding, preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution will be Trump’s main job as President. And, amazingly, most people don’t seem to know or care.

    Because he’s not a lawyer, DRJ! So why should he understand the Constitution? Just because it is the sole source of his authority? Just because its structure makes him one of three branches of government? Legal mumbo-jumbo for the lawyers! What matters is that people watched the Apprentice! Har har!

    Think about that. He will be one of the three branches of government and he probably can’t name all three.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  143. Pat. You could have warned us. Sleeping on the job.

    ::just kidding

    papertiger (c8116c)

  144. @101- Max. You were closer the first time.

    I said Max but corrected it to Herr Zeller because he is the recipient of the “I meant to accuse you” dialogue and that fits you perfectly. I’m not sure you have demonstrated Max’s depth of character. No, we’ll go with Herr Zeller.

    Patterico (f0ce01)

  145. DRJ wonders whether there are many conservatives here now. I wonder if there ever were.

    The weirdest thing to me is how people who call themselves conservative have equated Trump, who does not even pretend to be conservative, with conservatism itself — such that if you criticize Trump you are criticizing the very essence of conservatism.

    This makes me believe these people never really were actual conservatives the way DRJ and I think of the term. They were cheerleaders for the guy with the R after his name, and haters of “the left” — yet anyone who talks tough can embrace any old leftist policy and that won’t matter to these people because they never gave a rip about policy.

    A perfect example of this are the comments of Haiku, who equates me to a leftist for calling out Trump for making statements that contravene the Constitution six ways from Sunday. It’s pure team membership. What the team stands for doesn’t matter at all.

    Patterico (f0ce01)

  146. Think of it as a practical matter. A person burns a flag in their burn barrel out back. Who cares?

    Nobody really.

    Burning things in the public square, regardless whether it’s a flag or used toilet paper, that’s arson. Burning things at the mall or a retail venue that’s in violation of local codes (speaking about California, because I don’t know anywhere else).
    No wait a minute. There was that case of the rancher burning a fire break around his property that turned into a federal case because it crossed over to BLM land or something. Turned out to be a death penalty for one of the freedom to burn fellows.

    Burning things on the freeway is a $1000 fine or time in the county lockup. I know because they have signs posted every so often.

    There is literally no venue in Cali suitable for a flag burning protest, where the authorities wouldn’t get their dander up at you for lighting a fire.

    I can’t think of one at least.

    What about you?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  147. I would make flag-burning illegal, and punish it by a night in jail. I do not see it as speech, any more than heckling a judge or screaming FUKC in church is speech. It’s fighting words, and is INTENDED to breach the peace.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  148. Presidents have a SCARY amount of power these days. I’m all about weakening that power no matter who it is.

    In order to do that you have to reduce the power of the federal government. Hopefully to the point where the President has no real power over my life.

    Not holding my breath.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  149. How is burning a flag different than burning a cross? I believe that burning a cross on someone else’s property is a crime. It clearly expresses an opinion – one associated with the KKK that has been used to terrorize and intimidate black citizens. Burning a flag is also associated with groups that have espoused similar violence, and we know that Communists in one form or another have committed mass murder in the last century that far surpass in scope the lynchings and other murders by the KKK.

    I am also bothered by the fact that Johnson burned someone else’s flag, not one he owned. Flying the flag is also expressing an opinion, and what right did Johnson have to use the bank’s and post office’s property to express the opposite opinion. At the least, and possibly at the most, he should have been convicted of arson.

    Of course, Trump’s discussion of “loss of citizenship” is ridiculous. I can imagine cases of treason for which loss of citizenship might be appropriate, but since the person convicted of it would be serving life in prison or a death sentence, the practical effect of loss of citizenship would be nil.

    Gary Coleman (1f7a9f)

  150. No, we’ll go with Herr Zeller.

    We? But you left the GOP. Besides, ‘Herr Zeller’ marched to a decidedly conservative drumbeat.
    Uncomfortable for you, but hardly me, as you’ve often pointed out.

    “You may very well think that. But I could not possibly comment.” – Francis Urquhart [Ian Richardson] ‘House of Cards’ BBC, 1990

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  151. @148- It’s pure team membership. What the team stands for doesn’t matter at all.

    That’s ‘right.’ There’s no ideology to cling to. That era is passing fast. Pragmatism is in fashion now and that can be disconcerting to devoted ideologues.

    What you don’t want to understand– or accept– is nobody particularly likes this jerk except he was clearly better than the other jerks and jerkesses — but they do like his attitude. People voted for him. Look at the number of primary candidates he defeated, as well as the Bush and Clinton machines. Conservatism planted the seeds to grow this monster decades ago. Now he’s loose on the world. And if he doesn’t deliver, in four years he’ll get his own medicine from the electorate: ‘You’re fired.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  152. To some the flag is a symbol of America. To others it is Mom’s apple pie.

    And nothing is more un-American than when Mom puts on that red apron and burns one of her apple pies.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  153. So, when Rick Monday took a protester’s flag away from him so that he couldn’t light it on fire, was that theft and depriving a citizen of his right of speech, or was that protecting the flag?

    (It’s a cop-out to say that he was enforcing stadium rules)

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  154. Persisting with the NeverTrumpPOV — by that I’m referring to serial criticism in every topic you chose to post.

    To me, NeverTrump — and I accept that you never put yourself in that group — amounted to a statement that there were no circumstances under which it was conceivable that one could vote for Trump, no matter the downside of an alternative candidate winning. Now that the election is over, the “Not My President” is attempting to de-legitimize the about-to-be-holder of the office. Serial criticism that finds fault with EVERYTHING seems to me to seek to accomplish the same purpose.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  155. no that was The Greatest Play In Baseball History. [YouTube]

    Besides stealing is encouraged in baseball.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  156. My point is burning a cloth in order to disturb the peace is already de jure law.
    The fact that burning cloth in the public square is already illegal makes banning the burning of the American flag (or any flag) defacto law already.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  157. Patterico,

    you seem to think that most of us are on team “R” and it doesn’t matter to us what they believe, while I think it’s just the opposite. You are so thoroughly disgusted with Trump that you refuse to look at anything he says except in the absolute worst light.

    I see him shooting off at the mouth here and saying that people who burn the flag are clearly engaging in un-American behavior. So he’s saying screw them. They don’t like America or respect it so why consider them American. I understand that belief. If I saw some jerks trying to burn the Flag, I’d pull a Rick Monday and try and take it away from them.

    If he actually tried to put this in place as law, with loss of citizenship, he’d need the Congress and the Court to go along with it as well as the citizenry. I don’t see that as a possibility. I also don’t see him attempting it. If he did, then I’d not support him and I’d speak out against him for the same reasons I speak out against the jerks trying to burn the Flag. Because those acts aren’t what define us as Americans. They aren’t moral and just.

    But for you to continue to be outraged by this just seems silly. It’s of no consequence. I’d rather you share how angry you are that we continue to let unvetted Somalian refugees in that continue to murder Americans. That seems like something that is worthy of getting outraged over. Depriving fellow citizens of their life is certainly unconstitutional, is it not?

    NJRob (a07d2e)

  158. Well, actually, convicted criminals can be enslaved under the 13th Amendment. And so far, our permanent constitutional convention has applied proportionality only in death penalty cases. So, technically, we could make “burning a piece of cloth in the public square” [papertiger is an idiot] punishable by a sentence of natural life and sell the convict to a chain gang in the Persian Gulf.

    nk (dbc370)

  159. Or the President could simply certify them as unlawful combatants under the Patriot Act and have them held incommunicado in Gitmo or “extraordinary rendition” them to a CIA facility in Bulgaria for “enhanced interrogation”.

    nk (dbc370)

  160. you know who probably likes to burn flags are creepy nfl losers like colin kaepertwat and

    that’s all i can think of right now

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  161. Where they have burned flags, they will end in burning bras. — Heinrich Heine

    nk (dbc370)

  162. @ NJRob, #160:

    But for you to continue to be outraged by this just seems silly. It’s of no consequence.

    Will Donald Trump be able to get a law passed stripping flag-burners of American citizenship? Probably not. You think, therefore, that it is of no consequence when he spouts off like this. You are wrong, that’s all.

    Donald Trump is about to be president. What presidents say matters, because people listen to them. If a New York City businessman thinks that we should carve out a major exception to our First Amendment rights and enforce it by stripping people of their birthright citizenship, THAT is no big deal. The best response is to shake your head and wonder how someone got so far in life by being so dumb. But when the president says the same thing, it is coming from our head of state, the most visible person who represents the sovereign power of the American people. He should be the chief defender of the Constitution and our God-given rights, including our right to freedom of expression. Add that up with those people receiving such a poor civics education, and more of them might start to think, “Hey, Trump’s got an idea there!” — if not on this issue, then on some other issue that might be of equal or greater importance.

    Or maybe you’re right. Maybe people will just brush off the comment as obviously unrealistic, and ignore him. There’s a long history of that happening. That is why he didn’t win the nomination. Oh, wait…

    I’d rather you share how angry you are that we continue to let unvetted Somalian refugees in that continue to murder Americans. That seems like something that is worthy of getting outraged over.

    Interesting line of reasoning. So we can only get outraged about problems in the order that you would rank them as important. In that case, may I suggest that for you to waste your time commenting on your opinion that Patterico is wasting his time is taking away from your ability to express your anger on unvetted Somalian refugees coming into our country and murdering American citizens? I mean, after all, people’s lives are at stake there. Get your priorities straight, man!

    Depriving fellow citizens of their life is certainly unconstitutional, is it not?

    I don’t remember any passage in the Constitution that says murder is unconstitutional. Not everything that is illegal is unconstitutional.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  163. @ NJRob, #160; @ me, #165

    I meant to add the following to that last paragraph:

    “Did you attend the Donald J. Trump School of Constitutional Law?”

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  164. There are fewer Conservatives on here than there used to be, that’s a fact. Eric Blair would call idiots like Haiku and others alphabetists because they’re cheerleaders for anyone who puts an (R) after their name.

    It is not a “Leftist tactic” to stridently object to the Lying Leftist Democrat Donald Effing Trump when he makes strident tyrannical statements.

    “From whom much is given, much shall be demanded.” You can’t get more “much” than the Presidency, and yet these fools want to demand even less of Trump than is demanded of a high schooler in Government class during examination time.

    It is indeed disgusting to see what’s happening in the US right now. It harkens back to the blind devotion of people back in the late 30s.

    John Hitchcock (3e6e9b)

  165. blindly devoted to not doing that pig all up in it, they are patriots all

    the pig was sent by satan you see

    she’s a satan pig! (worst kind)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  166. Oh to live in that magic happy place with nk, where pyromaniacs can cast fire willy nilly whenever the mood strikes without fear of constable or pesky fire marshals to say them nay.

    Must be Asbestosville or Fire Island,

    Then again if you live in a rock quarry there’s not going to be anybody around to pay attention to your stupid flag burning protest anyhow.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  167. Trump is riding high on hope and change and, besides that, every President has a honeymoon period.

    nk (dbc370)

  168. The flag is not just another piece of cloth, Norbert.

    nk (dbc370)

  169. And how come you didn’t mention CO2 levels and AGW which flag burning would definitely contribute to? Science denier!

    nk (dbc370)

  170. I like what he’s saying here and the way he’s saying it: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/250522/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  171. To be fair, nk, President Trump should get three honeymoon periods.

    Pinandpuller (c19c9c)

  172. How about putting a carbon tax on flag burning? And in order to burn a flag you have to be fingerprinted, get a background check and take some safety classes?

    Throw in a waiting period too.

    Chief Justice Roberts ain’t mad. Ryan and McConnel and maybe even Schumer ain’t mad.

    If the tax was high enough we might lick the deficit in eight years.

    Pinandpuller (c19c9c)

  173. I don’t know about you guys but as for me seeing the flag that draped the coffins of my friends and brothers in arms in Vietnam who died trying to stop communists from enslaving the lovely, humble people of that country burnt in protest of all our country stands for and all they fought and died for by a bunch of STD infested dope smoking filthy leftists makes me warm all over.

    Apparently to you and Justice Scalia there is no difference between the American flag and a “rainbow” flag other than if you burn the former it’s protected “speech” and if you burn the latter it’s homophobia and you’re a hater. We have allowed the left to redefine disrespect to mean anything anti Christian, anti American and anti Caucasian is a go because those “deplorables” don’t deserve respect.

    Every time a leftist burns an American flag he is not exercising his rights, he’s abusing them and abusing our tolerance. He is insulting our country and our families and our heritage, culture and morals. At the very least if that is considered “free speech” then it should also be considered “fighting words” and whatever occurs because of the fag burning should also be considered free speech.

    Friends of America don’t burn American flags. Neither do Patriots, Republicans, Christians and honorable veterans. Therefore, allowing flag burning is allowing the enemies of America to spit in your face right here in America. Just another sign of how low we’ve fallen. Why should they respect us, we don’t respect ourselves enough to stop them.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  174. Careful with that fire NK. [gif]

    papertiger (c8116c)

  175. Meanwhile, the union jack is derided because if empire, you can’t stand for the anthem because ‘hands up don’t shoot,’ but ignore price and veema, because he’s a stalking horse for red queen, eleventy

    narciso (d1f714)

  176. Its called moving the overton window, now the news out of Columbus is more significant, in the long run

    narciso (d1f714)

  177. Meanwhile the likely future dnc failure is a definite fellow travellef for salafis, having met with both bin bayyah and a terrorist financing bank in 2008

    narciso (d1f714)

  178. I agree, Patrick. Demagogue? Yes. Dangerous? We’ll see. It depends if he intends to act on his tweet or if he was just doing another contentless bloviating stream-of-conscious blurt.
    The irritating part is that he acted on an impulse instead of taking the three minutes to find out if flag-burning was constitutionally protected. It’s frustrating that he will soon swear on the Bible (his favorite book) to protect, defend and uphold a Constitution that he does not understand and does not seem especially curious enough to find out what it means.

    WarrenPeese (d5f5a2)

  179. Johnson upholds barnette, but ignores chaplinsky,

    narciso (d1f714)

  180. “I don’t know about you guys but as for me seeing the flag that draped the coffins of my friends and brothers in arms in Vietnam who died trying to stop communists from enslaving the lovely, humble people of that country burnt in protest of all our country stands for and all they fought and died for by a bunch of STD infested dope smoking filthy leftists makes me warm all over.”

    Apparently, that bunch of STD-infested, dope smoking, filthy leftists – like the poor- will always be with us.

    Colonel Haiku (fa3dba)

  181. They are pushing tie get rid of 5 pound notes because animal fat, ‘chesterton was on point.

    narciso (d1f714)

  182. It is indeed disgusting to see what’s happening in the US right now. It harkens back to the blind devotion of people back in the late 30s.

    John Hitchcock (3e6e9b) — 11/30/2016 @ 5:21 am

    ==============================================

    It has barely been 3 weeks since the election, the winners haven’t taken office yet, so you may want to ease back off the histrionics a bit. Other than that, keep on truckin’ mama, truck those blues away!

    Colonel Haiku (fa3dba)

  183. That’s what happens when you bring the Sepoys in country

    urbanleftbehind (439e3d)

  184. I do t think its particular ‘to the other white meat’

    narciso (d1f714)

  185. That earlier link is from jacobsen

    narciso (d1f714)

  186. First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Democrats with bylines, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Democrat with a byline.

    Then they came for the Hysterical Truckers, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not an Hysterical Trucker.

    Then they stopped coming, problem solved.

    The End.

    Colonel Haiku (fa3dba)

  187. I like what he’s saying here and the way he’s saying it: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/250522/

    If it didn’t strike me as an empty promise I would like it.

    Let’s see the details. Airy promises from Donald Trump mean zilch to me.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  188. Mnuchin is on record as saying Fannie and Freddie should get out of the gift racket

    narciso (d1f714)

  189. So you see no meaning in “airy promises” but find off-the-cuff remarks fully credible?

    Colonel Haiku (fa3dba)

  190. Looks like Trump should know now. He has no clue about this kind of thing.
    I watched a video featuring Tilman Fertitta, who bought a casino from one of Trumps companies. Said it took over $150M of renovations to bring it back up to par. Fertitta’s take on Trump was he was a developer of hotels, not an operator. So if accurate, this insight would lead me to believe that even when it comes to real estate, Trump knows way more about developing than he does about operating. You can find and choose great operators. The key to a successful Trump Presidency will be if he chooses great people to surrounds himself with that do know, and of course, he’ll need to listen.

    On a lighter note

    Trump will need a person who can cover the microphone and whisper the facts into his ear.

    “can we have the flag burner drawn and quartered”
    Ummm, no sir.

    “tar? Feathers?”
    Nope, same thing, cruel and unusual

    “Can I get the IRS to audit him”
    Well, its been done, but lets not…

    “what about sending Mattis to beat his ass?”
    Great idea sir, but he’s busy in his own words, ‘trying to unf*** the Pentagon’ ”

    “Pompeo? have him send someone to stick a needle in the ass**** and then rendition him to Yemen. you burn the flag and next thing you know is a Yemeni prison… I like it”
    Ummm, great idea, but the press would find him sooner than later.

    “Reminds me… can we rendition Megyn Kelly, Maddow, and that sow Rosie somewhere?
    No, no and unfortunately no.

    “Guantanamo? Abu Ghraib”
    Again sir, no and no

    Look at it this way sir… it is easier for you to bomb Syria, Libya, Mali, Iraq etc than it is to punish a flag burner. If you are pissed off about not being able to jail a flag burner, you should launch a drone strike on Raqqa and watch it on live video and then, just for laughs, blame the Russians

    steveg (5508fb)

  191. Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks are dangerous because they reveal his flawed understanding of free speech and the Constitution, and it will be his job to protect them.

    It’s like going to an appointment with a surgeon who will operate on you next month and realizing he doesn’t understand surgery or sterile procedures, and has never been in an operating room.

    DRJ (15874d)

  192. But he talks a good game, so you’ve got that going for you.

    DRJ (15874d)

  193. Look on the bright side.
    Lots of people have no idea what is in the Constitution, so when Trump does this, everyone who does know jumps in and explains it.
    By the end of his first 4 years our great nation will have studied the entire document

    steveg (5508fb)

  194. I’d rather have someone who is ignorant but who can be taught rather than an Obama who twisted the document like a wet washrag.

    Obama’s idea of the pursuit of happiness was to give my money to someone who could then happily squander it

    steveg (5508fb)

  195. We’ll all know within 6 months if he’s up to the task. The rest is just hot wind in sails…

    Colonel Haiku (fa3dba)

  196. Or a “Rush-To-Judgement” for the Johnnie Cochran-types…

    Colonel Haiku (fa3dba)

  197. We’ll know if teh glove fits…

    Colonel Haiku (fa3dba)

  198. If it doesn’t, you can cut, shuffle, and dispose.

    Colonel Haiku (fa3dba)

  199. 198.We’ll all know within 6 months if he’s up to the task. The rest is just hot wind in sails…

    First came the mission statement: ‘Make America Great Again.’
    Next comes the business plan- delivered on January 20th- and staffing.

    After two or three quarters, we’ll see trends emerge and by the end of the fourth quarter– say October 31– the stockholders will know if he’s ‘up to the task.’

    “The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since Man crawled out of the slime.”- Arthur Jensen [Ned Beatty] ‘Network,’ 1976

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  200. @190 — again, without knowing any details you’re view is that its likely an empty promise.

    What does he owe us in this regard? Actually, nothing.

    But my supposition has been, and while its still just a blind guess, that he’s going to place all his illiquid personal holdings in a testamentary trust which is irrevocable, and for which his adult children are the Trustees and future beneficiaries, and place liquid assets in a truly blind trust to be managed by outsiders, which would be turned back over to him and his wife after he leaves office.

    There is absolutely no legal or moral justification to require his family — adult children — to divest themselves of their family wealth. They didn’t run for office and they don’t have any potential conflicts. The fact that they might benefit financially from government policies makes them like millions of other citizens — so what? I think the idea that somehow Trump, as President-Elect, has an obligation to insure that their wealth not increase is unsupported in fact or reason. It presupposes ulterior motivations for adopting policies simply because he and his family are wealthy. How is that fair seven weeks before he even takes office??

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  201. Multinational were the bete noires of the 70s, corporations are a tool a means to an end, to accomplish certain tasks, the problem lies when they convince themselves they are end in itself,

    narciso (d1f714)

  202. Wow, go on vacation and miss a major comment brawl.

    Logged on to read the news. Trump is still Trump.

    Back to vacation.

    marci (1fd509)

  203. The really funny thing is that if Obama had proposed loss of citizenship for burning the US flag, many of the commentors here would be up in arms about how he’s destroying the Constitution.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  204. Bow van we stop taking josh green seriously,

    Chuck, Obama doesn’t think the flag is anything but the symbol of an imperialistic oligarchy, and is due no deference.

    narciso (d1f714)

  205. After sleeping on this maybe this is just populist Trump’s way of saying to the Trumpsters “me too” while attempting to assuage the likely Trumpster outrage when pragmatic Trump chooses Romney for Secretary of State. He does love the drama.

    As passionate as this blog is and as persuasive as Popehat’s Lawsplainer are it was an 8 year old post Google found on Original Meaning: Freedom of Speech or of the Press that helped this layman think through the difference between the protected burning of an American flag and the likely unprotected burning of a Rainbow flag I joked about earlier.

    Summary: Freedom of Speech or the Press is the freedom from government officials making speech or writings they find too critical of their affairs a seditious crime. Under common law, people had to be careful of any criticism they wrote or said about government policy, laws or official conduct out of fear of being charged with a seditious crime where truth would be of no defense.

    While I thought I understood the court’s decision, I’ve always wrestled with Scalia’s view until revisiting the 1st amendment as an eventual outcome of the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger for seditious libel against the colony of New York. Maybe Scalia explained that, I don’t remember.

    I still wish the flag burners wouldn’t do it and that Trump wouldn’t say so many dopey, wrong and irresponsible things but don’t expect either to stop doing what they love to do any time soon.

    crazy (d3b449)

  206. Well said, crazy.

    DRJ (15874d)

  207. And Chuck.

    DRJ (15874d)

  208. I don’t think Johnson rewards speech, its like faith tinker, it encourages emotion not logic or rhetoric.

    narciso (d1f714)

  209. the more flags you burn the less meaningful it is

    it’s like how nfl slutboy colin kaepertwat keeps having to be even more stupid to get the same reaction

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  210. Capetnick is like Lindsay in that movie with Dane cook

    narciso (d1f714)

  211. This is all getting a lot of freakout over something that deserves an eyeroll.

    matt d (d4aa6f)

  212. Words matter. And Trump’s words are stupid and dangerous. This isn’t rocket science. It’s a bunch of apologists looking for squirrels.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  213. 27. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/29/2016 @ 9:03 pm

    What if the President-elect was a brilliant brain surgeon who never spent a moment of his higher education considering legal issues, and had no idea what “due process” under the 5th Amendment meant, even though as President he might be called upon to execute a prisoner condemned to death in a federal capital case?

    Are you talking about something that actually happened?

    On the flag burning matter, I don’t think Ben Carson has these kinds of impulses, and he probably has a better grasp of law than Trump does, or at least than Trump pretends to have.

    And if he tweeted pr said in an interview something that was wrong, he’d go on to correct himself, but about the only way Trump corrects himself is by not repeating what he said.

    Note: He did correct himself in one famous case, but only after a very long time, and under a lot of election year pressure.

    This was the issue of Barack Obama maybe not being born in the United States. Donald Trump had pronounced himself satisfied in 2011, but apparently toyed with that still from time to time, and would only say something like he wasn’t arguing it any more.

    It was only in the heat of an election campaign that he finally officially said that that claim was wrong – coming at the very end of a long statement for the press about his new hotel in Washington.

    He then added that Hillary had started it. And then he would say Hillary started it and he ended it. Which was half or even three quarters true. While her 2008 campaign never officially said that, except for one promptly fired campaign worker, Sidney Blumenthal seems to have started it, at an early stage, and then you had some Democrats suing, sort of like the way Jill Stein is causing a recount – that is you have the feeling it is connected in some way.

    And it was certainly true that Donald Trump he didn’t originate it, like for some reason some Democrats were claiming. Donald Trump jumped into that controversy in 2011, three years late.

    At first I thought he was really confused about what a birth certificate was, because he produced his own original one from 1946, but now I think he didn’t care what the truth was. Some people thought it was the case, he was going to their champion.

    I had thought all of this stuff stopped with the election, but he’s still capable of bizarre tweets.

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  214. “I don’t know about you guys but as for me seeing the flag that draped the coffins of my friends and brothers in arms in Vietnam who died trying to stop communists from enslaving the lovely, humble people of that country burnt in protest of all our country stands for and all they fought and died for by a bunch of STD infested dope smoking filthy leftists makes me warm all over.”

    – Rev. Hoagie

    You mean like… Donald Trump? The rich New York guy with the deferments and heel spur(s?) who bragged that avoiding STDs was his “personal Vietnam”?

    I cannot believe the extent of your water-carrying for a piece of sh*t like Donald Trump. You care about honor? He evinces none. Whatsoever. Ever.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  215. When Trump takes the Oath of Office he will state the following: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Nowhere in that oath is a reference to decisions by SCOTUS, and while it may be implied by tradition, it isn’t required. The President, and Congress can ignore them. Realistic? Probably not. Legal? Absolutely. As a former President stated, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”

    Horatio (79a2ef)

  216. The really funny thing is that if Obama had proposed loss of citizenship for burning the US flag, many of the commentors here would be up in arms about how he’s destroying the Constitution.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71) — 11/30/2016 @ 9:15 am

    ===============================================

    Can’t speak for the rest, but i’d already be in intensive care undergoing treatment for shock, a sh*t hemmorage and uncontrollable laughter.

    Colonel Haiku (fa3dba)

  217. “But he talks a good game, so you’ve got that going for you.”

    Heh… also have this which will be known as “evergreen”: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/367114.php

    Colonel Haiku (fa3dba)

  218. “Put simply, if Donald J. Trump says something stupid, as he did today, I am goddamned well going to feel entitled to criticize him for it.”

    Trump was doing another Grand Master Level Troll. Heck, even my wife instantly saw that when I read the tweet to her. You should be embarrassed that you fell for the troll. You should be double embarrassed that you are still treating this troll as a serious proposal even AFTER people have been telling you that it was a troll.

    “I really dislike Donald Trump, for real — and so my criticism of him is going to have a bite”
    Just don’t let yourself go into LGF territory.

    fred-2 (ce04f3)

  219. wholesale orlando magic jerseys – Wholesale Pittsburgh Penguins Jerseys-Welcome to buy cheap wholesale cheap game jerseys with free shipping and best service in our jerseys online shop.
    It’s hard to find educated people for this subject, but you seem like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks

    hongoflynn62 (ee3a25)

  220. @ Horatio, #218:

    Your quote gives me no comfort, since Marshall made the correct and constitutional ruling.

    Oh,and Jackson’s decision to cross the Court was directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. So, thanks for the glib quote from the mass-murderer.

    Also, if you think it’s legal to ignore the Supreme Court, feel free to try it sometime.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  221. Just don’t let yourself go into LGF territory.

    Your comments butt-sniffling Trump are still here last I checked.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  222. Words matter. And Trump’s words are stupid and dangerous. This isn’t rocket science. It’s a bunch of apologists looking for squirrels.

    Yup. Surprising how few see this, but I’m not surprised to see that you do.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  223. This is all getting a lot of freakout over something that deserves an eyeroll.

    Why does a blatantly unconstitutional proposal from a President-elect merit an “eyeroll”?

    That seems to be the view of some here, but why this is so is an utter mystery to me.

    DRJ has done a good job in this thread explaining why this matters. More people should be reading her comments, and thinking about them.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  224. oh good lord

    dangerous tweets is it

    it’s just something he scribbled on douchebag jack dorsey’s twatter

    dangerous my fuzzy yeller butt

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  225. @190 — again, without knowing any details you’re view is that its likely an empty promise.

    Bullshit. I have the history of his whole life upon which to base my opinion. Acting like I know no details is not honest. Donald Trump makes empty promises all the time. That fact is an excellent basis upon which to opine that this one probably is as well.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  226. dangerous tweets is it

    Stop lying. I did not call the tweet dangerous. I called Donald Trump dangerous. And he is. A dangerous demagogue.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  227. in the pudding!

    that’s where the proof will be found

    and i think we’re in for some marvelous pudding i really do

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  228. That seems to be the view of some here, but why this is so is an utter mystery to me.

    Mystery solved: listen to the Nixon tapes.

    If ‘words matter’ some of the off the wall stuff he was proposing/directing/venting to his aides will melt your headphones. And he was already a POTUS elected and re-elected in a landslide– and served 8 years a VP for Ike and ran the show for a time after his heart attack.

    Some words matter; some merit several eyerolls:

    “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” – President Ronald Reagan 8/11/84

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  229. We’ll all know within 6 months if he’s up to the task. The rest is just hot wind in sails…

    I’m glad we’re now at the point where we don’t judge anything about a President-elect before he actually takes office.

    That’s the standard we applied to Obama, as I recall, isn’t it?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  230. If ‘words matter’ some of the off the wall stuff [Nixon] was proposing/directing/venting to his aides will melt your headphones. And he was already a POTUS elected and re-elected in a landslide– and served 8 years a VP for Ike and ran the show for a time after his heart attack.

    Worked out great as a President too!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  231. I’m glad we’re now at the point where we don’t judge anything about a President-elect before he actually takes office.

    That’s the standard we applied to Obama, as I recall, isn’t it?

    i can’t even

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  232. Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks are dangerous because they reveal his flawed understanding of free speech and the Constitution, and it will be his job to protect them.

    Can someone here who is wholly supportive of Trump and has been pushing back on Patterico in the Trump posts, share how you square in your mind that we have a president who is both unfamiliar with the Constitution and ignorant regarding the immense importance of free speech now be charged with guarding both in his new role? How does one who doesn’t know what it is he is protecting and standing upon keep it safe?

    Dana (d17a61)

  233. @ DCSCA, #231:

    Are you using the conduct of Richard Nixon to defend Donald Trump?

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  234. Can someone here who is wholly supportive of Trump and has been pushing back on Patterico in the Trump posts, share how you square in your mind that we have a president who is both unfamiliar with the Constitution and ignorant regarding the immense importance of free speech now be charged with guarding both in his new role? How does one who doesn’t know what it is he is protecting and standing upon keep it safe?

    I’d love to read some thoughtful responses to this question.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  235. there’s no R president in my whole life ever what’s been as avid a consumer of the right of free speech as Mr. Trump

    not ready with a quip (particularly with a prod from his creepy wife) Ronnie

    not snooty snotty simpering bush klansters george, george, or jeb

    not pervy weirdo mitt romney

    not meghan’s loathsomely cowardly daddy what so often could do no better than parrot the nyt editorial page

    when it comes to free speech, Mr. Trump has the most flex appeal of them all!

    to me that says he appreciates the holy poop out of it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  236. I’d also love to have a pony.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  237. giddy up Mr. P

    Mr. Trump’s got spurs what jingle and jangle and also jingle (again)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  238. I would add the context of his offer to pay the legal fees of anyone assaulting protesters at one of his campaign events as well as his browbeating of the MFM scum in a closed meeting with the pimps who promoted him early at Clinton bordello director Podesta’s direction for their failure to grant continued reverence to his inanity.

    There’s method and direction to his chimp chatter and no one should be surprised when deeds follow words.

    Rick Ballard (d17095)

  239. @Rick Ballard: no one should be surprised when deeds follow words

    So, he’s going to point his scepter at someone and say “You are stripped of citizenship, sirrah! Begone, varlet!”

    And if he’s actually dumb enough to do that, the country will point and laugh.

    Deeds, forsooth.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  240. Trump was doing another Grand Master Level Troll. Heck, even my wife instantly saw that when I read the tweet to her. You should be embarrassed that you fell for the troll. You should be double embarrassed that you are still treating this troll as a serious proposal even AFTER people have been telling you that it was a troll.

    Fred2, you don’t know this, you are making a guess that he is trolling. Maybe he is. But are you willing to entertain the thought that he isn’t? And if not willing to, why not?

    IOW, to what lengths do you think people go to to protect the politicians we support In spite of signs or evidence that they aren’t quite what we hoped for or believed them to be? I believe we do that to protect the politician, but even more so to protect our decision to have voted for them. No one likes to be trolled…

    Dana (d17a61)

  241. @Patterico:I’d love to read some thoughtful responses to this question.

    I would, but I’d be DQ’d because I don’t have the first qualification: “someone here who is wholly supportive of Trump”.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  242. Meanwhile the truth comes about the Arabian rehabilitation plan, from an interesting source

    narciso (d1f714)

  243. Yes one sports only when ‘needs must’

    narciso (d1f714)

  244. I believe we do that to protect the politician, but even more so to protect our decision to have voted for them.

    Ding! It’s why some of the reluctant Trumpers have become more rabid since the election, attacking any and all who do not bow and scrape and kiss the ring.

    I figured Trump would lose and I would quickly become a Republican again after the election. I now wonder whether I ever will be one again.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  245. Gabriel,

    I imagine it will be done relatively quietly, like the bribery with tax dollars and promises used to “save” a thousand jobs with UTC on the Carrier deal to gain a little publicity. He’s a scummy cheap bully given far more power than he has ever had and he’s going to abuse it. There is absolutely nothing in his life to suggest otherwise.

    Rick Ballard (d17095)

  246. @Dana: Saying that there “should be consequences” for burning a flag is a perfectly respectable position. It is not any sort of disrespect for free speech and it is not any sort of ignorance of the Constitution.

    I already cited freakin’ National Review on this topic. What Trump said was far less inflammatory than what Scalia said–and Scalia ruled in favor of flag-burning.

    This idea that flag-burning is inherently free speech is not very old. You might as well say that Trump wants to strip us of our Fourteenth Amendment rights when he tweets that men should stay out of the women’s bathroom, or that bakers shouldn’t have to make cakes for gay weddings.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  247. @Rick Ballard:I imagine it will be done relatively quietly,

    How on earth could he “quietly” remove anyone’s citizenship? Who is he going to “bribe” that can make that happen? Who is going to carry out his orders to arrest flag-burners?

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  248. And in fact, Dana, if–or when–Trump tweets that bakers and florists should have the right to refuse gay weddings, the Left will in fact claim that Trump hates the Fourteenth Amendment and is plotting to roll it back. And what leg will you and Patterico have to stand on?

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  249. Trump Saved Jobs at Carrier, but More Midwest Jobs Are in Jeopardy – New York Times

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  250. 190. Patterico (115b1f) — 11/30/2016 @ 7:36 am

    Let’s see the details.

    There aren’t any yet. The fact that he promises it for two weeks from now indicates that it isn’t ready.

    Airy promises from Donald Trump mean zilch to me.

    All that I see that Donald Trump is promising to do is to hold a press conference. I think he will. Or at least he thinks he will.

    He may have given himself too short a deadline, but he probably can manage it.

    All that he proposes to do is to make any need for his signature or approval unnecessary, until or unless he takes back control. He’ll be out of the day-to-day running of the business, even for legal purposes. But he may go further and actually institute a business succession, and basically retire.

    Since he would be 78 if he served two terms, which he presumably hopes to, this is probably it for him in business, except for some special projects, and the ability to veto some things, like selling the Trump Tower or the Plaza Hotel or Mar A Lago.

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  251. == No one likes to be trolled…==

    OK. But we sure enjoy seeing other people getting trolled. There is a pretty comprehensive and realistic and humorous discussion about this over at Althouse right now. In other words not everyone is shaking in their boots. Yes, there are mindgames being played. Tweets are not existential threats to the Constitution and nation.

    elissa (120993)

  252. Demosthenes (09f714) — 11/29/2016 @ 10:15 pm

    I’m pleased that he’s pushing back on the recount, even if he’s being a little hypocritical in doing so…because this time, I actually think he’s right.

    He handled it all right the first few days – and then he tweets that he really won the popular vote, and only non-citizens voting made it look like he didn’t. Not true. Not at all plausible. Even if some of the refutations are too rushed.

    (It is not so bad to claim that he might have won it, if that was what mattered.)

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  253. Gabriel Hanna,

    I had a long day at work and haven’t caught up on all the comments (re your National Review mention).

    With that, what leads you to conclude that Trump made the comment with full knowledge of 1A protections? Have you seen him make comments re the law, Constitution or free speech that would give you pause with re to his comment about flag burning?

    FWIW, I am fairly dispassionate Trump. If he does good things, I’ll support him. If he does dumb crap, I’ll be critical. Just like I would with any president. Therefore, no matter what, I’ll always have the leg to stand on.

    Dana (d17a61)

  254. How on earth could he “quietly” remove anyone’s citizenship? Who is he going to “bribe” that can make that happen? Who is going to carry out his orders to arrest flag-burners?

    The same people who arrested the Benghazi filmmaker in order to protect Hillary and Obama. In other words, the President and his government agents.

    DRJ (15874d)

  255. @elissa: But we sure enjoy seeing other people getting trolled.

    Every progressive in the country is going to be burning an American flag in the next week, and thereby ensure Trump’s reelection.

    I do believe if he said he thought pedophilia should get the death penalty, every journalist in this country would be writing think pieces about how pedophiles are misunderstood and oppressed, and every Democrat would go on record for decriminalizing pedophilia, and the 2020 elections would be in the bag for Trump and the Republican Party.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  256. giddy up Mr. P

    Mr. Trump’s got spurs what jingle and jangle and also jingle (again)

    happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/30/2016 @ 6:24 pm

    We’ve still yet to see what you think of your orange-haired boy having chosen a Goldman-Sachs guy as head of Treasury.

    Bill H (971e5f)

  257. @DRJ:When did Obama become Sheriff of Los Angeles County?

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  258. == No one likes to be trolled…==

    OK. But we sure enjoy seeing other people getting trolled. 

    Why? Is it about getting even with people you don’t like, or something else?

    DRJ (15874d)

  259. I’m not very quick at subtleties, Elissa, but are you trolling me now??It would be funny if you were, and it went right over my head!

    Dana (d17a61)

  260. @Dana:With that, what leads you to conclude that Trump made the comment with full knowledge of 1A protections?

    Nothing, because nothing I said implied any such conclusion.

    Since you missed it, National Review in 2006 called for a Constitutional amendment allowing for the criminalization of flag-burning, if Congress was so inclined.

    Have you seen him make comments re the law, Constitution or free speech that would give you pause with re to his comment about flag burning?

    No. I’ve seen a bunch of over-the-top outrage with no basis in fact. I’ve seen nothing from Trump to compare with Hillary’s stated intention to make Citizens United a litmus test for Supreme Court appointees.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  261. Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/30/2016 @ 6:56 pm

    the Left will in fact claim that Trump hates the Fourteenth Amendment and is plotting to roll it back.

    They did that already, because he did have something on his web site about taking back birthright citizeship, and in fact had talked about it in 2015, and was even backed up by National Review.

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/08/donald-trump-has-some-thoughts-about-the-constitution

    http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-challenges-birthright-citizenship/

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  262. Gabriel,

    Hillary said the federal government would arrest the filmmaker and it did. The Sheriff’s office may have arrested him but he was imprisoned on federal charges, just as Hillary promised.

    DRJ (15874d)

  263. @Sammy: I’ve been reading National Review of many years. I never knew they were a bunch of totalitarians over there. Amazing how quickly standards change.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  264. @DRJ:The Sheriff’s office may have arrested him but he was imprisoned on federal charges, just as Hillary promised.

    Well, was he guilty of breaking that Federal law?

    Right now, no Federal law against flag-burning, so nothing to worry about.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  265. Sounds like you all are waking up to the fact it’s already illegal to burn the flag.
    It won’t be the FBI coming to getcha. It’ll be fire marshal Bill.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  266. The link explains he was found guilty of a probation violation that was not related to his film.

    DRJ (15874d)

  267. pleaded guilty to four charges of violating a probation sentence imposed on him in 2010 after a bank fraud conviction. Each of his guilty pleas, worked out with prosecutors in advance, was related to his maintenance of the two identities.

    Seems he pled guilty to breaking the terms of his parole and lying to investigators.

    If a flag-burner did that I imagine that flag-burner could go to jail, but they’d be going to jail for their actual crimes, not for the flag-burning.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  268. Yes, but he was already on parole, perhaps in witness protection,for flipping in the money laundering scheme.

    narciso (d1f714)

  269. Not really Dana. I DO hope people go over to see the discussion at Althouse about flag burning, though. It reminded me so much of the great, coming at it from many sides, yet enjoyable discussions we use to be able to have at this site before so many people left and so many other people lost their sense of humor.

    elissa (120993)

  270. Unlike Trump, my concern is free speech/commmunication. Flag-burning is an example of an unpopular communication that we tolerate because we value free speech.

    It’s easy to agree on popular speech. Unpopular speech helps us decide what we as a society will and won’t allow.

    DRJ (15874d)

  271. Heh. elissa is trolling us.

    DRJ (15874d)

  272. What Trump said was far less inflammatory than what Scalia said

    You continue to misunderstand this.

    Someone who said what Scalia said is likely to be a perfect judge.

    Someone who says what Trump said is likely to be a horrible President.

    One’s personal opinions matter less than whether you understand and respect the constraints of the system in which you operate.

    You fundamentally do not seem to understand this. If you did, you would not keep acting like what Scalia said was inflammatory.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  273. @DRJ:Unpopular speech helps us decide what we as a society will and won’t allow.

    I agree with you about that. I agree with you flag-burning should be legal. But the same people are at National Review now as in 2006, they are not in the tank for Trump and they agreed with him on this issue, and they are not dangerous demagogues or people who don’t value free speech.

    And flag burning only became legal a short time ago.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  274. Heh. elissa is trolling us.

    Well, you know what they say. Don’t feed the trolls. Ignore them.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  275. I agree with you about that. I agree with you flag-burning should be legal. But the same people are at National Review now as in 2006, they are not in the tank for Trump and they agreed with him on this issue, and they are not dangerous demagogues or people who don’t value free speech.

    National Review said people who burn flags should maybe be stripped of their citizenship????

    Oh, sorry, you like to pretend he didn’t say that part.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  276. , yet enjoyable discussions we use to be able to have at this site before so many people left and so many other people lost their sense of humor.

    I know, right?? Trump just doesn’t bring out the funny…

    Dana (d17a61)

  277. I think that the Donnie’s tweet above is an exception, and we should pay attention to it, since it might well reveal one of his methods. But this article spells out what’s wrong with how he seems to be operating:

    Donald Trump has been compared to a monkey with a machine gun — we don’t really know what he will do or how much damage he will inflict to our system of free expression and our democratic institutions. What we have seen so far, however, suggests that if he really wants to, he could undermine a lot of what it took more than two centuries to build. Rather than obsessing about Trump’s outrageous tweets, we should focus on the more systematic ways he threatens our democracy.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/30/opinions/freedom-of-speech-under-trump-balkin/index.html

    Tillman (a95660)

  278. I think Trump popped off impulsively and passionately with his flag burning tweet. It would be consistent with everything we’ve seen of him if we’ve been paying attention, and if we’ve been dispassionate in doing so. I don’t think he gave the issue any thought, nor did he have any understanding tha this too is protected speech. It doesn’t make him an awful person. It just reveals him ignorant of some very important matters. Hopefully as he begins to see certain deficits he has with regard to governing, and begins to understand how those deficits can impact his decision-making, and not for the better, he will have the humility and willingness to learn.

    Dana (d17a61)

  279. Jack balkin, ah some humor to the convsrsation

    narciso (d1f714)

  280. I think Trump popped off impulsively and passionately with his flag burning tweet. It would be consistent with everything we’ve seen of him if we’ve been paying attention, and if we’ve been dispassionate in doing so. I don’t think he gave the issue any thought, nor did he have any understanding tha this too is protected speech. It doesn’t make him an awful person. It just reveals him ignorant of some very important matters. Hopefully as he begins to see certain deficits he has with regard to governing, and begins to understand how those deficits can impact his decision-making, and not for the better, he will have the humility and willingness to learn.

    It’s a very nice sentiment. I just happen to think some people are just shit people, and Donald Trump is one of those people.

    But I’m getting tired of arguing with people about it. I have proved to myself on more than one occasion that people will defend anything he says or does. I think I can stop proving that to myself now. It doesn’t make me happy to keep doing it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  281. 272… yes, things can be grim around here, elissa. Especially since the Fall campaign and election. A lot of people has a sad.

    Colonel Haiku (fa3dba)

  282. The battle of leipzig airport or the rumble in anchorman two

    narciso (d1f714)

  283. @236- Merely noting that some words ‘matter’ and some matter-of-factly merit multiple eyerolls— as the Reagan blurb reinforces.

    Listen to LBJ tapes instead if you want– even JFK tapes and you’ll find nuggets of absurdity.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  284. I didn’t know this, but there are two Supreme Court decisions that say citizenship cannot be stripped from people involuntarily (except maybe when it was obtained fraudulantly in the first place.)

    It is not only true that flag burning * cannot be outlawed, but the punishment Donald Trump proposed cannt be done either. I had that was maybe easier than criminal penalties, and burning a flag might be claimed to be a form of expatriation.

    * although not cross burning because as Justice Thomas more or less said, there’s 100 years of history as to what that means, and it’s a threat.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/politics/trump-flag-burners-citizenship-first-amendment.html?_r=0

    The first case was in 1967 and dealt with a 1940 law that said any American who joined a freign military or voted in a foreogn countrys’s election lost his citizenship. What I had thought was that first a claim was made, and accepted, taht taht did not apply to someone who was drafted, and they overlooked elections (besides which nobody knew) and even those who volunteered were regarded like those who were drafted as long as they ddin’t make apoin if it. I thought the law was for the most part ifgnored.

    Bit actually theer was a Suoreme Court decision in 1967. Theer was a man who was born in Poland, came to the United States and became acitizen and later moved to Israel, and when one day he came to renew his passport, the stagte department refused on the grounds he had voted in an Israeli election. The Supreme Court ruled that citizenship was no light trifle to be jeopardized any moment Congress decides to do so, and the citizennship clause of the 14th amendment precluded anyone being deprived of it.

    “The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship,” Justice Hugo L. Black wrote

    It was a 5-4 decision. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 267–68 (1967) This case atually overruled another case Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958).

    Later, Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) said this did not apply to someone who was born a citizen, but not in the United States, and Congress could regulate the citizenship status of a person who was born outside the United States to an American parent. (That particular law, though, which required a certain period of U.S. residence, was repealed in 1978)

    In 1980, in Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, decided 6-3, the Supreme Court said any surrender of citizenshp had to be really intentional. In a man who was born with both American and Mexican citizenship, had obtained a Mexican citizenship document, which in order to get, he had to sign a statement renouncing “United States citizenship, as well as any submission, obedience and loyalty to any foreign government, especially to that of the United States of America” Congress had listed sted various actions the performance of which it said could be taken as conclusive, irrebuttable proof of intent to give up U.S. citizenship. The Supreme Court said no, it wasn’t irrebutable and you couldn’t do that. You needed a preponderance of evidence wlthough it said you didn’t need clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence.

    Under questioning by concular officials, he had given conflicting answers as to whether he truly intended to renounce his citizenship, apparently because he didn’t want to say he didn’t understand what he was signing. The case was remanded and eventually they ruled against him but in 1986 Congress said that a potentially expatriating act may result in loss of citizenship only if it was performed “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality”

    And in 1990, the State Department changed its rules so that it is “virtually impossible to lose American citizenship [once it is accepted] without formally and expressly renouncing it.” The State Depatment will only pursue this when an individual affirmatively states the intent to relinquish citizenship and if somehow a case comes to its attention some other way, the consular officer will “simply ask the applicant if there was intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship when performing the act. If the answer is no, the consular officer will certify that it was not the person’s intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship and, consequently, find that the person has retained U.S. citizenship.”

    More recently Congress has imposed a tax on anyone relinquishing citizenship who had a net worth of $2 million or an average income tax liability of $139,000 for the five previous years with the exzception of certain dual citizens and minors. (as when this is done voluntarily, this is often done to avoid income taxes)

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  285. Patterico (115b1f) — 11/30/2016 @ 7:41 pm

    One’s personal opinions matter less than whether you understand and respect the constraints of the system in which you operate.

    That’s the problem.

    He talks (or writes actually) like he doesn’t understand it, or doesn’t understand some of the constrants the system itself has, and/or ought to have.

    I think his tweets may be geared to people who simply don’t know, and who also don’t ponder the consequences of a world that worked that way, The way he proposes, in passing.

    It shouldn’t be easy to lose citizenship. It shouldn’t be easy to go to jail. It shouldn’t be easy to be successfully sued for large sums of money, or even to be sued at all.

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  286. DCSCA, Reagan’s remarks about outlawing Russia and nuking them was so obviously a joke that he was making in front of an open mic. It wasn’t even for public consumption the way that a tweet is in 2016; it was just intended for the people in the room at the time.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  287. @289 But, but but, haven’t you hear….. “words matter!!” 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  288. oops- forgot the ‘d.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  289. Trump doesn’t bring out the funny?

    John (while writing Revelations): “So Lord, the end will be signaled by trumpets?”
    God: “No… I said Trump/Pence.”
    John: Yeah, trumpets.
    God: “Never mind. They’ll know.”

    nk (dbc370)

  290. It’s a very nice sentiment. I just happen to think some people are just shit people, and Donald Trump is one of those people.

    My comment said, “it doesn’t make him an awful person,” referring to him popping off impulsively about flag burning. And it doesn’t. It’s those other things that make him an awful person…

    Dana (d17a61)

  291. @ Sammy Finkleman, #255:

    You’re right, of course. But even with Trump saying “I would have won if so many illegals didn’t vote” — comments that I agree he has no factual basis for, and cannot support — I appreciate that he’s calling attention to voting irregularities. Fact is, all the people who go on and on about how “no voter fraud has been found” can’t support that contention either. Not when we have people openly confessing to participating in voter fraud in NYC. Not when we have tens of thousands of votes coming out of nowhere at the last minute in North Carolina. Not when felons sent a third-rate comedian and a seventh-rate mind to the U.S. Senate from the once-great state of Minnesota.

    The way some states conduct their elections…well, they need a little light on them. Trust in the process of choosing our leaders is vital for this country to work correctly. So yeah, it was a dumb thing to say, but I hope that it may end up having a positive outcome. And again, I say that as someone who is not a Trump supporter.

    @ DCSCA, #290:

    Oh, give me a break. Reagan says something stupid when he thinks he’s in private, Trump says something stupid that he knows the public will see, and you want to pretend they’re basically the same thing.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  292. World-class bait fisherman… whether sport fishing for angry bloggers or throwing a weighted line for bottom-feeders like in this case…

    “TRUMP PROTESTERS TAKE TRUMP BAIT: “Protesters burned the United States flag outside of Trump International Hotel in New York City Tuesday, following President-elect Donald Trump’s suggestion that flag burners be jailed or lose their citizenship.”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/250617/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  293. The answer to Dana’s very polite question is, apparently: ha ha a President-elect proposing blatantly unconstitutional punishments for unpopular speech is teh funny because it makes the people who care about the Constitution mad! Hur hur hur!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  294. Dana @ 235:

    Because that’s not how the executive branch works.

    He probably doesn’t know anything about cotton price supports and fuel subsidies, so according to your logic he shouldn’t be trusted to oversee the Dept. of Agriculture.

    I could include a thousand examples of government policies that he’s absolutely clueless about — along with 99.9% of the rest of the population, but according to you and Patrick he’s a “dangerous demagogue” because he speaks off the cuff about something and he’s wrong.

    I would guess that 99.9% of the population doesn’t know that its protected free speech to burn the flag under the First Amendment.

    Patrick knows because he read Stevens’ dissent in Texas v. Johnson in Law School.

    I would expect anyone who went to law school to know its protected free speech. But that’s our “window into the world” through which we look.

    The rest of the population — including Trump — not so much.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  295. DRJ @ 257:

    See, you stumble into blantant factual misrepresentations by being too possessed of your suspicions.

    You point to the arrest of the Benghazi filmmakers — to protect Hillary and Obama — as a basis for fearing that Trump and his government agents might actually be possessed of the intention, along with the ability, to strip people of their citizenship.

    But the Benghazi filmmaker was not arrested to protect Hillary and Obama, unless your contention is that a federal judge — who didn’t work for Obama or Clinton — was part of that scheme. The filmmaker was on federal probation, and he was arrested on a probation violation warrant — meaning he was alleged by his probation officer to have committed an act in violation of the terms and conditions of his probation. The Probation Officer filed the revocation petition, and the Judge overseeing his probation signed the warrant. Holding him without bail is very common in revocation proceedings in federal court until the judge decides whether or not to send the defendant back to prison.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  296. And to follow up on a couple of the other links you provided — the NYT article explained that he received a probationary sentence — no jail time — for his bank fraud conviction in 2010. I can tell you with 100% certainty that federal judges who give probationary sentences for felony cases have NO TOLERANCE for violators.

    Someone on probation can’t used two different names — its not necessarily a crime to do so, but its absolutely against the terms of probation. And a person on probation cannot engage in fraudulent conduct against third parties — even if its not a “criminal fraud”.

    The POV of the judge is that she is the person who decided it wasn’t necessary that he serve jail time for his first conviction. Now, while free solely as a result of her exercise of discretion, he’s out in the public engaged in fraudulent activity, and he’s not being forthcoming with his probation officer, whose job it is to be the “eyes and ears” of the Judge with regard to people she has returned back to society.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  297. @294- Reagan, the ‘Great Communicator’- with decades of experience in film, radio and television production and broadcasting is seated before a live mike w/staff and media around about to make a broadcast and you feign he was speaking ‘in private’….gimmie a break, indeed.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  298. Since the audio had to be leaked, yes, I’d say it pretty much fits the definition of “speaking in private.” Unlike, you know, putting out a public tweet.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  299. nk (dbc370) — 11/30/2016 @ 8:56 pm

    HA! That was very funny!

    felipe (023cc9)

  300. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/30/2016 @ 10:37 pm

    The filmmaker was on federal probation, and he was arrested on a probation violation warrant — meaning he was alleged by his probation officer to have committed an act in violation of the terms and conditions of his probation. The Probation Officer filed the revocation petition, and the Judge overseeing his probation signed the warrant.

    But how did they find out about that?

    Only because the FBI did an investigation of that video. And they did the investigation because the attack was attributed to the video.

    By the attackers, actually. It was one of the cover stories. A big question is how did that become the official government position? That has never been satisfactorily answered. It was the CIA, and not somebody on the Whote House, who did ths, except that the CIA people denied this and said they never said it was because of the video (but they only said it was spontaneous and inspired by the events in Cairo)

    The arrest of the video maker – who was a complete fraud, and probably acting at the behest of the Muslim Brotherhood or some other entity connected to terrorism – nobody is going to make an anti-Mohammed fil, so if the MB or some Saudis want one they have to make it themselves. The videomaker – who never made a movie but only a trailer – told different stories about what he was doing, and he attributed the whole project to Jews. He claimed he himself was a Jew and Jewish people had paid for it, something he had no reason to do except malice and we know who has that kind of malice.

    The arrest, or pending arrest, of the videomaker was used by Hillary Clinton, in an attempt to pacify at least one person, even though, of course, legally it was unrelated to the events in Benghazi.

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  301. @ shipwreckedcrew,

    I could include a thousand examples of government policies that he’s absolutely clueless about — along with 99.9% of the rest of the population, but according to you and Patrick he’s a “dangerous demagogue” because he speaks off the cuff about something and he’s wrong.

    I would guess that 99.9% of the population doesn’t know that its protected free speech to burn the flag under the First Amendment.

    Patrick knows because he read Stevens’ dissent in Texas v. Johnson in Law School.

    I would expect anyone who went to law school to know its protected free speech. But that’s our “window into the world” through which we look.

    The rest of the population — including Trump — not so much.

    Thank you for your response.

    I’m going to assume that you didn’t intend to insult those of us who did not attend law school, shipwreckedcrew, but nonetheless knew that flag burning was protected speech. And we also didn’t have to read a post about it here to know. To assume that 99.9% of the nation doesn’t know about flag burning being protected speech unless they went to law school is ridiculous and dismissive. Commenters here actually know their history, politics, and even aspects of the law without having attended law school. Guess what? Math majors can know about speech! Those who haven’t attended college can know about speech! That’s because, believe it or not, people can accrue an immense wealth of knowledge across any number of disciplines through their own independent study and/or formal education in other areas without having specifically attended law school. Your comment feels akin to President Obama dismissing big chunks of the country because they watch Fox News. In bars! I would wager that all the commenters here knew about flag burning being protected speech, and not because they attended law school, or because Patrick attended law school and published a post about the issue.

    Aside from your assumption that we are clueless, here is my point. Again, I think Trump’s speaking off the cuff reveals a level of ignorance that is concerning for several reasons. One is that he is an arrogant blowhard, and therefore may be unteachable and unwilling to learn. Another concern is that he will try to govern without taking advice from capable people who know the ropes because he likes to be the boss. If he runs the country from based on the views that he has shown to hold which are not compatible with the Constitution, then that will be problematic. Hopefully he will not just have competent people around him, but will let them run their agencies without much interference. I’m not convinced that his disposition will allow him to acquiesce or let go of the reins (and views) he stubbornly holds. Like all of us, he is his own worst enemy. Just how much that will be a stumbling block for him and the nation, remains to be seen.

    The fact is, none of us really know how he will govern yet. All we can do is look at his history, both personal and professional, and watch his Twitter feed in order to glean information and make educated guesses based upon what he says and shows us.

    Dana (d17a61)

  302. Demosthenes @ 294 11/30/2016 @ 9:18 pm

    Trump saying “I would have won if so many illegals didn’t vote” — comments that I agree he has no factual basis for, and cannot support — I appreciate that he’s calling attention to voting irregularities.

    That was the last in a string of tweets about the recount. He’s not calling attention to anything real, because other people have to bring it up. His campaign cited a published 2012 report that 6.4% of non-citizens voted, which turns out to consist 100% of survey errors, because it was a study that used the same people from year to year and no person who claimed he or she voted and was not a citizen claimed that both in 2010 and 2012.

    The New York Times gets their refutation wrong because they seem to assume the accusation is that more non-citizens voted this year than in 2012, but the accusation is that there are a lot of non-citizens registered.

    The second piece of proof the Trump campaign brought out was some statistic about the number of dead people or other ineligible people registered – this of course has nothing to do with citizens, and of course something like that is going to be true.

    Dead people mostly vote absentee, but they vote more or less like other people, unless a ballot box is stuffed. In 1998 there was a recount in New York in the race for Attorney General and it turned out many absentee ballots had been sent by dead people and were thrown out.

    A person files for the right to vote absentee because of disability and the ballots keep on being sent year after year, and as long as there’s someone with that last name living at that address, and maybe sometimes even not, they’ll continue to be sent. And, well, people fill them out and mail them back.

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  303. In North Carlina if someone votes early, but dies before Election Day, their vote is not supposed to be counted. The Governor’s campaign cited examples in asking for a recount, but there’s a limited number of them. So long as the margin is below 10,000, there’s a recount anyway but it is nearly 10,000.

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  304. Gabriel:

    I agree with you flag-burning should be legal. 

    I never said it should be legal, only that it is (absent other circumstances). My point has been that it’s important for people to understand the free speech concerns that resulted in this rule.

    DRJ (15874d)

  305. I could include a thousand examples of government policies that he’s absolutely clueless about — along with 99.9% of the rest of the population, but according to you and Patrick he’s a “dangerous demagogue” because he speaks off the cuff about something and he’s wrong.

    He’s dangerous because, as President, his job is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Everything else on his Presidential To Do list is subordinate to that.

    It’s clear Trump doesn’t have a clue what the Constitution says, let alone means. We’ve learned that he doesn’t understand Separation of Powers, free speech rules (libel laws and now flag-burning), whether courts or Congress sign bills, that he can’t force the military to obey illegal orders, and eminent domain and taking of property. The only thing he seems to “get” is bankruptcy law.

    If Trump doesn’t care about the Agriculture Department (and you are probably right that he doesn’t care about it, or any aspect of government), that doesn’t bother me. His refusal to care about the Constitution should concern every American.

    DRJ (15874d)

  306. Correction: It does bother me if Trump doesn’t care about government but we’re stuck with him, so I accept it if he doesn’t care. But I don’t accept it if he doesn’t care about protecting the Constitution. Trump is going to take an oath that says he will protect the Constitution. He should read it and try to learn what it means.

    DRJ (15874d)

  307. Except Sullivan has been distorted as a license to defame, giving protect ton to flag burners did not encourage respect or dialogue.

    narciso (d1f714)

  308. Dana — it wasn’t an insult, and you shouldn’t it as an insult. Its simply a fact that burning the flag is protected free speech because of a Supreme Court decision in 1989. There are probably 20 to 30 other Supreme Court decisions on aspects of the First Amendment. Who do you think is more likely to know about them — law school grads or non-grads? Did you know about the crush films ruling without reading Popehat’s column that Patrick linked to? Its simply a matter of lawyers read that stuff because they have occasion to come across

    Its no more condescending for me to say 99.9% of the public is likely unaware of Texas v. Johnson that it is for me to say that 99.9% of the public is unaware of the automobile exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement?? The fact that the police can search your car without a warrant, but not your house, is pretty fundamental in terms of your liberty interest, don’t you think? Do you think the population at large understands the difference recognized by the Supreme Court, and why?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  309. I think there are many people like Dana that aren’t lawyers but who understand these concepts. Learning about legal issues is why some people read websites like this. It’s an important part of our lives.

    DRJ (15874d)

  310. DRJ @ 308: the same could be said (“Its his job”) about every function of the Executive Branch. Everything done by the Executive Branch flows from his obligation to “protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution”.

    Do you think its suggestive of him being a demagogue if he doesn’t understand the legal limits of the Executive Branch in conducting electronic monitoring of internet traffic? That’s pretty fundamental to our civil liberties given the electronic age that we live in, don’t you think? I can tell you with great confidence that probably 95% of DOJ lawyers aren’t fully up to speed on the development of the law in that area because its in constant state of flux with new decisions coming out of courts all across the country on a weekly basis.

    Should he understand Lawrence v. Texas as well as Texas v. Johnson?

    Where does the list end?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  311. Heh. I’m certainly not worried that Trump might know too much about Constitutional law.

    DRJ (15874d)

  312. Zimmerman, was straight up libeled by NBC and the rest if the crumple Julian tray carriers. And yet he couldnt get justice.

    narciso (d1f714)

  313. Seriously, though, swc, my concern re Trump is that he shows no understanding about the Constitution and no willingness or desire to learn. He careens from one crazy tweet or statement to another. He could talk to experts and make reasonable suggestions but he won’t. Maybe that’s his plan – to troll us endlessly – but that is divisive. It’s Obama-like and 8 years is more than enough.

    DRJ (15874d)

  314. I for one look forward to mindless Democrat minions burning flags outside of the White House and Trump’s victory tour venues. Hope they get arrested for trespassing, arson, vandalism, disturbing the peace, and littering, then hit the talk show circuit while out on bail.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  315. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 12/1/2016 @ 7:37 am

    Did you know about the crush films ruling without reading Popehat’s column that Patrick linked to?

    No, and I don’t see why the Supreme Court should have ruled that way.

    Why aren’t crush films like child pornography? Because what they depict are not necessarily illegal acts? Because there’s no human victim? Because the government argued the case the wrong way??

    The Supreme Court has even ruled that artificially created child pornography that did not involve any actual persons can be illegal, I think because it might be difficult to tell that apart from the real thing, and so it said, both can be made illegal because the existence of fakes contributes to the real.

    The Supreme Court sometimes does things just because it wants to, and is not totally consistent. Because if a film that could only be created by committing a crime specifically for the purpose of recording it can’t be circulated, that should apply, or potentially apply, to all crimes, or all felonies, or all crimes involving moral turpitude. (a malum per se as opposed to a malum prohibitum)

    99.9% of the public is unaware of the automobile exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement??

    I think at least 25% of the people who know about the 4th amendment’s restrictions on searches, know about that. Do you realize how high a percentage 99.9%, or even 90% is?

    Another exception, or maybe it’s the same exception, is a search incidental to an arrest.

    They can also search for weapons, which is what led to “Stop and Frisk” in places where most gun possession is illegal.

    The fact that the police can search your car without a warrant, but not your house, is pretty fundamental in terms of your liberty interest, don’t you think?

    As far as I know, they can only do this when a person is in the car, and has been stopped by the police and is being detained, at least temporarily, but they can’t do this with a parked car. And they can search your home, briefly, and non-destructively, when it is incidental to an arrest.

    Sammy Finkelman (a784d8)

  316. @Patterico:Oh, sorry, you like to pretend he didn’t say that part.

    Not at all. It’s just that what he is suggesting is not something he or anyone else can do, so there’s simply no relevance. As another commenter said, he may as well have said “be deported to Mars”, at which point you would probably point out we don’t have the money for a Mars program in the budget and that you are appalled Trump would not only violate the Constitution as well as waste an enormous amount of money on something so trivial.

    Now stripping someone of their citizenship is not a legal punishment, but I am pretty sure most Americans would feel that such a punishment, for flag burning, would be just. If you hate America so much, what do you want to be a citizen of it for, is a common feeling.

    I wish a law existed that would have let us strip, say, John Walker Lindh of HIS citizenship, for joining Al Qaeda. (I must HATE the Constitution.) Treason is so rare that it’s probably not worth amending the Constitution to permit that punishment for treason, and even if you did I’m sure progressive judges would work around it.

    And that’s the other side of this issue: Trump isn’t talking about stuff written in the text, now is he? He’s talking about judge-made law, and of fairly recent date, more recent than the right to abortion: we’re still allowed to argue about that without hating the Constitution, I hope.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  317. It’s obvious that no one can be “transported” to Mars, like the British transported convicted criminals to Australia, but not obvious to everyone that the Supreme Court has pretty much ruled out the possibility of depriving anyone of citizenship involuntarily, and it’s a very general consensus that this not be tried.

    It was obvious, though, from the way he tweeted, that Trump thought he could not do this alone – he was proposing either a law, or that a court rule that citizenship had been forfeited when someone burned a U.S. flag.

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  318. Not at all. It’s just that what he is suggesting is not something he or anyone else can do, so there’s simply no relevance.

    It’s not something they can do LEGALLY.

    But what happens when he decides he’s going to do it anyway, and when everyone else decides that they’re too scared to try to stop him?

    There are PLENTY of things that Presidents and other world leaders can’t do legally, but do anyway. Some pretty shocking things. So when they muse about doing such things, and their henchman are physically capable of carrying out those orders (unlike your ridiculous Mars example which has no bearing on anything), it’s what I would call “relevant.”

    Patterico (115b1f)

  319. except it’s exceedingly hard to prove treason, so Suleiman faris, did get some jail time, and there are still people trying to get him released from prison,

    narciso (d1f714)

  320. “But what happens when he decides he’s going to do it anyway, and when everyone else decides that they’re too scared to try to stop him?”

    You get a big, beautiful view of the Democrat-maintained gulf between de facto and de jure snapping shut, breaking all sorts of little corrupt bargains in the process.

    “There are PLENTY of things that Presidents and other world leaders can’t do legally, but do anyway. Some pretty shocking things.”

    Personal authority returns in populist comeback, lawyers, bureaucrats and consultants hardest hit.

    “So when they muse about doing such things, and their henchman are physically capable of carrying out those orders (unlike your ridiculous Mars example which has no bearing on anything), it’s what I would call “relevant.””

    There are PLENTY of things that Presidents and other world leaders CAN do legally, but don’t. I’d like to see a more creative and thorough use of the power of the Presidential pardon for the various nasty legal traps that our liberal slavemasters use to crush the decent. But in the absence of precedent and the presence of many years of confirmed Congressional cowardice, I’ll take my chances with the not-King and the not-King’s men.

    TheExcruciationator (65835d)

  321. @Patterico:what happens when he decides he’s going to do it anyway,

    How? You have no answer for that. You have no idea how.

    Does he point at you with a stick or something?

    HOW does he strip people of citizenship? That has no legal meaning.

    their henchman are physically capable of carrying out those orders

    HOW can a henchman PHYSICALLY strip you of citizenship? You have no idea how.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  322. The Mars example is not mine but it us apt. Trump can declare me to be Queen of Roumania with the same effect, as declaring not a citizen.

    And of course this idea that he personally is going to somehow do these things by fiat has no basis in anything he actually said.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  323. Would like to see creative combination of the two penalties: stripped of citizenship for year to do forced labor in Gitmo or other various US territories and principalities.

    TheExcruciationator (65835d)

  324. Seriously Patterico reason this out. You are capable.

    1) I burn a flag in front of Trump.
    2) Trump puts on his crown, points his sceptre, says “Varlet! I declare thee outlaw!”
    3) ????
    4) I’m no longer a citizen, my SSN is canceled, they tear up my voter registration, ship me to GTMO, whatever.

    What happens in step 3?

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  325. the second of the detainee case involved hamdi a Saudi national born in Louisiana, found with weapons on the battlefield, now scalia had relented in the previous case, allowing them counsel in contravention of quirin and eisentrager, but they insisted they needed legislation which became the detainee act, which was demagogued by keefums and co, until the court struck it down in boumedienne, even evidence was provided in the dissent, how dangerous it was to release them.

    narciso (d1f714)

  326. Not to mention, of course, that nowhere in his tweet did he threaten to impose any such consequences, or say he would take any action whatever to assist in changing the law.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  327. And who are Trump’s henchmen? The Secret Service? The U.S. Marshals? The Los Angeles County Sheriff?

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  328. corey lewandowski, and his crew of mirakuru crazed enforcers, yes I have to resort to comic book tropes,

    narciso (d1f714)

  329. @narcisco:corey lewandowski, and his crew of mirakuru crazed enforcers, yes I have to resort to comic book tropes,

    I’m sure Milo has great ideas for uniforms.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  330. @narcisco: Your earlier comment about the argument clinic is about right; except that it’s not argument at this point so much as it is contradiction.

    The only winning move is not to play. Like Scott Johnson, I’m going to put myself in the penalty box and I’m not going to comment on the LOOK WHAT TRUMP SAID threads until after Inauguration Day. Perhaps things will have calmed down by then, or resolved themselves in some happier way.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  331. the outrage, eleventy gets tiring, I’ve pointed out how john yoo did everything right, following European court precedents with regards to interrogation but a blanc mange like jack goldsmith, folded and put all the operators in legal jeopardy, the levick crew lied about other aspects of the bush counterterror policy, and the court bought those lies,

    narciso (d1f714)

  332. 1. I am a Jew
    2. Hitler puts on his crown, points his sceptre, says “I declare thee subject to death!”
    3. ????
    4. I end up dead somehow.

    A scenario so ridiculous that we should not trouble ourselves with what Hitler has said in this book or that speech.

    Give him six months and we’ll know whether he’s our guy or not.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  333. AND I SAID ALL THAT BECAUSE TRUMP=HITLER IS EXACTLY MY POINT

    Will scream people who lack the capacity for abstract thought necessary to apply analogies and understand that they are not equations.

    Those aren’t the people I am talking to. So go ahead and scream. I will not listen to you.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  334. Crazy shit happens in this world.

    It starts when the people decide not to hold their leaders accountable when they express dangerous ideas.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  335. Anyway this is a look what Trump said thread. That was a quick penalty!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  336. just like global thermonuclear war, you see where john badham ended up when he left tony manetti in Saturday night, blue thunder, where the airforce was employing attack helicopters to attack gangs and
    point of no return, where we were hiring convicts as assasins,

    narciso (d1f714)

  337. “1. I am a Jew
    2. Hitler puts on his crown, points his sceptre, says “I declare thee subject to death!”
    3. ????
    4. I end up dead somehow.

    AND I SAID ALL THAT BECAUSE TRUMP=HITLER IS EXACTLY MY POINT”

    Do you think this flair for lazy histrionics and risible comparisons is native to your Jewish nature or is it more likely that it came upon you after being marinated in obvious-in-retrospect paranoid Jewish persecution fantasies in the popular culture?

    TheExcruciationator (65835d)

  338. I think that’s a leap there, he’s a Texan, I’m guessing irish catholic or protestant,

    narciso (d1f714)

  339. Raised in the Episcopal church. Goodbye, Pepe. I’ll leave up this comment so show why you went bye-bye.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  340. And the answer to #3 is: executive order to deport any citizen who burns a flag.

    Henchmen are ICE.

    Establish the right atmosphere and you can do a lot to citizens. Just ask Fred Korematsu.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  341. I think that’s a leap there, he’s a Texan, I’m guessing irish catholic or protestant,

    There are Jews in Texas, though. I was a day camp counselor at the local Jewish Community Center.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  342. henchman suggests something more than ice, secret police types. yes general dewitt and fdr, the latter had a tick about Asian immigration for more than 20 years, had a lot to do with it,

    narciso (d1f714)

  343. Nothing insane about it. It was the law for many years. The USSC decided it was a constitutional right. It is not insane to disagree with them. The USSC also decided that the murder of unborn babies is a constitutional right, which I consider to be insane. You need to wrap your head around the idea that people who disagree with you might not be insane. And who knows, they man even be right.

    Tim McDonald (0a89a3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0935 secs.