Patterico's Pontifications

11/30/2016

Hillary’s Eye-Opening Tweet Attacking “Racist Hate Speech”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:00 am

Imagine my surprise this morning when I looked at my computer screen and saw this:

fake-hillary-tweet-on-speech

On one hand, it seems like there is some trolling going on here. The structure of the tweet is very similar to what Donald Trump tweeted yesterday about stripping citizens of their citizenship for burning a flag.

And yet, the attitude of the person who created this tweet is scary, isn’t it? It’s fairly terrifying that someone with this attitude towards speech could get near the levers of power in this country. Not only is she talking about punishing speech that is protected under the Constitution, but the method of “punishment” she describes seems blatantly unconstitutional, especially when targeted towards a disfavored category of expression.

Trolling or not, the tweet reveals a mindset of someone who should not be president.

Whispered: Psssst. Come over here.

By now, all the Trumpers who never read anything past the first three paragraphs are gone, most likely to rant about Hillary’s tweet on Facebook. Meanwhile, I can let the rest of you in on the joke: there is some trolling going on here, but the perp isn’t Hillary Clinton . . . it’s me. You don’t have to “imagine my surprise” when I saw this tweet, because I felt no actual surprise. I first saw the tweet this morning after composing it on a site that allows you to generate fake tweets.

Yesterday I published a post that called Donald Trump a “dangerous demagogue” for posting this tweet:

The reaction of many commenters was to shrug it off. Most of them dislike the speech in question anyway, and some are convinced that the Court should never have protected it to begin with — or, at the very least, that the minority had a good argument for wanting to ban it. And the punishment proposed by Trump convinced many that he was just “popping off” or trolling people. And even if he was serious, he could never get away with what he proposed. So therefore, the reaction was not “Mr. President-elect, please do not tweet blatantly unconstitutional proposals.” The reaction instead was: shut up, Patterico, with your whining about Trump!

This post, then, is a thought experiment designed to have people imagine their reaction if the candidate they love to hate made a similar tweet about speech.

After all, leftists dislike hate speech, especially racist hate speech. Many are convinced that the Court should never have protected it — or, at the very least, that the minority had a good argument for wanting to ban it. And “Hillary’s” proposal for 100% confiscation of wealth certainly could not be taken seriously.

So: if the tweet at the beginning of this post were real, it wouldn’t bother you. Right, guys?

By the way, I recognize that the sort of argument that I am making here convinces precisely nobody. There is not a single person who defends Trump for his tweet, gets upset about the fake Hillary tweet above, and then engages in some soul-searching about whether their inconsistent reaction results from hypocritical partisanship. Not one! In fact, most Trump defenders who made it this far in the post are now skipping the end to run and write their comments about how the Hillary tweet is totally different, proves absolutely nothing, and by the way Patterico is a big jerk and stupidhead.

So relax, Trump defenders. I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m just having a little fun tweaking you.

And anyway . . . are you sure the tweet isn’t real?

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

82 Responses to “Hillary’s Eye-Opening Tweet Attacking “Racist Hate Speech””

  1. Whole lotta trolling going on. When I first heard bout Trump’s comment, I thought that’s exactly what Trump is doing. Everytime a leftist burns a flag, the more likely it is he’ll get a second term. If a 74 y.o. can get a second term. He’ll need all the help he can get. So he’s enlisting the moonbat crazy left in the cause.

    By now I’m sure everyone has heard of this.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/29/hey-remember-when-hillary-wanted-to-ban-flag-burning/

    That’s the thing; Hillary! has always been the more dangerous demagogue. She actually introduced legislation to criminalize flag burning.

    And I don’t know if you’re aware, Pat, but she signed on with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s twenty year effort to designate “Islamophic” speech (i.e. truthful speech about Islam, such as pointing out that when Muhammad was 54 he consummated his marriage with a 9 y.o. girl) a crime.

    No administration, Republican or Democrat, has ever agreed to go along with that. This one did.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er_qw9rRdIY

    U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18: Respect for Religions or Anti-Freedom of Expression?

    So your ironic tweet attributed to Hillary! Clinton is remarkably close to the truth.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  2. if the tweet at the beginning of this post were real, it wouldn’t bother you. Right, guys?

    Well, let’s see:

    Did she say she personally should have the power to do it? No.

    Did she say she’s sponsoring legislation in Congress to do it? No. (Though she already has done, for the flag burning.)

    Is she able to do it? No. She holds no office whatever but even as President she would have no way to do it.

    Conclusion: tweet is an expression of emotion and not of intention. Relevance: 0. Probability that she has already said something very like this to some constituency or other: 100%.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  3. In further news, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said ““If it were up to me, I would put in jail every racist, homophobic, privileged misogynist who engages in hate speech. But I am not queen.”

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  4. And you know, Supreme Court Justices have enormous influence over how the laws are interpreted and enforced in the country. Sotomayor’s statement is far, far more troubling, wouldn’t we agree?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  5. What I’m talking about.

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/250560/#respond

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  6. Dear bj&s,

    Since the Vietnam War protests of the 1960s, pols of all political stripe have demagogued the flag burning issue. Over the fifty years since, this drumbeat of anti-Constitutional hate has united Democrats and Republicans. It won’t quit. When it comes to flag burning, I guess I’ve developed a fatigue, of sorts, to this non-partisan populist pander. Sorry.

    The thing I’d like to point out to conservatives who take up the cause is that the further we slide down the progressive/socialist slope, the more likely we are to someday burn flags ourselves. When stripped of its founding principles, what does the flag stand for anyway? Big Brother.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  7. When Hillary said that she would appoint Justices who would overturn Citizen’s United, that was a statement of intention to act in a manner that she would have had power to do.

    When she said “Why am I not 50 points ahead of this guy” she was not expressing an intention to stuff the ballot boxes until she was in fact 50 points ahead.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  8. Both tweets should be properly recognized as trolling, with no likelihood of being an actual policy proposal. The correct response is an eyeroll in either case.

    matt d (d4aa6f)

  9. @Thor: Those populist Trump-loving totalitarian demagogue enablers at National Review disagree with you, you hippie:

    “The Supreme Court got it wrong in 1989 and 1990, when it struck down first a state law and then a federal law banning flag-burning. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, not freedom of “expression”; and burning a flag is no more speech than nude dancing, public urination, or a barroom brawl — although each of these things may express people’s thoughts and feelings. A constitutional amendment would not be our first choice for a response to the Court’s mistake. A statute to remove the issue from the federal courts, and thus restore state autonomy on the issue, would correct the error without requiring the Constitution to take notice of it. But the arguments against an amendment are weak, and their weaknesses help to make the case for it.”

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  10. Bother people? Sure.

    Get outrageously outraged that you keep blasting people for not getting it? Nah.

    NJRob (d53594)

  11. The difference is she has institutional support, media education, probably the board of major corporations

    narciso (d1f714)

  12. So, a few weeks ago, we looked inside the election box and found that the cat was — unexpectedly! — alive. We were all so sure the cat was dead, and we had made plans about what to do after we found that it was dead.

    This changed things. Rather than trying to find the bright side of a Trump loss, we were suddenly faced with finding the bright side of a Trump win. And saw almost immediately that there was a lot to like. “Trump” himself being the main drawback.

    So, what did the now-president-elect do? He actually transformed into someone more presidential. Enough to get the benefit of the doubt. His process of building an administration has been open (perhaps to a fault). His nominees so far have ranged from reasonable to fantastic. He has buried the hatchet with #NeverTrump (although his base seems less willing). He has, if grudgingly, moved away from his companies.

    But he still tweets, and those tweets seem almost calculated to inflame his opponents and stroke his base. And I am left to wonder 1) who is the real Trump and 2) has he discovered something useful about Twitter that the regular politicians missed?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  13. Both tweets should be properly recognized as trolling, with no likelihood of being an actual policy proposal. The correct response is an eyeroll in either case.

    Or a belly-laugh.

    On the one had you have people who take it all so seriously.
    On the other you have folks appreciating the absurd humor.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  14. There is that, I’m nonplussed by devos and chaos, but other choices are optimum.

    narciso (d1f714)

  15. @Kevin M:He has, if grudgingly, moved away from his companies.

    Yeah, I read that. Good on him if he can figure out a way to do it, without injuring the people who made licensing agreements with him.

    His freely choosing to do it is of course a completely different matter from his being made to do it.

    I’m sure there will still be plenty of other conflicts of interest to get concerned about.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  16. Take barrette brown, I dont regard his. Release so casually, be use he is part if a more amorphous entity, or Voldemort who holds no office, but is free to threaten any person he sees as a threat.

    narciso (d1f714)

  17. @Kevin M:2) has he discovered something useful about Twitter that the regular politicians missed?

    I have a strong suspicious than he is happily swimming with a strong cultural current that happens to be be pointed where he wants to go, and that if circumstances change greatly he might fail to adapt, as Macchiavelli says is true of most princes.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  18. this just makes me love Mr. Trump even more

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  19. There was a proposal in the New York Times that Trump appoint a “corporate monitor” for his businesses, and Kenneth Feinberg in particular.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/business/dealbook/how-trump-could-ease-his-conflict-of-interest-problem.html?_r=0

    It might be an idea to use him, not as a mere monitor to make reports, but either to flag off conflicts of interest or people and situations too corrupt to deal with, and pull out early; and to set prices in other places, either to buy or to sell, so that they will be set at their true value and at arms length.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  20. I wouldn’t be surprised if the flags Trump is goading the moonbat crazy leftists into burning are made at factories where he has a financial interest.

    He’s probably noticed how as the left continues to lose its s**t they call him a fascist and compare him to Hitler. So he advised his kids to make sure they ramp up the Che Guevara T-shirt production.

    I’m thinking of getting into the sideline of selling Che T-shirts. A few years back I saw someone wearing a Che T-shirt with the slogan “The true revolutionary is love.” I thought to myself these idiots don’t know a damned thing about Che. I’d love to take their money by making Che T-shirts only an idiot would wear.

    I think everyone knows I’m not a fan of Trump, and I’m far pissed off about his cabinet picks and potential cabinet picks (with Petraeus Trump would make history as the fist President to appoint a cabinet member still on criminal probation for mishandling classified; are you f***ing kidding me?). But I might as well make the best of it and turn a profit.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  21. “this just makes me love Mr. Trump even more”

    happyfeet

    ThOR (c9324e)

  22. LOL

    ThOR (c9324e)

  23. ThOR, I’m serious.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  24. A president doesn’t have to benefit personally to be accused of corruption, so eliminating conflicts of interest is not the whole solution:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/world/asia/south-korea-park-geun-hye-impeachment.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world/asia/park-geun-hye-south-korea-resign.html?_r=0

    The president of South Korea, Park Geun-hye is accused of letting a very close friend and supporter get government information, influence things that happened in government, and extort money from corporations.

    President Park Geun-hye has no family. Her mother was assassinated in 1974, and her father in 1980, when something he wanted to do was criticized on the grounds he couldn’t get way with it, and he casually spoke about what Pol Pot did. She was an only child, never married, and has no children.

    But there was a cult leader, Choi Tae-min, who founded something called the Church of Eternal Life and a self-proclaimed messiah, who had a adaughter she became friendly with. The father approached her after her mother was killed, and told her that her dead mother had spoken to him in his dreams.
    He took advantage of his contacts, and at least the appearance of influence, to solicit bribes and accumulate a family fortune. He’s now dead. But she got very close to his daughter, Choi Soon-sil, and this daughter has now been indicted (November 20).

    There are accusations of illegality and things thst aren’t illegal. When she ran for Parliament in the late 1990s, the family gave her money in cash. When she ran for president in 2012, . During her presidential campaign in 2012 and even after her inauguration, the daughter, Choi Soon-sil, edited Ms. Park’s speeches, which is not something illegal of course.

    When Park Geun-hye became president in February 2013, things started to happen.

    First, Choi Soon-sil managed to get a Seoul university to accept her daughter, and then to give her good grades, although she hardly attended any classes.

    The president shared with her friend (who had neither a security clearance nor the usually expected experience) secret and classified information on things like appointments to top government jobs and where the government planned to build a sports complex.

    In 2014 a police detective who worked in the president’s office filed a report in 2014 accusing relatives and associates of Ms. Choi of meddling in state affairs. The detective was reassigned, and was then charged with leaking government documents, convicted, and sent to prison. [which might have happened to some people in the FBI had Hillary Clinton been elected.]

    Also in 2014, Ms. Park told an aide to ask Hyundai Motor Company to sign a contract with a parts supplier, who is described in the article as a friend of her friend. Ms. Choi later collected $44,000 in kickbacks Later (Feb 2016?) the aide asked Hyundai to hire Ms. Choi’s advertising agency. Ms. Choi’s company earned $780,000 from that.

    Park Geun-hye has also been a little bit unpopular for a couple of other reasons, like coming out of her residence and saying something only after seven hours after the Sewol ferry disaster in 2014 happened. tghe disaster itself was probably caused by avoiding inspections.

    There are all kinds of demonstrations and polls put her popularity (maybe the good job question) at around 4%

    But there was no conflict of interest.

    It was her friend of 40 years (and political supporter) who made all this money, which maybe wasn’t all so much money, at least not that much government money, but one honest person got sent to jail because of all this. (businesses felt forced or incentivized to donate $69 million to two foundations this woman controlled.)

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  25. The point of the analogy is clear, and certainly a little soul-searching might be in order. On the other hand, I can’t help but feel that there is one critical difference.

    “Racist hate speech” covers a vast array of statements and media and has a demonstrable history of being abused as a label simply for speech the hearer disagrees with, for being imputed to speech that wasn’t even about a racist or hateful topic, and for being falsely but unfalsifiably attributed to people who never meant or even said any such thing — and a demonstrable history of being used this way by one side of the debate far more than the other.

    Physically burning an actual flag, on the other hand, is a specific and objective act, and in my observation and experience has almost never been misinterpreted to attribute motives to the burner he doesn’t possess… and it, too, has a demonstrable history of being used by one side far more than the other — and the same side, to boot.

    Pointing out ethical equivalence is rarely a bad thing. But allowing that equivalence to help us skid over the fact that one speaker here is being visibly more disingenuous than the other is not all that good a thing, either.

    Stephen J. (f77922)

  26. So relax, Trump defenders. I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m just having a little fun tweaking you. Patterico

    This is exactly what Trump is doing with his “perhaps loss of citizenship” comment. Here is someone who gets it:

    Both tweets should be properly recognized as trolling, with no likelihood of being an actual policy proposal. The correct response is an eyeroll in either case.
    matt d (d4aa6f) — 11/30/2016 @ 10:37 am

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  27. Ann Althouse has an analysis. See what happens at each of his upcoming stops.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  28. Double eye roll…

    Colonel Haiku (fa3dba)

  29. Judging by the frenzy, teh Trump is a world-class bait fisherman. He lands a sucker with every toss. Teh guy is going to go thru a yuge number of trolling motors and tubes o’ sunscreen.

    Colonel Haiku (fa3dba)

  30. I hate doing this but Hillary’s proposed flag-burning legislation is very different from Trump’s :

    In 2005, 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.

    That is from Steve57’s first link in comment 1. It takes existing law that limits speech when there is an intent to incite and applies it to flag-burning. Trump is not only willing to criminalize flag-burning per se, without any showing that it meets a Constitutional exception, but he is also willing to deprive someone of their citizenship.

    It’s very irritating to have to defend Hillary about anything. Only The Donald could say something so uninformed that it makes Hillary look halfway intelligent. I hope at some point he learns to sit down with the army of lawyers who work for him, many for free, and tries to learn something.

    DRJ (15874d)

  31. I’m with you Haiku.

    There’s little doubt that the MSM wants to yank Trump’s chain on a daily basis. By taking to Twitter, Trump gets to set the agenda in a way that pleases his base (and moderates, too, I might add), while producing a very predictable liberal hissy fit. I think he’s a natural Troll, which represents a delightful change from typical Republican behavior.

    Besides, at this point, it isn’t what the President-elect say, but what he does, that matters to me. What he has done is put together a cabinet that seems both appropriately ideological and strategically nuanced. I’m happy.

    I’d also like to give two cheers for my gal, Jill Stein. I was hoping she’d mess things up for the Democratic elite and she seem to be filling the bill.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  32. In the post-Trump era, there’ll be no going back to the shopworn cliche that we are the party of stuffy old people. That mantle is now with the Dems.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  33. I think that Trump ought to be criticized for really stupid ideas, like Palin running the VA. What does Trump have against the VA? She’d be much better at the EPA.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  34. A president doesn’t have to benefit personally to be accused of corruption

    A President doesn’t have to get out of bed to be accused of corruption. Or piracy, or eating children for breakfast, or …

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  35. As with Ben Carson, and housing, she has a real interest in the subject, it will probably go to hegseth or Scott brown.

    narciso (d1f714)

  36. Trump owes a lot to Palin. At a moment when his campaign seemed to be flagging, she stood up for him, much to my irritation.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  37. yes yes he should appoint Palin to something where you can do the job without a lot of experience or being smart

    she’s earned it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  38. When has that ever been a criteria for government work?

    ThOR (c9324e)

  39. Bell is running the EPA, interior is a prospect,

    narciso (d1f714)

  40. That fake tweet doesn’t bother me at all. It wouldn’t bother me if it was real either. Because Try it.

    J Palmer Cass (5a4596)

  41. yes yes he should appoint Palin to something where you can do the job without a lot of experience or being smart

    He cannot appoint her President.

    nk (dbc370)

  42. hah i get it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  43. Golly gosh. That’s almost as alarming as a Mitt Romney tweet– if it was real, or is it:

    Nobody should be allowed to engage in swearing- if they do, there must be consequences- perhaps a $10 fine in the cookie jar every time.

    “Godfrey Daniels!” – WC Fields

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  44. “I hate doing this but…”

    L.O.L.

    Colonel Haiku (fa3dba)

  45. Relax, Patterico. Trump was just having a little fun tweaking you.

    And yeah, I believe that is exactly what was going on, although “you” also includes a lot of the left.

    I voted for Trump as a lesser of evils. I was not Trumpite. But I too have gotten pretty tired of the continued anti-Trump tirades here. How about giving him the benefit of the doubt, at least once or twice?

    John Moore (508b53)

  46. I don’t blame you for doubting, Haiku. Trump will say anything, and one consequence is that it makes us doubt everyone and everything. Perhaps that’s part of his plan.

    DRJ (15874d)

  47. Trump is like merklewip he just makes the whole sammich better

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  48. “Perhaps that’s part of his plan.”
    – DRJ

    I think it’s more a reflex than a plan – 3 a.m. Tweeting is not planned.

    Watch what he does, not what he says.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  49. No, happy. It’s about finding the raisins in the Surpise Ball.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  50. “I hate doing this but…”

    L.O.L.

    Everyone knows DRJ loves her some Hillary. We know that because she has criticized Trump before and only pinko commies do that! He is the gold standard for conservatism! All the sarcastic ultra-partisans agree!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  51. I’m not sure why trolling is all of a sudden an admirable quality in a President.

    Obama has trolled people — remember all the times he pointedly scratched his face with a middle finger when talking about people he didn’t like?

    Hilarous amirite?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  52. @DRJ:Trump is not only willing to criminalize flag-burning per se, without any showing that it meets a Constitutional exception

    National Review called for a Constitutional amendment making that exception in 2006. I already linked to the unsigned editorial.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  53. What I believe was are seeing is a New Yorker’s ham-handed attempt to take charge of the media’s message. The good news is that it seems to be working. Remember how infuriated the media was when Reagan commandeered the narrative with his Saturday morning talks? Didn’t it please you? Don’t get me wrong, Trump is no Reagan, but shouldn’t this please you too?

    After all these months, it is hard to question Trump’s ability to make the media look bad. It is what I like best about him. I think he should keep it up. If there is something that has infuriated me over the years, it is how Republicans refuse to push back. Trent Lott’s “gentility” made me sick. Not Trump.

    By the way, you troll us some times and it delights me. Yesterday’s “no comment” post was marvelous.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  54. I’m not sure why trolling is all of a sudden an admirable quality in a President.

    Obama has trolled people — remember all the times he pointedly scratched his face with a middle finger when talking about people he didn’t like?

    Hilarous amirite?

    Patterico (115b1f) — 11/30/2016 @ 6:46 pm

    Not remotely the same. And it’s not because “it’s different when my guy does it.” Because Trump isn’t my guy. Some things really are different. Trump’s tweet is more like this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSSRE27GQ0

    Ronald Reagan – We Begin Bombing In 5 Minutes

    No, I’m not saying Trump is Reaganesque. But like Reagan, Trump knows he lives rent free inside the dysfunctional lefties heads.

    David Burge
    ‏@iowahawkblog

    David Burge Retweeted Sunsara Taylor

    Pavlov rings bell, dog salivates

    Sunsara Taylor @SunsaraTaylor

    Just burned US flag at Trump Hotel NYC. We REFUSE to Accept a Fascist America! Now your turn: #FlagBurningChallenge

    For the most part I don’t like Trump but I do enjoy watching him press the right button to put them in auto-beclown mode. The best part? Not even they believe their own BS. If Trump really was the second coming of Hitler, they’d be making like the Jews during the first coming of Hitler and getting the hell out of Dodge while they can. But none of those celebs who promised to leave the country is leaving the country.

    If Trump really was going to turn this country into a fascist dictatorship this Sunsara Taylor would not be burning the Nazi flag on the doorstep of the Reichsfuhrer’s Wolf’s Lair.

    These are just children playacting. They imagine themselves as the brave resistance standing up to the forces of evil. Pro-tip: posting pictures on social media of yourself resisting the forces of evil is no way to run an effective resistance against Hitler2.0. I have no idea what the WWII equivalent of Twitter might have been but I can guarantee you the French resistance stayed the hell away from it.

    Yet these children want us to think they’re so very brave and they are to be taken seriously. How can anyone take liars, hypocrites, and cowards who throw public tantrums about how much danger they’re in only because they know they’re perfectly safe seriously.

    What would it have taken for you to understand that Tweet wasn’t remotely serious? If Trump had said, “A year in prison, loss of citizenship, then deportation to Mars.” Would that have helped?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  55. Angry Anti-Trump Protesters Take the Bait, Bite Down Hard…

    These people are stupid. Really, really stupid.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442589/angry-anti-trump-protesters-take-bait-bite-down-hard

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  56. Whether you like it or not, and I am not overly fond of it, there will be x subset of y population so dogmatic in their beliefs that, yes, nothing will change their minds or prompt any soul searching whatsoever. It’s truly a shame. I might liken it to being labeled a dolt day after day by a blogger who willfully refuses to to examine, in a thoughtful way, why someone with an IQ above 50 might have voted for Trump.

    I’m glad that isn’t the case here. Whew.

    Estarcarus (cd97e1)

  57. Estarcarus, name the candidate in this last presidential election that someone with an IQ over 50 would have wanted to vote into office?

    Gary “What’s a Leppo?” Johnson?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  58. National Review called for a Constitutional amendment making that exception in 2006. I already linked to the unsigned editorial.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/30/2016 @ 7:12 pm

    I have no problem with a Constitutional amendment that outlaws flag-burning. I also understand Hillary’s call for criminalizing flag-burning that intends to incite people to violence. Trump didn’t call for either of those things. Instead, his tweet supports criminalizing flag-burning per se and supports depriving them of their citizenship. These are not the same things. They are very different approaches.

    I think you are focusing on flag-burning as the common link in these examples, but my concern is the process. These examples all involve flag-burning but they differ in how they approach a solution. Trump is dictating the approach that he wants. NR suggests an approach that I favor, a Constitutional amendment, that recognizes this would be a permanent Constitutional change. And Hillary is threading the needle by linking flag-burning to an existing exception, something I don’t like because I think it can be abused, but I can understand the process.

    DRJ (15874d)

  59. It misses the point . The. bell curve, because it discussed IQ differentials can be considered racist speech nowadays, denying the statisistics that the uva story was supposed to punctuate can be considered sexist.

    narciso (d1f714)

  60. 51.I’m not sure why trolling is all of a sudden an admirable quality in a President.

    Not least of which it often elevates more trifling critics and critiques. No one should care about what Rosie O’Donnell thinks about anything.

    It’s all rather oafish. Besides, there are better ways of getting a point across.

    JP (f1742c)

  61. @DRJ: Trump is dictating the approach that he wants.

    He didn’t dictate anything. He said There Oughta Be a Law, which is a very, very common sentiment, and he made two suggestions about what the legal consequences out to be.

    A very, very thin stew of is being made out of this oyster.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  62. Fun link and a great point, JP. Thanks.

    DRJ (15874d)

  63. Presidents effectively make laws through their regulatory powers, Gabriel. Obama did it and Trump supporters want Trump to do it, too. I don’t. I want Trump to limit, undo and eliminate regulations, not dictate new ones.

    DRJ (15874d)

  64. @DRJ:I want Trump to limit, undo and eliminate regulations, not dictate new ones.

    He said nothing about implementing any such regulation. He said only that there “should be consequences”, a sentiment with which most Americans agree.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  65. Why not tweet about all the things he will eliminate, not the new rules he desires? Maybe because it’s no fun to be a conservative who wants to govern.

    Far more fun to troll and irritate the media/left. Trump is so hilarious, isn’t he? Just what the Founders imagined in a President.

    DRJ (15874d)

  66. @DRJ:Just what the Founders imagined in a President.

    The Founders imagine only white males in that role, and the franchise extended only to the well-off.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  67. Not to mention that Trump is not even in office yet. And I can’t speak for you, DRJ, but I don’t need to be “governed” and the more time a President spends tweeting, or golfing, or anything other than “governing” the happier I am.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  68. Don’t make the better the enemy of the good.

    It’s a dead end.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  69. When Trump does follow through on his promises, what is the cost?

    First, Trump takes the credit but Pence negotiated it. Second, it will cost government $7M over 10 years, all to save 800 Carrier blue collar jobs and 300 white collar jobs, all while 1,300 jobs still go to Mexico.

    This is how a populist governs and it’s why process matters as much as results. Are you happy, taxpayers?

    DRJ (15874d)

  70. I’m not giving up on better, even if it does look impossible.

    DRJ (15874d)

  71. Like it or not, you are governed, Gabriel. Especially when the Presidents have egos like Trump and Obama.

    DRJ (15874d)

  72. ‘it’s me’

    I’m guessing when you faked that tweet, you were just popping off. So no big deal.

    SteveD (5efec9)

  73. ‘The correct response is an eyeroll in either case.’

    No, because the speech still indicates their beliefs, the correct response is to never put either one of them into a position of power again. (and vomiting seems a more appropriate physical response than eyeroll)

    SteveD (5efec9)

  74. DRJ,

    Those are the visible costs for UTC to provide Trump with a photo-op rally backdrop. The total costs will be buried in approved change orders in government contracts. UTC has more than a few of those, along with very good personnel assigned to Swamp Center.

    Rick Ballard (d17095)

  75. I knew the tweet wasn’t real because it had emotion and verve. Hillary only has soul-sucking evil.

    Ingot (e5bf64)

  76. Steve57 – That wasn’t the calculus – the nominations were set. And I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Hillary. If I were living in a deep blue state, I would’ve written in Mickey Mouse. But I live in what was considered a toss up state breaking for Trump in the final days of the campaign. Any vote other than Trump would have been, in effect, a vote for Hillary. So I held my nose and pulled the lever. I rationalized it, I admit: I came to the conclusion that the main difference between the two candidates was who would be impeached first. So I really voted for Pence. I think this election put many people, intelligent or otherwise, in an untenable position: damned either way.

    But the deed is done and here we are. I suppose we can keep flogging the mouth breathers who voted Trump, but I’m not sure I see the point. Because, not everyone who voted for the guy is a dogmatic zealot who will bow down and simply excuse anything the man does. If he be a tyrant, mete out the only mercy one might show such: tighten the noose, kick the chair and let him swing – quick and nearly pain free.

    Estarcarus (cd97e1)

  77. Mr. Trump is doing good on the policies and the leadership.

    Even Meghan’s despicable coward daddy’s keeping his fool mouth shut.

    it’s very festive

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  78. you watch what happens when he zaps one of those 50 regulations, that govern that plant’s operation, like adjusting the levels of allowable mercury,

    narciso (d1f714)

  79. he’s a very good zapper i feel

    #luvinthatdonald

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  80. ot, you notice there is a pecking order of grievance,

    https://twitter.com/exjon/status/804105770824396801

    narciso (d1f714)

  81. “Far more fun to troll and irritate the media/left. Trump is so hilarious, isn’t he? Just what the Founders imagined in a President.”

    Ben Franklin never got elected, so we had to divide his womanizing and love of electricity between two specialists.

    As far as the forced memeing goes, it doesn’t work all that well because you can easily imagine Hillary implementing it or something like it if she got power, and one of the reasons so many people voted for Trump in the first place is to avoid precisely the 100% tax on wealth (or more likely, earning potential) that Hillary Clinton and her liberal cronies inflict on people all the damn time.

    A ban on flag burning is distasteful in a majority-white/cis/Christian America, but the multicultural nation needs its common laws simply and strictly enforced and doesn’t have time for Anglo-Saxon niceties about ‘free expression’, a phrase never found in the Constitution. The Supreme Court rulings on the subject were right for a different time and a different America, but should not be taken as normative in the aftermath of a 30-year liberal despoilation of the culture and the people.

    TheExcruciationator (65835d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3363 secs.