Patterico's Pontifications

1/18/2017

President Trump Will Be the Same Man Non-President Trump Was

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:08 pm



I agree with almost every word in this article. Here is the part that resonates for me:

We will not change him—no one can. His children may be able to soften the edges and his most trusted advisers may deflect him off his erratic courses, but nothing will teach him gravitas, magnanimity, or wisdom. Until he is impeached, thrown out of office in four years, succumbs to illness, or lasts through eight years, he is what we have learned he is, and will remain so.

Seemingly unrelated digression that is actually related:

I’ve been listening to The Great Courses lately on Audible — in particular the music courses. (I’ll have a lot more to say about these. It’s a great deal; as an Audible Platinum member you pick up a 24-hour-long course, that sells for hundreds of dollars on the Great Courses site, for less than $12. Try a free trial.) One of my favorite parts of the music courses are the biographical stories — and there are a couple of great stories about the composers Beethoven and Liszt and their attitude towards royalty. I’ll give you links to other sources, but I heard these stories on the Great Courses series of lectures:

The Beethoven stories:

A nobleman once talked during a performance. Beethoven stopped playing and declared, “For such pigs, I do not play!”

He would say to the face of a prince and benefactor,
“What you are, is by accident of birth;
What I am, I created myself.
There are, and have been, thousands, of princes;
There is only one Beethoven.”

Another story, which you can read here, is about Franz Liszt, who was playing a concert in Russia when Czar Nicholas I arrived late and started yammering during Liszt’s performance. Liszt stopped playing and bowed his head. When Nicholas asked why, Liszt replied: “Music herself should be silent when Nicholas speaks.”

Ha!

These really resonated with me because at heart I respect people for their actions and not their titles.

I do not believe Donald Trump the President will be different from Donald Trump the non-President. “We will not change him — no one can. . . . [H]e is what we have learned he is, and will remain so.”

Please do not expect me to start respecting him just because he happens to hold power. I’m a Beethoven fan, and worshiping people because of their titles is just not how my personality works.

495 Responses to “President Trump Will Be the Same Man Non-President Trump Was”

  1. Don’t respect him because he is president.

    But, I think he has earned some respect by winning this election. I was stunned when he won the nomination, I wrote him off when his tax return came out, for pussygate, and when he said he would rely on social media instead of a ground game to get off the vote.

    Then, the night of the election, I connected to http://www.nytimes.com to watch their dial swing from 90% Clinton to 100%. Instead, I had to keep connecting and watch that dial slowly swing the other direction, all the way to a Trump win. At that point, Trump earned a certain amount of respect, not for his behavior, but for his results.

    Now, well, I wait and see. His behavior on Twitter is juvenile and idiotic. On the other hand, most (not all) of his appointments are strong conservatives that I like.

    I’m resigned to spending 4 to 8 years with an oafish buffoon in the White House, but I’m cautiously optimistic that the policy and political results will be at least better than Clinton would have been and, if he can get over his mancrush on Putin, perhaps actually quite good.

    Michael Friedman (d47c90)

  2. mr. trump the donald is whimsical

    nk (dbc370)

  3. I’ve been reassured Trump intends to start acting Presidential any day now. The 12-year old troll act was just a magnificent ruse he’s been playing at for half a century simply to get to where he’s at now. You’ll see.

    Jerryskids (3308c1)

  4. Only one more shopping day until Mr Donald evicts that nasty Obama family from the people’s house!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  5. I have noticed that anyone who has made predictions about Trump
    ie “he will never get the nomination” “he will never be President”

    Has been wrong so rather than listen to a lot of assumptions by people
    who already have made up their minds about what is going to happen

    I think I will just wait to see what reality turns out to be like,

    kentuckydan (6ad74f)

  6. we must give him adoration

    that he can bask in

    then he will be so nice

    and it will be nice

    the winters will be warmer and the seas won’t rise

    nk (dbc370)

  7. Just what would a Trumpectomy look like?

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  8. I have noticed that anyone who has made predictions about Trump
    ie “he will never get the nomination” “he will never be President”

    Has been wrong

    Yeah, I never really claimed to be much of an expert on mass psychology. Indeed, I have always admitted I am bad at “politics” and predicting the outcome of races.

    I do find, though, that when people reach the age of 70 they tend not to change as people.

    Patterico (2975ef)

  9. Before 2016 I used to maintain that character didn’t matter; all that mattered was the people in office voting and acting the way I want them to.

    I changed my mind in 2016. But now I just have to hope I was right before.

    Patterico (2975ef)

  10. I agree with much of what Michael Friedman says, though. Have I seen that commenter before? I like the cut of his jib. Welcome!

    Patterico (2975ef)

  11. In just a couple of days America loses a president that actually won most of the votes in an election at some point. And gains the most unpopular president-elect in history. I bet Obama is secretly pleased that his mediocre presidency will be compared against what’s about to happen. I hope Trump proves him wrong and is so incredibly successful that political lines are redrawn. He won, so anything could happen.

    The Trump fan’s line ‘well we won so we must be right about everything now’ doesn’t make a lot of sense for those who think Obama was wrong most of the time. Cocky is the game these days.

    I’ll differ with Patterico to the extent that I’ll respect the office and the immense responsibility and pressure. Trump’s success is my country’s success now. I hope Trump is not corrupt in his dealings with the enemies of freedom (such as Putin, such as Hillary). I hope he is honorable in his personal affairs and does not use his office to abuse women subordinates. I hope he is truthful and transparent and discloses his tax returns, which turn out to show nothing scandalous worth hiding all this time. I hope he respects the troops, even the ones who get captured or don’t lie their way out of military service obligations. I also hope I win the lottery (and I don’t even play).

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  12. I am a consistent and broken record with respect to my caution to everybody about trusting the veracity of “polls”. I neither believe that President Obama leaves office at 60% popularity or that Donald Trump is the most unpopular President-elect in history. The polls we are shown are there primarily to set up and support “the narrative”. That’s all. Did we not learn that lesson during the election cycle?

    elissa (bd880b)

  13. I do find, though, that when people reach the age of 70 they tend not to change as people.

    Reagan did. ‘Course the attempt on his life was a painful catalyst. For instance, he made the long walk from ‘Evil Empire’ to strolling w/Gorby through Red Square defusing the line before cameras.

    People have underestimated Trump much of his life which has worked to his advantage. The POTUS gig will change him. It’s inevitable.

    “Give George a headline and he’s good for another thirty miles.” – Omar Bradley [Karl Malden] ‘Patton’ 1970

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  14. There is no news. There is only the truth of the signal. What I see. And, there’s the puppet theater the Parliament jesters foist on the somnambulant public.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  15. Don’t respect him because he is president…

    Very Maxine Waters. And a tad peevish.

    “We salute the rank, not the man.” – Maj. Dick Winters [Damian Lewis] ‘Band of Brothers’ HBO TV, 2001

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  16. Did we not learn that lesson during the election cycle?

    elissa

    He lost the vote handily. By millions. But reality can be difficult for the die hard partisan. Donald is uniquely awful and most Americans and voters care about that.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  17. I would only wish that people gave Trump the same benefit of the doubt that they gave Obama. Even if they don’t like the man, repeating Democrat talking points to an audience that is tired of Democrat talking points is just going to grate.

    I did not vote for Trump. I would have preferred any number of other candidates (but not all: Kasich, Jeb, Huckleberry and Santorum come to mind). But I am willing to give him a chance — the people he is appointing to cabinet posts are [far] better than I expected. If he is content to be a figurehead and let these very capable people carry the ball, this could work.

    And in any event, random acts would be better than the last 8 years.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  18. I wrote him off when his tax return came out

    I did not. I was upset though when he wouldn’t defend it in a logical way: Money-losing years offset money-winning years. But he could not admit that he ever lost money.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  19. Most of the upset that a lot of us #NeverTrump had was a feeling of a lost opportunity. He was, it seemed, the only GOP candidate the Hillary could beat, and to see 20 years of party-building tossed away was frustrating.

    Then he won. By the skin of his teeth, but he won. Given the full-court press against him, with everyone and his dog calling him everything under the sun, with NO newspaper endorsements, the fact that he won anyway shows the depth of the anti-Democrat feeling.

    I hope to hell that there will be progress under Trump. There’s a chance. The Supreme Court won’t be Communists for a generation. And the Democrat Party seems impatient to lose more.

    Time will tell.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  20. And gains the most unpopular president-elect in history.

    Well, with all the knives going in from his own side, this isn’t surprising. On the other hand, he knows going in that there is no point in making nice-nice, so he won’t squander everything like W did.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  21. I don’t know if I can agree with this assessment, at least for now.

    Presidential candidate almost always pivot once in the office. Obama made some vague promises to close Gitmo, officially recognize the Armenian genocide and pass immigration reform on the first 100 day in office. It never happened.

    IT was kinda obvious that Trump winged the first debate. He barely mentioned the email gate. But he was still in his “I’m winning” mode. All that changed once the tape was leaked. He canceled / delayed events so he could focus on debate prep and decided to go right at Clinton.

    Arnold came into office roaring like a lion but after his measures were defeated he became a “let’s work together” moderate. The same thing could happen to Trump. He may even appear more populist conservative so he can score or take credit for midterm wins. He’s already dropped all pretense of caring about prosecuting Clinton and has already assured Japan and Korea that existing alliances will be honored. “Pay more for your own stinking defense” is largely out the window.

    He’s still a populist hawk, because “America first” is definitely IN right now. No reason to stop threatening companies from slapping silly tariffs, especially when these companies are stroking his ego and going out of their way to announce domestic investments and jobs (that were already in motion before the election). He can still a lot of mileage out of that.

    lee (55777a)

  22. He lost the vote handily. By millions.

    Several million CA Republicans did not vote. If you look at what happened in the state initiatives, only leftists voted in CA in 2016. Things that lost in 2014 and 2010 were back and won handily.

    That was all the difference. California has managed to get their elections to the point where Republicans are excluded from the ballot in many places.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  23. I would only wish that people gave Trump the same benefit of the doubt that they gave Obama.

    Obama really was a bit of a mystery. He was the guy who voted present. I guess his affiliation with Ayers said something, but not much if you figured him for an opportunist in Chicago. I was hoping he would be the man in his 2004 speech who united our country. Of course he wasn’t that man, but that doesn’t mean the cynics were more insightful into the unknowable.

    Trump isn’t a mystery. I’ll spare you the list of reasons he is not. You’re a smart guy and you know what I’d say.

    I hope Trump is successful. I’m rooting for him. But we know what he is as a person, and that’s been set for decades now.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  24. IMO, the fundamental error in Patrick’s analysis is equating the Trump persona with Trump the man.

    For a long time I have been convinced that the two are separable. I think he has been “on stage” for most of his adult life, and he’s developed a bombastic meglomanical persona that gets and captures attention while he’s there.

    But behind closed doors and away from the TV Kleig lights, I suspect this guy is much more thoughtful and deliberative.

    For 40 years he has demonstrated the ability to formulate a goal in his mind, and rapidly put in place a plan to achieve that goal. That’s what “The Art of The Deal” is all about.

    I don’t think that particular book is all that enlightening — in fact it was simply one of the earliest efforts to build up the Trump “brand”.

    But he’s demonstrated a wildly successful ability to develop tactics from strategy in pursuit of his goals, and to adjust when necessary.

    I think one of the things he shows and extraordinary discipline at is delegation, and keeping focused on the goal. He’s going to be the opposite of a policy wonk — his best business is that of a pitchman. So, he’s going to cheerlead his Administration, and use the bully pulpit like no President before him. That’s why to me the most critical pieces of the Trump Admin. are the Cabinet Secretaries and the Dep. Secretaries. I think on all but a few issues, Policy is going to come from the House with Pence and Ryan working together, and the Generals are going to control defense and foreign policy.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  25. And gains the most unpopular president-elect in history.

    Well, with all the knives going in from his own side, this isn’t surprising. On the other hand, he knows going in that there is no point in making nice-nice, so he won’t squander everything like W did.

    Kevin M

    No, it’s not surprising in the slightest and I think everyone who is aware at all can see that a whole lot of folks, including a lot of conservatives, do not intend to give Trump a whole lot of respect.

    You make a great point. Trump very well could benefit from not bothering to try to please everyone and just do what must be done. A crude comparison could be Fiorina saving Hewlett Packard from itself, and then being kicked out from a much healthier company. The USA needs some really painful changes. Trump probably is smart enough to be aware of it. If he does it, I still will think he’s a bastard, but I’ll certainly come around to supporting him.

    Unfortunately, that’s not who Trump is. He cares deeply about what people think of him. Particularly people like Chuck Schumer and Vladimir Putin.

    Several million CA Republicans did not vote

    Maybe they didn’t support Trump then. Their not voting is itself a choice. And a whole lot of democrats didn’t vote for Hillary (I would say this is where the election was actually decided, and why the exposure of the democrat primary shenanigans was so powerful).

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  26. Dustin–

    The election was not about the popular vote. That’s a Democrat whining point. Sad I have to hear it from people who should know better. Only an idiot runs a popular-vote effort in an electoral-vote election. There are few things that benefit the GOP, but the electoral college’s bias against big cities is one of them. Only a fool would not use it.

    A lot of people underestimated Trump’s election strategy, and they are continuing to underestimate him. His cabinet appointments have been brilliant (for the most part — I have no respect for Ben Carson). Yet instead of saying “boy that guy sure knows what he’s doing” I hear instead the Democrat talking points regurgitated by people who should be on his side. Just because they hate Trump.

    So, yes, Trump is a assh0le. Get over it. He won’t be the first, nor even all that unusual.

    Why not wait for him to eff up instead of attacking him out of spite?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  27. @16. Pfft.

    Two teams, T & H, are in a best of seven game World Series.

    Game 1: T 2, H 1. Win for T.
    Game 2: T 2, H 6. Win for H.
    Game 3: T 1, H 9. Win for H.
    Game 4: T 6, H 5. Win for T.
    Game 5: T 9, H 8. Win for T.
    Game 6: T 6, H 7. Win for H.
    Game 7: T 4, H 3. Win for T.

    Team T wins it all!

    Bbbbbut wait, Team T only scored 30 runs while Team H scored 39 runs. And Team H loses?!

    Yep. Thems the rules. Hit the showers.

    “Baseball been berry, berry good to me!” – Chico Escuela [Garrett Morris] ‘SNL’ NBC TV

    _________

    Pragmatist Trump knows Russia is a partner in space and an adversary on Earth. But his immediate enemies are the extreme ideologues, both liberal and conservative, brooding amongst his own countrymen. A new Chief Executive has earned the right to succeed or fail and as citizen stockholders, we will hold him accountable. Give him three or four quarters and let’s see how he, and our firm, is performing by the next fiscal year.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  28. OT: Feds claim 2016 hottest year ever. Most reports of this have no numbers. Why? Because it was hotter by 0.01 degrees, with an error or +/- 0.1 degrees. Which, if you reported that in your college science lab, would get you a nasty comment from the TA about significant figures and statistical noise.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  29. Kevin, I’m aware of the electoral college. I never said Trump didn’t win the election. But he did fail to get anywhere near as many votes as Hillary. The nation simply doesn’t like him as much as they liked her, and this is a point worth making as we talk about the respect and mandate of the unpopular president-elect.

    Why not wait for him to eff up instead of attacking him out of spite?

    I actually said I was rooting for his success, repeatedly. I’m not being spiteful at all, but I’m also not some partisan quisling, licking the boot of a politician who has repeatedly been a disgraceful person, just because he’s on Team R.

    His cabinet appointments have been brilliant

    Sessions is good. The rest make no sense to me, but at least are an improvement over the previous cabinet. Nikki Haley as UN Ambassador? Why? But she’s better than Samantha Power, just as you would be better than her. Tillerson is the exact opposite of draining the swamp and the ultimate insider, but compared to John Kerry I would see improvement in a ham sandwich.

    Perhaps it’s not me who needs to get over it. People are going to criticize your Republican president. You’re going to complain about it for four years? Try making the comments section here better instead of insulting people who have a different point of view.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  30. Basically, I will give Trump the same benefit of the doubt that I gave Obama in 2009. Again, it is sad to see that so-called conservatives siding with folks who would gladly put them up against a wall and shoot them, just because they didn’t get the Republican they wanted in office.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  31. I actually said I was rooting for his success, repeatedly

    In between knife thrusts.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  32. Also, why is the electoral college a good thing?

    I get why it’s beneficial to partisan Republicans, but why should one citizen’s vote count more than another’s? they say because politicians would cater to the majority of voters in 8 or so states, or cater to the urban areas. So? If that’s where most of the citizens are, why is this any more wrong than catering to baby boomers or any other democratic calculation?

    ‘Well that’s a democrat whine!!!!!!’ True. So what? While they are motivated by the same dumb partisanship that GOP defenders of the electoral college are motivated by, I’m just thinking how disenfranchising one vote to favor another is unfair before the law, and therefore is contrary to basic classical liberalism.

    The hilarious thing is that the same people who sneer at the popular vote also do not actually want a functional electoral college, where electors reject the popular vote winner in each state if they feel that person should not be president. They don’t have any ethos other than utility.

    The real problem is that the country is unnecessarily large, with a government far too divorced from accountability. We would be better off if the nation split apart into several countries (a lot fewer than 50, but several).

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  33. UN Ambassadors just have to be able to talk and toe the party line.

    Tillerson is about business and is without a doubt a supremely capable man. You don’t get to the top of a $400 billion company on jive. There’s lots of swamp to drain without going after private companies.

    I don’t much care for Sessions, actually — he LOVES civil forfeiture. I’ll be flabbergasted if there is any meaningful action on illegals. He would not have been my pick. However, I reserve judgement until I see what happens with the IRS folks.

    Carson is a joke.

    And the health care thing is just as likely to destroy the GOP at the midterm as it did Obama. From what I’m hearing out of Congress, they seem just as out of touch as the Dems were. Sadly to 90% of the population, Obamacare is a spectator sport. The people who are in it know better and fuc&ing them over backwards is going to get them just as angry as they were in 2010.

    I for one am going to wait and see.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  34. Again, it is sad to see that so-called conservatives siding with folks who would gladly put them up against a wall and shoot them, just because they didn’t get the Republican they wanted in office.

    Kevin M

    You are intensely worried about telling people they shouldn’t think their naughty thoughts.

    Your reasoning is very poor. It’s actually possible to be a conservative and disagree with both the democrats and Trump. You don’t have to ‘side with’ one of two sides. George Washington condemned your reasoning in his farewell address. This sick partisanship allows foreign influence and weakens our democracy, says both he and I.

    I will give Trump the same benefit of the doubt that I gave Obama in 2009.

    Congratulations. But can you be specific? What are you doubting about Trump that he benefits from? That he’s conservative? That he’s going to build a wall? What are your standards for Trump’s presidency that you’re hopeful about? Apparently they are lofty if my own hopes for Trump are insufficient.

    In between knife thrusts.

    I barely talk about Trump at all. The election is over. Clearly my views made no difference. I’m not sure what you think the great injustice here is. I hope Trump succeeds. I hope he’s so good I support him in four years. He remains a deeply immoral man and is provably the most unpopular president-elect since scientific polling existed. His mandate, and indeed the crowing of his partisans, should have that asterisk. Your retort that democrats agree is not very persuasive because they are correct on this point.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  35. The electoral college is the ONLY thing that has allowed the USA to last this long.

    It was designed so that people in one state did not have to trust vote counting in other states. Even today, I don’t trust vote-counting in Chicago, or California. With the EC they can still cheat, but the vote they pad doesn’t mean anything as anyone who can cheat big owns the state anyway.

    It also allows recounts. You only have to recount a state or two. Picture a 50-state recount with the same level of tomfoolery as Florida 2000.
    Also, why is the electoral college a good thing?

    It forces the contest to consider a wide selection of issues, rather than just the issues that matter to big cities. Sure, not every state is contested every time, but a cross-section of states are, and they change from time to time.

    It was INTENDED to be a tie-breaker in close elections. The candidate with the most states has an advantage when it’s close. That’s how W won in 2000, and Trump had about 20 electoral votes for this effect as well.

    It doesn’t always work for the GOP though. Assigning electoral votes by Congressional district would have given the 2012 election to Romney. Don’t like that though, as it just gives more reason to gerrymander.

    why should one citizen’s vote count more than another’s?

    Let’s talk about the Senate then. California should have like 12% of the Senate.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  36. That quote went in the wrong place.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  37. Well, I hope for one thing that he’s better at picking Supreme Court justices than Nixon, Ford, or GHWB were. The 3 of them picked 3 conservatives and 4 liberals.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  38. eliot’s yet another whiny disaffected harvardtrash elitist I think

    butthurt ivy leaguers are much less relevant than they fancy themselves to be

    I don’t know how to help them

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  39. Meanwhile, the fellow Trump replaces, came in like a messiah, goes out like a bum. Trump will be a breath of fresh air in a world gone stale.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  40. “I am alive because I went to get something from my car”*

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  41. “And gains the most unpopular president-elect in history.”

    More under-polling of the writer’s grey matter.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  42. Please do not expect me to start respecting him just because he happens to hold power.

    Is this said with the expectation that most people here disagree, and need to be informed of this opinion,
    or in commiseration, knowing that most people here agree and our host wants to find a place of like-minded folk?

    I, and I don’t think most people here, expect you to respect Trump because he has a title,
    a lot of us sure didn’t respect Obama because of his title,
    but evaluated him on what he believed and what he did.

    But some of us have the concern that for the next number of years everything will be
    “TRUMP!!!”

    And any meaningful discussion of anything will be swept aside,
    and we don’t want an outbreak of Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia,
    and being quick to go along with a story instead of watching (and helping) things to shake out.

    And we have reason to want meaningful discussion,
    my daughter now goes to what is considered by many to be an elite public high school
    which has trouble recognizing advances in molecular biology and physiology.

    It wasn’t that many years ago that people were looking for a “gay gene” to prove that being gay was “natural” and should be accepted as such;
    now, pretty much the same people I think,
    want us to believe that there is no significant difference between having 2 X chromosomes and an X and a Y chromosome,
    and other things,
    whatever the other things are,
    determine what “gender” a person rightly considers them self.

    Everything in headlines is a misdirection.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  43. Oh Colonel,
    that is such a distressing thought…
    One more thing to pray about this morning,
    and I already had quite a few things of no small consequence.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  44. Two thoughts, MD… 1) it is what it is; 2) so far, the new fellow has tried to bring some savvy, capable people on board to provide advice and counsel, and that brings some hope with it. The old, entrenched, monolithic government bureaucracy that opposes everything the new guard threatens them with, and they will not go down without a fight.

    Potential game-changer.

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  45. I’m just thinking how disenfranchising one vote to favor another is unfair before the law, and therefore is contrary to basic classical liberalism.

    Dustin, I think I see what you mean but forgive me: I don’t see how anyone is being disenfranchised here. No one is revoking or restricting the rights of ordinary Californians or Texans from voting at the polls.

    Even in first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system countries which do not use the electoral college, and therefore dodge the issue of Poobah Contrarian Electors, “battleground” regions where votes are more hotly contested (and therefore “worth more” in the contest for office) are inevitable. This has been a feature of FPTP systems ever since the time of John Stuart Mill.

    JP (f1742c)

  46. The so-called popular vote in our election for POTUS is just another Democrat talking point.

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  47. I agree about the meaninglessness of the popular vote. Sorry, Dustin. Presidents become Presidents by operation of law. Not by inheritance like the king of England, and not by anointment like David. The law says that the states elect the President, by a majority of elector votes (that majority seems important for some reason), not a nationwide popular vote.

    nk (dbc370)

  48. that majority *requirement*

    nk (dbc370)

  49. I’m a Beethoven fan, and worshiping people because of their titles is just not how my personality works.

    Well said, Your Lordship, well said.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  50. It’s always wonderful to see Dustin posting. Even when we disagree on some things (like the electoral college), his thinking is still so similar to mine that it’s uncanny. It’s nice to have someone who agrees with you being vocal in the comments. Makes you feel less alone.

    This quote resonated with me:

    Perhaps it’s not me who needs to get over it. People are going to criticize your Republican president. You’re going to complain about it for four years? Try making the comments section here better instead of insulting people who have a different point of view.

    I also found Kevin M’s comments revealing in a different way. It seems that if you criticize Trump you are a “so-called conservative” who “sides with” people who would shoot us (apparently meaning the radical left) and is constantly sticking knives in Mr. Trump’s back.

    That, right there, is a perfect encapsulation of the attitude that is so distressing and puzzling to me. If you want to redefine “conservatism” to mean “anything that Donald Trump favors” then I will happily surrender the label to you. I prefer the label “classical liberal” anyway, and part of the point of this post is my disregard for labels and titles.

    But to act as though folks like Dustin and I have abandoned our principles is insane. We both will be fighting for Trump when he does right. I remain confident that he will soon name Bill Pryor or someone similar to the Supreme Court and I will be fighting tooth and nail for that person.

    But that’s not good enough for Kevin M. I have to stop criticizing Trump entirely, because otherwise I am a backstabber and siding with the wrong side. How else am I supposed to interpret Kevin M’s own comments in this thread?

    Screw that. Here’s the thing: if that is your attitude, and your words say it is, then I can’t be a “backstabber” because You and I are not on the same side. Nor am I a traitor because you are the one who left, not me. I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me, to paraphrase a great man.

    I suspect we are looking at a sort of civil war here. It’s people who demand fealty to Trump at all times and criticize any criticism of him, vs. those of us who are determined to hold the same principles we always held.

    That’s too bad, because civil wars are ugly. I didn’t choose this fight, but if that is the fight I will damn sure not run away from it.

    Maybe there is a different interpretation of Kevin M’s bizarre and repeated “backstabber” “joined up with the enemy” style commentary here. I hope so, and if there is I would like to know what it is.

    Patterico (2975ef)

  51. Kerry was only 60k votes short in OH in 2004. I think we never hear about popular v. electoral again if Kerry got that 272.

    urbanleftbehind (e959b1)

  52. Well said, Your Lordship, well said.

    Heh. Thanks, Hoagmeister. How’s your health these days?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  53. I wrote him off when his tax return came out

    Just the first pages of his 1995 New York State, New Jersey and Connecticut tax returns, which revealed most of the figures on the first page of his 1995 federal tax return.

    18. Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/19/2017 @ 12:14 am

    I did not. I was upset though when he wouldn’t defend it in a logical way: Money-losing years offset money-winning years. But he could not admit that he ever lost money.

    Except that he didn’t lose most of the money – other people did, because most of it was borrowed. And when the loans were forgiven, the tax loss didn’t get added back to his income. This was a loophole that was closed only later, and might still be available in a different form.

    I think actually maybe he had to do even a little bit more to benefit from this loophole (not to get the forgiven loans added back to his income) I think what he did was a debt for equity exchange, so that, technically, the loans were not forgiven, but a share in his casino company was, in effect, sold, but not in a way so that created income for him personally. You have to think about what happened here.

    We know some things also because of filings to te New Jersey casino control commission.

    None of that was illegal. He was always following the advice of tax attorneys (who however, did use cautious, protective language in their notes to the casino commission – there could be as little as a one third chance it would hold up in court in the end for them to use such language)

    Also, most of this was only available to people who spent at least 15% of their work time in the real estate business (the IRS’s interpretation of who is not a passive investor in real estate) Otherwise real estate losses are limited to $3,000 a year, like other capital losses, and/or deductible only against real estate income.

    We could deduce this, but making the tax returns available would make what went on really clear. There might also be some other issues.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  54. You’ll always have CNN… keep hope alive! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxIG4dduqy0&ebc=ANyPxKpk34d1IX5ATuuj3gqOoPWOJ6WOH5hMJiB64Pgffw4CQ76yII6HJ1cuyFDt3N9MP_dKcjij
    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 1/19/2017 @ 5:19 am

    Wow!I can’t believe they even brought it up! It is like screaming “who will rid us of these troubling priests?” to the entire nation.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  55. I had to fight back teh bile, I was so ashamed of even linking them, felipe.

    THAT is cnn.

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  56. It’s people who demand fealty to Trump at all times and criticize any criticism of him, vs. those of us who are determined to hold the same principles we always held.

    Who is that — other than Happyfeet?

    When you label Trump backers with this kind of sweeping characterization is when I take offense, and fight back.

    I’m not 100% on his cabinet picks. I hate to see a cabinet position going to a person whose only real basis for being selected is campaign contributions — DeVos. Yes she’s a longtime passionate advocate of charter schools and school choice, but that’s not enough for me to justify appointing her to run DOE. Heck, if there was one cabinet position that should have gone to a corporate reorganization specialist, it was DOE.

    But he doesn’t need to be 100% with me on issues for me to back the direction of his administration, and to sleep much better when I compare whose getting those jobs to who Clinton might have put in those jobs.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  57. Some gotta win, some gotta lose
    Stumbles McCankles got teh blues…

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/19/hard-luck-hillary-clinton-s-second-case-of-the-inaugural-blues.html

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  58. We just got through 8 years of being accused of racism by the Left if we criticized President Obama and his policies. Are we to now assume, on the eve of Trump’s presidency, that accusations of racism will be replaced by the Right with cute invectives like, “knife-gougers,” or something to that effect? I’d like to get the rules straight before going forward. After all, the last thing I’d want to do is offend anyone on the Right by remaining equally willing to be either supportive and/or critical of this president as I was with the previous president.

    These presidents are but fallible men with massive egos, doing an immensely difficult job that obviously impacts us all, for better or worse. More importantly, they work for us and are therefore accountable to us. Let’s remember that as we move forward. Not every criticism is a personal attack because he is a less-than ideal man, in the same way, not every voice of support is bacuse he is only because he is a wealthy one-per enter and powerful man.

    Dana (b2c02c)

  59. Our esteemed host wrote:

    Please do not expect me to start respecting him just because he happens to hold power.

    Might we expect you to start respecting him if he proves to be a good President?

    Obviously, he isn’t President quite yet, but he’s picked some outstanding people to work in his administration, and his America-first message has had a positive economic impact on some companies. I didn’t vote for him because I heard what he was like, but that was through the filter of the media; I’ve never met the man. I can tolerate him being an [insert slang term for the rectum here] personally, as long as he does his job fairly well.

    I like what I’ve seen so far in what he has done.

    The Dana who voted for Gary Johnson (1b79fa)

  60. 1. “Conserving” the Supreme Court.
    2. Shrinking the Leviathan.

    That’s about all I expect, or want, from the new president. I subscribe to de Toqueville’s view that our real genius is mandatory elections every four years.

    And said shrinking is about to commence. If Trump can pull this off without blood in the streets, I will be the first to congratulate him.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/19/oh-baby-dramatic-cuts-are-coming-to-federal-government/

    Patricia (5fc097)

  61. I hope this goes better than last time, though I think the issues are still the same.

    So, yes, Trump is a assh0le. Get over it. He won’t be the first, nor even all that unusual.
    Why not wait for him to eff up instead of attacking him out of spite?

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/19/2017 @ 1:04 am

    Does that sound like someone who doesn’t want Trump criticized at all? It doesn’t to me. It sounds like someone who simply wants to make sure we are criticizing Trump for the correct things at the correct time.

    The issue before, as I recall it, was not that trump could not be criticized, but that many people thought too much credence was being given to the CNN story and the impression it was trying to give in undermining the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency. the issue wasn’t so much Trump,
    but the media and the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia syndrome.

    Before 2016 I used to maintain that character didn’t matter; all that mattered was the people in office voting and acting the way I want them to.
    I changed my mind in 2016. But now I just have to hope I was right before.

    I find that an incredibly surprising statement, one that I would have never expected to hear from you, Pat.

    I know that 90%+ of what a president or any federal official does is something that I will have no direct access to. Having a degree of confidence in the person is all one can have, as I see it.
    Obama is not the first, or last, person who says one thing in public while working for just the opposite out of view. If a person says the wrong things in public that sure is enough reason to vote against them,
    if they say the right things in public,
    so what?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  62. “Are we to now assume, on the eve of Trump’s presidency, that accusations of racism will be replaced by the Right with cute invectives like, “knife-gougers,” or something to that effect? I’d like to get the rules straight before going forward. After all, the last thing I’d want to do is offend anyone on the Right by remaining equally willing to be either supportive and/or critical of this president as I was with the previous president.”

    How about “flibberty gibbet”? I think that has a nice ring to it!

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  63. Emphasis is mine.

    Yes she’s a longtime passionate advocate of charter schools and school choice, but that’s not enough for me to justify appointing her to run DOE. Heck, if there was one cabinet position that should have gone to a corporate reorganization specialist, it was DOE. — shipwreckedcrew (56b591) 1/19/2017 @ 7:43 am

    I agree with you. I feel the same way about Tillerson; while his expertise is required, it is not sufficient for me.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  64. My observation,
    that perhaps is wrong,
    but I will put it on the table for consideration;

    what happened before was that our host gave credence to a CNN story
    that others said was not worth paying attention to at the time,
    and perhaps ever
    whether or not it was different than Buzzfeed, whether or not all of the sub-issues were adressed in a cordial manner,

    many people though our host was joining in on an illegitimate criticism of Trump,
    and our host took that as a protest against all criticism of Trump,
    we said no,
    host doubled down.
    As SWC points out at #58,
    and I tried to just above,
    it looks like we are off on the same thing again

    for discussion, or not

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  65. The children of Jerry wrote:

    I’ve been reassured Trump intends to start acting Presidential any day now.

    Barack Hussein Obama has been quite good at acting Presidential, but the results of his presidentialness have been devastating: Obysmalcare, the US in retreat (other than bombing; we do bombing very well), regulations which force maternity coverage on sixty year olds and birth control coverage on nuns, and the policy of the United States that says that girls can be boys and boys can be girls. Our esteemed President has presided over less than 2% real growth for eight fornicating years; spare me the fact that he’s really good at being ‘presidential.’

    The Dana who is more interested in deeds than words (1b79fa)

  66. felipe, did you see the article at PowerLine of how Tillerson dealt with Venezuela nationalizing ExxonMobile?
    It looked like a pretty good recommendation for him.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  67. I understand that our host is busy and has other things to do and therefor may not read,
    or may only skim my comments,
    otoh,
    neither do I want to email him every time I make a comment

    so, perhaps Dana or DRJ, if you see a comment of mine that you think P should be sure to see, i will ask for you to suggest it to him.

    Now I am going to communicate with fellow church members who are more upset about Trump! than our children being taught there is no such thing as God’s design for creation,
    and if you say otherwise,
    you are a hater.

    What my child is taught in school everyday has a pretty direct effect on the household.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  68. JP suggested the Anthem of the Trumpentariat? P’raps the incoming President could really urinate off the left with this for his inaugural theme music. (It’s playing on my computer even as I type.)

    The music lover Dana (1b79fa)

  69. No, I haven’t, doc. I’ll take a look – thank you for the tip.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  70. felipe @65 — the difference between Tillerson and DeVos is that Tillerson brings enormous skills to the job, just a different skill set than has been applied to the position in the past. He’s unique among Secretaries of State — maybe since the founding.

    But “statecraft” is very much similar to the job responsibility of a CEO of a multinational like EM.

    DeVos, on the other hand, doesn’t bring any history of accomplishment at anything, other than being a passionate advocate of an approach to education that has been the subject of much debate. Her POV puts her at odds with much of the Ed. establishment. I wouldn’t have a problem with that type of pick IF I thought she was up to the battle. But I don’t see anything in her background that suggests to me that she’s up to the battle.

    That’s why I think a corporate turnaround guy, without a stake in any particular educational approach, would have been a better choice for a federal agency that needs to be turned upside down and completely reorganized – or better yet, gutted and left out in the wind to blow away.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  71. “his most trusted advisers may deflect him off his erratic courses”

    Chief among them, Mike Pence.

    More comments on http://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/01/17/truth-in-the-age-of-trump

    “the not-inconsiderable prospect of violent demonstrations the day of, or the days after the event”

    On WOR this morning, one of the two hosts said he had a friend who knew someone in the Secret Service whose wored four presidential tranistions (i.e. since 1989) and they are more worried about this one than the previous ones. They are worried if they can maintain the perimeter. And that maybe it could be like the anti-WTO protests.

    There’s a group or groups that actually vowed not to let this take plce peacefully.

    ‘Donald J. Trump has repeatedly revealed himself as a lying, crooked, narcissistic ignoramus’

    On some things, he’s either lying, or an ignoramus. Like whether he got companies to bring back jobs to the U.S. for instance. Or his refusal for a long time to acknowledge that Russia hacked into the DNC and was the source for Wikileaks. Or his claim to have won in a landslide. He did it the other day talking about the number of winning counties – true as far it goes, and significant, too. He won an overwhelming majority of counties, three fifths of the states, a little less than 57% of the Electoral vote, and about 2% less of the popular vote than Hillary Clinton did. (46.1% to 48.2% – others got 5.7% and maybe that doesn’t include write-ins that failed)

    “acknowledging such good as he or his administration may do—increased defense spending, a smack at excessive regulation, and stopping the persecution of the Little Sisters of the Poor or charter schools”

    There will probably be more than that.

    ‘it means taking on the Reince Priebuses and Kellyanne Conways when they lie at 11 a.m. to cover up the outrageous remarks their boss tweeted out six hours before.’

    Is that really important? Maybe we should accept the new version for the most part. Maybe it depends on what it is.

    “nothing will teach him gravitas, magnanimity, or wisdom”

    I guess EC feels that even the maganimity is fake, or off-putting, like his New Year’s Eve tweet wishing the best to all his enemies and those who sought to defeat him and now don’t know what to do with themselves.

    “inducing you to persistently shade the truth”

    The way he writes later it seems the real problem is if they lie to themselves – they can avoid getting corrupted, and losing themselves, and getting defiled, if they feel the sour taste of disgust and do not let it dissipate.

    “pretending that we have a coherent policy toward Europe when we do not.”

    Yes, they shouldn’t do that.

    I’ll tell you what annoyed me a little. Trump tweeted a picture of what he said was himself writing the Inaugural address three weeks ago at Mar-a-Lago. (what was notable about that to me was that he called Mar-a-Lago the Winter White House, which is what it actually was originally built to be.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/821772494864580614?p=v

    Now it’s know he has a speechwriter working on it. Also, the way he would have it, he was writing it out in longhand, without any kind of refernce books or a computer, or even his phone, near him. And you couldn’t see any writing.

    After, not six hours but somewhat longer, his people wwere saying: that picture was obviously a joke.

    I think his calling it the Winter White House may not be any kind of indication of hw much time he is going to spend there.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  72. I have been holding back my concern that a reason approx 1/3 of House Dems and a few senators say they are not going to attend the inauguration is because they know or suspect some awful things are going to happen in our Capitol city. CNN’s “report” does not ease my concern and instead exacerbates it. I was waiting to see what Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Mrs. Robert Creamer) would do. Yesterday she announced she is staying home.

    Of course, the designated survivor meme from CNN also has the smell of their intent to scare regular citizens into staying home rather than risk going out in D.C. to experience the speeches, events and parades that commemorate and celebrate another free American election and witness a peaceful and organized continuation of American government after that election.

    elissa (909106)

  73. I’ve had my objections, notably on his previous vacillations on cuba policy, and language that scorched more ground than needed to sometimes, but china needed to be put on notice, mexico has been taking advantage of the latitude we allowed in nafta,

    narciso (d1f714)

  74. Who is that — other than Happyfeet?

    When you label Trump backers with this kind of sweeping characterization is when I take offense, and fight back.

    My comment is explicitly about the comments in this thread by Kevin M. It is addressed to him and anyone who agrees with him that “so-called conservatives” are stabbing Trump in the back and siding with the enemy by criticizing him. If that’s not you, then I am not talking about you. It would be extra nice if Trump supporters who disagree with this sort of language were to tell Kevin M so. Not required but it would be real nice to hear, without a “but” following it somehow.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  75. this has been the outfit that has had interesting insights on Russia, beldar might know him he’s a business professor at the university of Houston

    http://streetwiseprofessor.com/

    narciso (d1f714)

  76. If Democrats really believed in our representative democracy, they’d embrace the peaceful transition of power which defines our nation.
    But as we’ve seen, they failed to support the Green Revolution in Tehran in June 2009. And when Castro died, they cried.

    In other words, they want everyone to vote in American elections without ID or registration, yet they seemingly want nobody to vote in Iran or Cuba. (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  77. P’raps the incoming President could really urinate off the left with this for his inaugural theme music.

    More of a Snoop man personally, but Dick Wagner was solid OG. Watching j-school grads collectively sh!t bricks is going to be a treat.

    As far as the T-tariat goes, they seem like a crowd that enjoys strictly delineated ruckus. But YMMV.

    JP (f1742c)

  78. I read the post at Powerline. I wish it gave more specifics. Still, the results speak for themselves. Mr. Tillerson got lucky in discovery, but what he did with it, as well as his detirmination made the difference. I now have an appreciation of his deep skills.

    Very good points, SWC. Your opinions are not lost on me,

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  79. it is an endemic problem, humble oil had a heck of a time dealing with Gomez, when they had their first big strike, but tommy boy maduro is something else again

    http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2017/01/guantanamo-detainee-selected-for-aborted-911-hijacking-transferred-to-oman.php

    what was happening when we we’re looking at the other hand,

    narciso (d1f714)

  80. But some of us have the concern that for the next number of years everything will be
    “TRUMP!!!”

    Go ahead and scroll down the page and look at the recent posts on this blog. In addition to this one, there are two posts analyzing a recent Supreme Court argument. There is one about the execution of a murderer. There is one about Julian Assange, one about Obama’s commutations, and a couple about Rex Tillerson. In other words, I’m discussing the news, much as I have done for the last 13 years.

    And oh yes, Trump is discussed at times. He will be inaugurated tomorrow so he is kind of in the news too.

    I know it upsets you a lot if I say that you seem defensive of Trump. But here’s the thing. I can write several posts, only one of which is about criticizing Trump, and people will complain that I criticize Trump all the time. I can write a dozen posts, several of which attack leftists like John Lewis, and people will tell me but I never attack the left, because I occasionally criticize Trump. Can you see where I get the idea that some commenters seem very defensive of Trump?

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  81. But that’s not good enough for Kevin M. I have to stop criticizing Trump entirely, because otherwise I am a backstabber and siding with the wrong side. How else am I supposed to interpret Kevin M’s own comments in this thread?

    As long as Patterico, Dana, etc believe this to be a faithful representation of what those who disagree with them think, the problems here will get worse.

    You are supposed to “interpret” Kevin M.’s comments using the words he wrote. The things Patterico said about what Kevin M. wrote are not what Kevin M. actually wrote.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  82. @Patterico:It is addressed to him and anyone who agrees with him that “so-called conservatives” are stabbing Trump in the back and siding with the enemy by criticizing him.

    Not what Kevin M. said. This is your extreme interpretation of what he said. He never said merely criticizing Trump is equivalent to stabbing him.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  83. yes, that’s true, but on occasion, you might consider revisiting an incorrect premise, like the cnn and buzzfeed story wasn’t anything but a bag of owl droppings, and the dossier was a likely Russian active measure or not,

    narciso (d1f714)

  84. Dana is of course doing the same thing. It’s easier than engaging with the real criticism.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  85. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/19/2017 @ 7:43 am

    I hate to see a cabinet position going to a person whose only real basis for being selected is campaign contributions — DeVos. Yes she’s a longtime passionate advocate of charter schools and school choice, but that’s not enough for me to justify appointing her to run DOE. Heck, if there was one cabinet position that should have gone to a corporate reorganization specialist, it was DOE.

    This is a new point of view to me.

    And it isn’t really the record of contributing money that was the reason for the choice. It might be the reason she alone took the job. Trump (and Pence) seemed to be determined to offer the job to an advocate of charter schools and thought that was enough. He offerred the job to two Democrats: Eva Moscowitz and Michelle A. Rhee. Both tuned it down, in part because they came under pressure not to accept or fir political reasons. Eva Moscowitz was being urged not to give up the job she has now – Success Academy Charter Schools in New York City. Michelle Rhee needed the approval of her husband, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson (not a partsan position, but he probably needs the help of the Democratic Party.) Anyway she had quit her job in part to be with him.

    Eva Moscowitz left a mesaage on Twitter two days ago endorsing Betsy Devos. She must have ignored those who wanted her to boycott Trump (and she’s a former New York City Council member) but didn’t take the job only because of the possible damage to her charter school organization, and the thought that there was someone else who could do it.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/MoskowitzEva/status/821403806370058240

    Eva Moskowitz
    @ MoskowitzEva

    BetsyDeVos has the talent, commitment, and leadership capacity to revitalize our public schools and deliver the promise of opportunity.

    9:08 AM – 17 Jan 2017

    I feel someone in the White House will give Betsy Devos some backbone. Now maybe you are right, skill is needed, and expertise in bureaucratic infighting, and more needs to be done than high level decsions simply redirecting money.

    If you are right, then maybe Eva Moscowitz doesn’t realize what’s needed.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  86. I hope I’ve made my point of view, clearly,

    narciso (d1f714)

  87. You’re not going to change a 70 year old billionaire.

    But people elected a 70 year old billionaire knowing that.

    do what you want.

    Just remember, when flaying Joe or .001% cherokee Warren runs, expect the push back to the individual and I don’t want to hear about respect of the office.

    Obama’s an ass. Has been in love with himself since his mommy left him for some miscreant and dumped him on his typical white grandmother’s porch.

    So when Obama starts popping off as a “civilian” don’t expect civility.

    Steve_in_SoCal (58e1f9)

  88. Gebriel,

    Please explain what Kevin M meant. I explicitly said maybe I am wrong and invited an alternate interpretation. Saying “he didn’t say that” is not an alternative interpretation. If you offer one, please do not paper over the stuff about so-called conservatives, siding with people who want to shoot us, and backstabbing.

    Also I did not say this is what “those who disagree with me” think but “those who agree with Kevin M’s extreme imagery.” Redefining others’ comments to make them into strawmen is your “signature move.” Do not do it to me again in this thread.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  89. I am out for the day, by the way. Work.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  90. not going to attend the inauguration is because they know or suspect some awful things are going to happen in our Capitol city

    Wow, never thought of that, elissa. 🙁

    Patricia (5fc097)

  91. @Patterico: I explicitly said maybe I am wrong and invited an alternate interpretation.

    Here’s the key part: His cabinet appointments have been brilliant (for the most part — I have no respect for Ben Carson). Yet instead of saying “boy that guy sure knows what he’s doing” I hear instead the Democrat talking points, regurgitated by people who should be on his side. Just because they hate Trump.

    This is the essential clarification you missed. Kevin M. has been commenting here for a while and is no Trumpkin.

    Also I did not say this is what “those who disagree with me” think

    Another extreme interpretation of what I said. It is understood we are discussing Kevin M.

    . Redefining others’ comments to make them into strawmen is your “signature move.” Do not do it to me again in this thread.

    I reject your characterization, note that you just did it to me (perhaps unintentionally), and I make the same request of you on behalf of the rest of us.

    Until you and Dana acknowledge you are doing it too, things will get worse and not better.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  92. Lots of us here perceived and represented as intolerant of any criticism of Trump, are actually critical of him ourselves.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  93. Kevin M. actually criticized Trump in that bit I quoted of his (the Carson appointment). Kevin M. does not believe that by doing so he “stabbed” Trump. Therefore, Kevin M. does not equate any criticism of Trump with stabbing. QED.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  94. it’s almost axiomatic, that any notion that is part of the conventional wisdom, something alter and kaus cooked up, is more often than not wrong,

    narciso (d1f714)

  95. narciso (d1f714) — 1/19/2017 @ 8:33 am

    the dossier was a likely Russian active measure or not,

    That’s what it was.

    Putin is now blaiming the former MI-6 agent for inventing it. He’s been out of sight. He’s probably been interrogated rather thoroughly by MI-6 by now, and the cat’s been walked back in great detail.

    Theresa May is going to meet with Donald Trump in February. This issue is sure to come up. She’s going to leave him with no doubt as to who invented the allegations in the dossier – this is probably very important to her. It wasn’t the Democrats who hired Fusion GPS, although they were looking for dirt and evidence of Russian influence on Donald Trump. It wasn’t Chrstopher Steele. It wasn’t rogue people in the Russian government. It was disinformation approved of by Putin, because he thought it was going only to high level people in Britain, and it was designed to divide Great Britain from the United States in the event that Trump was elected.

    Now there’s a question, can Theresa May get Donald Trump to take things seriously and honestly. He may not want to.

    I think at this point Donald Trump genuinely believes political opponents invented it.

    Which is what most people believe because it’s the thing that seems to make sense. It can’t be be Putin, they think, because after all, Vladimir Putin was, as far as anyone can tell, a supporter of Donald Trump.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  96. “For a long time I have been convinced that the two are separable. I think he has been “on stage” for most of his adult life, and he’s developed a bombastic meglomanical persona that gets and captures attention while he’s there.

    But behind closed doors and away from the TV Kleig lights, I suspect this guy is much more thoughtful and deliberative.”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    You are an attorney, and that is your position? “You suspect”? On what evidence? The available evidence shows that the guy has a bombastic megalomaniacal personality, and you want us to simply assume that it’s all an act.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  97. Patterico wrote, in another post:


    “….Many of my favorite people have been driven away by the general tenor of the comment section lately….”

    Yup. I miss them, too.

    Many people refer, correctly, to Patterico as “our host.” He is.

    I have never been to a party where people snark and try to fight with the host. If you don’t like the party that the host is putting on (and paying money for), why stay? Don’t drink the host’s booze and eat his food (metaphorically) while acting rudely.

    But by all means, continue.

    What will result are scorpions in a bottle, fighting over who has the more impressive stinger.

    YMMV.

    Simon Jester (6e7588)

  98. we might just get to luna federation, eventually simon, although 2076 seems a reach.

    narciso (d1f714)

  99. @Simon Jester:I have never been to a party where people snark and try to fight with the host.

    When the host invites discussion and debate, it is not rude to do so.

    If Patterico wanted a cheering section he could easily have it.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  100. And the precise papering-over I predicted from Senor Strawman Gabriel is in evidence.

    Kevin M said plenty of sensible things in this thread. He also said some crazy stuff about knives and backstabbing and siding with the enemy and “so-called conservatives.” That is what I reacted to and that is what Senor Strawman will ignore because that is mighty difficult to explain as anything but what I said it seems to be.

    Who are the backstabbers? How have they plunged the knife into Trump’s back? Why are they “so-called conservatives”? How have they sided with the enemy? Senor Strawman will never ever answer each of these questions forthrightly. Watch and see. Now I am really out.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  101. take ben sasse, who has an odd understanding of comity, if he wants to be the loyal opposition, he should be more discriminating, I’m not crazy about tillerson, but that was the choice, as with devos,
    who is an inperfect vehicle for school reform,

    narciso (d1f714)

  102. @Patterico:And the precise papering-over I predicted from Senor Strawman Gabriel is in evidence.

    As your friend, and a much-longer-time-reader than commenter, I say to you that you are making a mistake.

    You asked for clarification, I gave it. Now you’ve dismissed it and been unfair.

    I am not the only one trying to tell you these things, sir.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  103. I read Kevin’s knife comment to simply be a direct response to some very specific things Dustin had just said about what “Trump fans think”, the popular vote and the electoral college, and conclusions he had drawn about the popularity of the president elect with which Kevin disagreed. Later comments and interaction from Kevin seem to support that this is so. Since they are two grown men in a discussion thread on a blog that purportedly values debate I think they should be able to handle it without carrying it to a level that escalates into gross generalizations, discussions of a need for “rules” on the right, and hall monitors. I myself particularly railed at the “disenfranchisement” argument when I saw it but soon noticed that someone else had responded to that.

    elissa (909106)

  104. Gabriel, what is the dividing line between fair criticism of Trump and unfair criticism of Trump? Or between productive criticism of Trump and unproductive criticism of Trump?

    Kevin M explicitly accused Dustin, with whom Patterico shares a great number of views, of backstabbing Trump despite rooting for his success.

    “I actually said I was rooting for his success, repeatedly” – Dustin

    “In between knife thrusts.” – Kevin M

    So if Patterico shares so many views with Dustin, why is he wrong to take that as an accusation that he himself is “backstabbing” Trump?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  105. Backstabbers, though? I think we’ve been pretty up-front “In your face, you badgerheaded, orange-skinned, Putin-loving, New York pansy” kind of Trump critics.

    nk (dbc370)

  106. @Leviticus:why is he wrong to take that as an accusation that he himself is “backstabbing” Trump?

    Because Kevin M. did not say so. That’s why it is wrong.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  107. @Leviticus:Gabriel, what is the dividing line between fair criticism of Trump and unfair criticism of Trump? Or between productive criticism of Trump and unproductive criticism of Trump?

    If you actually want to know, I will be happy to tell you where I think the line is, but I can’t speak for Kevin M.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  108. Simon Jester, our good man Patterico is not hosting a tupperware party or a baby shower where debate and argument regarding politics is considered poor form.
    This is specifically a blog which is open to commenters to discuss politics and ideologies and the news — is it not?

    I think of this place as a bit like The McLaughlin Group or CNN’s old Crossfire, where people can argue, object, and trade snarky barbs or streams of consciousness, yet not go to bed angry at each other.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  109. If Patterico shares a mindset with Dustin, and someone accuses Dustin of being a backstabber for having that mindset, Patterico is wrong to take that as an accusation that he himself is a backstabber?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  110. “If you actually want to know, I will be happy to tell you where I think the line is, but I can’t speak for Kevin M.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    I appreciate that. I would like to know where you think the line is.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  111. @Leviticus: Patterico is wrong to take that as an accusation that he himself is a backstabber?

    Yes. Obviously.

    Patterico shares a mindset with Kevin M. By your logic Kevin M. is thereby declaring himself a backstabber.

    Your logic gives you a license to take someone’s statement and just run with it, which I am (in my opinion unfairly) accused of and criticized for doing.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  112. “Patterico shares a mindset with Kevin M. By your logic Kevin M. is thereby declaring himself a backstabber.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    Our sets of ideas can be subdivided and differentiated. Patterico shares some mindsets with Dustin, and some mindsets with Kevin M, and likely some mindsets with both of them. But Kevin M accuses Dustin of having a particular mindset that makes him a backstabber – a mindset which (by your own implication) Kevin M does not share himself – and Patterico clearly sees himself as sharing that mindset with Dustin. How, then, is it wrong for Patterico to see that Kevin M’s allegation is leveled at Patterico by association?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  113. @Leviticus:I appreciate that. I would like to know where you think the line is.

    Two examples. They are not intended to accuse Patterico or anyone else in particular.

    Trump’s remark “grab them by the p—-” was interpreted and represented, by some, as a confession to sexual assault. This is an unfair criticism. What Trump actually said is bad enough by itself.

    Trump’s remark “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” was interpreted and represented, by some, as an invitation or a call for Russia to hack Hillary Clinton. This is an unfair criticism–even Polifact rated that interpretation “half true”.

    The line for me is, is this the media narrative du jour without any examination of the facts that would undermine that narrative if the media had presented them? Those are the sorts of things I would consider unfair.

    I don’t agree with some of the criticism I see here of the Tillerson appointment but I don’t think they are unfair.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  114. And now, in defining which set of ideas constitutes the “backstabber” mindset, we can discuss (without guessing at anyone else’s notions) where the line between productive and unproductive criticism of Trump lies.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  115. Whoops, I see that you already began that discussion. Sorry for the cross-post. I’ll read now.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  116. @Leviticus:How, then, is it wrong for Patterico to see that Kevin M’s allegation is leveled at Patterico by association?

    Because associations are adding in things that Kevin M. didn’t say. In Kevin M.s mind there may have been no association that includes both Patterico and Dustin.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  117. ==If Patterico shares a mindset with Dustin, and someone accuses Dustin of being a backstabber for having that mindset, Patterico is wrong to take that as an accusation that he himself is a backstabber?

    Well no. Leviticus, since Patterico himself said he disagrees with Dustin on the Electoral College (#52), and since the thrust of this thread early on was that Trump was the most unpopular PE in history as demonstrated by the Hillary won the popular vote meme, it is hard to reach the conclusion that someone who vociferously disagreed with Dustin’s POV on that issue was also dissing Pat. I mean, really?

    elissa (909106)

  118. Trump’s remark “grab them by the p—-” was interpreted and represented, by some, as a confession to sexual assault. This is an unfair criticism. What Trump actually said is bad enough by itself.

    I took it to mean that
    1. The floozies in the entertainment industry are sluts and Trump was describing them perfectly;
    2. Trump fits right in with them because he’s a big slimeball of a pimp himself; and
    3. Very likely he treats decent women that he comes across that way, too.

    nk (dbc370)

  119. “The line for me is, is this the media narrative du jour without any examination of the facts that would undermine that narrative if the media had presented them? Those are the sorts of things I would consider unfair.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    Okay – but then how do we distinguish “the media narrative du jour” from “accurate information reported or words accurately quoted”? Your own examples (deliberately, I’m sure) emphasize accurate reporting of Trump’s own words, that prompted an additional layer of editorializing from the media. This simply shifts the debate: what was it about the media’s take on Trump’s words that crossed the line from fair to unfair criticism?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  120. Trump’s remark “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” was interpreted and represented, by some, as an invitation or a call for Russia to hack Hillary Clinton.

    To me that meant nothing more than that Trump is a demented buffoon who doesn’t know what he’s saying half the time, talking to a core constituency of microcephalists who lap up any inanity that comes out of his mouth.

    nk (dbc370)

  121. “Because associations are adding in things that Kevin M. didn’t say. In Kevin M.s mind there may have been no association that includes both Patterico and Dustin.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    If I say “Dustin, you are a backstabber for thinking X,” and Patterico says “Hey, I think X too, that doesn’t make me a backstabber,” it’s pretty silly for me to say, “Well, I didn’t mean *you*, Patterico.”

    Leviticus (efada1)

  122. @Leviticus: This simply shifts the debate: what was it about the media’s take on Trump’s words that crossed the line from fair to unfair criticism?

    That they inferred things not available from the evidence, and selectively reported, and quoted each other’s mischaracterizations.

    then how do we distinguish “the media narrative du jour” from “accurate information reported or words accurately quoted”?

    Freely discussing it at a place like this is a good way.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  123. I don’t think I’ve been unjust or unkind in either of those instances.

    nk (dbc370)

  124. @nk: I agree with your 1) and 2). Don’t know about 3), my company has been more select than Trump.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  125. Thursday Tiburon Tip:

    Teh sharks are in the holding pen, waiting to be jumped!

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  126. @nk:t Trump is a demented buffoon who doesn’t know what he’s saying half the time, talking to a core constituency of microcephalists who lap up any inanity that comes out of his mouth.

    I can sign on with most of that.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  127. …or stabbed!

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  128. …but you know what happens when there’s blood in the water…

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  129. “then how do we distinguish “the media narrative du jour” from “accurate information reported or words accurately quoted”?

    Freely discussing it at a place like this is a good way.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    I agree, and think we should discuss it now. In discussing it, I think we can illuminate the source of a lot of the acrimony between various camps in this community.

    I’m sure you have thoughts on this: how do we distinguish “the media narrative du jour” from “accurate information reported or words accurately quoted”?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  130. Let’s use these examples:

    “Trump’s remark “grab them by the p—-” was interpreted and represented, by some, as a confession to sexual assault. This is an unfair criticism.” Why?

    Trump’s remark “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” was interpreted and represented, by some, as an invitation or a call for Russia to hack Hillary Clinton. This is an unfair criticism.” Why?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  131. the narrative is what can’t be verified, usually through anonymous sources, often relayed to sanger or haberman, who even when true, put the worse spin on it, ie: perry’s understanding of the energy department,

    narciso (d1f714)

  132. And now… Ask Uncle Buck…

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  133. Okay, narciso, but there’s nothing anonymous about the remarks above, or any third-party relay. Gabriel has fairly noted his examples as Trump’s own words, and we’re trying to figure out the difference between a fair and an unfair interpretation or representation of those words.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  134. Leviticus, I think Trump actually said that if you’re a star, then women will LET YOU grab them by the you-know-what.
    So, consent is implied there in what he was saying.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  135. well except for the fact, that the defendant had refused to produce the emails in question, now the access Hollywood was dubious enough, that they didn’t air it for eleven years,

    narciso (d1f714)

  136. Mr. Trump is gonna do a lot for to help America get less regulations on it and also do more better with the prosperity

    and I mean a LOT

    it’s bewildering to me how this is so controversial

    These are all positive things what Mr. Trump is doing!

    Some you poopers need to buck up or stay in the truck I think

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  137. “UH HUH: Survey: 1/3 of federal workers still “considering” quitting after tomorrow. Has anyone actually quit?”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/254969/

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  138. it’s a tactless restatement of the promise nina Burleigh made to bill Clinton, capisce,

    narciso (d1f714)

  139. Leviticus (efada1) — 1/19/2017 @ 9:31 am

    “Trump’s remark “grab them by the p—-” was interpreted and represented, by some, as a confession to sexual assault. This is an unfair criticism.” Why?

    Because he said they consented when he did it because he was a star.

    Trump’s remark “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” was interpreted and represented, by some, as an invitation or a call for Russia to hack Hillary Clinton. This is an unfair criticism.” Why?

    Because everyone knew that the e-mails, even if they survived somewhere, were no longer online. Now if they had already hacked them, then maybe they could release them. Trump’s statement was actually incoherent, according to the way most people understood the situation.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  140. “Because he said they consented when he did it because he was a star.”

    – Sammy Winkelman

    I believe his exact words were “they let you do it.” I don’t think that’s the same thing, but reasonable minds could differ on that interpretation.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  141. we were concerned it would be an iteration of what happened with lois lerner’s emails, that at first they said didn’t exist, then were damaged, ‘how dare you ask’ then they were produced after the statute of limitations lapsed,

    narciso (d1f714)

  142. Some of you characters just make me shake my head. To each their own. But…

    You don’t get define the nature of Patterico’s party. I don’t either.

    Patterico does, and pays cash money for it. He doesn’t have to do so.

    Ask him if he is happy with the comments section. And how much he is paying for our ability to comment.

    It is possible to disagree politely. Honesty is not the same as tactlessness. Courtesy is not weakness.

    Lots of people who comment here get that. Others not so much.

    This is just my opinion. Do whatever you wish, folks.

    Whether or not I agree with Patterico, Dana, or JVW, I respect their work and opinions.

    Simon Jester (6e7588)

  143. “Because everyone knew that the e-mails, even if they survived somewhere, were no longer online.”

    – Sammy Finkelman (sorry, previous one was autocorrect)

    Really? “Everyone” knew that? Did Trump know that?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  144. actually the interesting part was the authorities didn’t appear to care,

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-york-times-faces-backlash-after-sole-source-repudiates-anti-rick-perry-story/

    narciso (d1f714)

  145. it really is striking how people drill down on issues of no consequence and then ignore those of a graver nature,

    narciso (d1f714)

  146. Leviticus (efada1) — 1/19/2017 @ 9:40 am

    I believe his exact words were “they let you do it.” I don’t think that’s the same thing, but reasonable minds could differ on that interpretation. </blockquote. A reasonable interpretation is that when he made a motion to do that, they didn't object, and if they would have objected, he would have desisted.

    The question is can conent be obtained non-verbally?

    Trump later said this was locker room talk. A fancy way of saying he was lying to Billy Bush. Which was probably the case. (Trump didn't include any exceptions to "they let you do it."

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  147. “Trump later said this was locker room talk. A fancy way of saying he was lying to Billy Bush. Which was probably the case.”

    – Sammy Finkelman

    We’re trying to figure out what it was about the media’s coverage of the incident that made it unfair, and what coverage of the incident would have been fair. Any thoughts on that?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  148. because it was relayed in the dial to eleven style, ‘this will finish him’ contrasting with the way they have treated bill Clinton’s bad acts, and even allegations of sexual assault,

    narciso (d1f714)

  149. in light of cnn’s wishcasting, you think this would get more attention,

    https://twitter.com/alimhaider/status/821838227778764802

    narciso (d1f714)

  150. 147.

    “Because everyone knew that the e-mails, even if they survived somewhere, were no longer online.”

    – Sammy Finkelman (sorry, previous one was autocorrect)

    Leviticus (efada1) — 1/19/2017 @ 9:42 am

    Really? “Everyone” knew that? Did Trump know that?

    That is a question. Trump may have thought it could be available somewhere, in a backup maintained by somebody else. I think there were some people saying that.

    He was all over the place in that press conference. He wasn’t conceding Russia had done any hacking And he said they already had it..

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/27/donald-trumps-falsehood-laden-press-conference-annotated/

    They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you’d see some beauties there.

    And he also said:

    But I watched this guy Mook and he talked about we think it was Russia that hacked…he said we think it was Russia that hacked.

    And then he said — and this is in person sitting and watching television as I’ve been doing — and then he said could be Trump, yeah, yeah. Trump, Trump, oh yeah, Trump. He reminded me of John Lovitz for “Saturday Night Live” in the liar (ph) where he’d go yes, yes, I went to Harvard, Harvard, yes, yes. This is the guy, you have to see it. Yes, it could be Trump, yes, yes. So it is so farfetched. It’s so ridiculous. Honestly I wish I had that power. I’d love to have that power but Russia has no respect for our country.

    And that’s why — if it is Russia, nobody even knows this, it’s probably China, or it could be somebody sitting in his bed… So I know nothing about it. It’s one of the most farfetched I’ve ever heard.

    What was far-fethched was the notion that he, Donald Trump, had hacked teh DNC. Trump also wishes to point out that he personally watched Mook say that – it’s not what somebody told him Mook said.

    I never checked the July 24 2016 interview shows to see if Robby Mook indeed said that Donald Trump might have hacked the DNC. Trump said he wished he had that power, and the idea that he had done it was one of the most far-fetched things he had ever heard.

    Trump also said of Russia, later that of they got Hillary’s emails, and released them,

    “I think you’ll probably be rewarded mightily….

    ….by our press.”

    Which could mean merely they’d get printed. You almost could expect him to say “you’ll be rewarded by me if I get elected.”

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  151. professor cohen, doesn’t really provide examples, we know what happened when outright falsehoods were echoed with great vehemence, with practically no pushback on w’s side of the ledger,

    narciso (d1f714)

  152. ==it really is striking how people drill down on issues of no consequence and then ignore those of a graver nature,==

    Yes, narciso it certainly is. And kudos on a perfectly constructed and spelled comment there!! 🙂

    elissa (909106)

  153. People will need to understand (if they don’t already) that the scrutiny Trump will be given will be a significant – a YUGE – number of times greater than that given his predecessor. He will be upsetting the apple cart and folks will need to discern valid criticism from the expected cacophony from the legacy paleomedia, and skeptics of all stripes.

    It is going to be a wild four years, so eat your Wheaties.

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  154. Leviticus (efada1) — 1/19/2017 @ 9:55 am

    We’re trying to figure out what it was about the media’s coverage of the incident that made it unfair, and what coverage of the incident would have been fair. Any thoughts on that?

    They took at his word that he had experience grabbing women, but chose not to believe that they let him do it. Now of course it is implausible that too many women would let him do it. So it was reasonable to assume that part was false. But it also was quite likely that the first part was also false, that Donald Trump had NOT actually done what he said he had done. The whole thing had no point to it if the women has not consented.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  155. thanks, for that I sometimes overpunctuate when agitated,

    https://twitter.com/elliosch/status/822092033053564928

    narciso (d1f714)

  156. 149… yes “striking” and telling, narciso. It exposes those who are not “of good faith”.

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  157. I think we’re drilling down because something is in dispute.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  158. it’s hard to focus on the things of consequence even for those who are discerning,

    narciso (d1f714)

  159. “It’s not just that the country is divided as it hasn’t since, oh, since 1860, but also that the Left, for a whole host of reasons, is weaponized in a way it hasn’t been since — well, I was going to say since the late 1960s, but the truth is that what Trump is facing is a union of Left-wing animus and bureaucratized establishment spinelessness and accommodation that is probably unique.”

    — Roger Kimball

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  160. and Kimball was one of those who was agnostic to be charitable, initially with trump,

    narciso (d1f714)

  161. Yes, that’s why grenade-tossing should be very judicious.

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  162. My wife’s waited a long time for that kitchen . . . I guess she can wait a bit longer.

    I began with a very negative view of Trump – to be honest, I’ve disliked him since the 1980s, when he had his first brush with stardom. I don’t care much for politicians, in general, yet I saw him as an outlier, he seemed so extreme. Once nominated, my views began to change, especially as he went through the process of filling his cabinet. Today he added his last appointee, former Georgia governor Sonny Perdue, as his nominee for Secretary of Agriculture. I’ve read that the nomination was held up because there were some in the Trump transition team who wanted a demographic token in that slot. They lost! So instead, we get get another highly qualified White male. That’s the outcome I’m looking for – no affirmative action idolatry, just the best man for the job.

    There has also been the truly extreme behavior of Trump’s opponents. Comparing Trump to his most extreme critics across the political spectrum has had the effect of normalizing Trump’s rough edges. If there is one thing we’ve learned during this cycle, it is that there are a lot of closeted crazies in this country, especially – though not exclusively – on the left. I find it deeply troubling that this extraordinary democracy has produced such a large and violent, anti-democratic opposition. Maybe “sickening” is a better word. If Donald Trump is the enemy of these enemies of democracy, maybe I’ve got Mr. Trump wrong.

    Finally, I strongly believe that we need to give people a chance. When Obama was elected, I was one of the 80% who supported him. I begin every new presidency that way. I especially hoped that Obama would be the president he told us he would be: a healer. Though I had no illusion that this would actually come to pass, I gave him the benefit of the doubt as a matter of courtesy.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  163. take the case of oleg otbashian, the fellow behind the people’s cube,

    narciso (d1f714)

  164. tomorrow there’s gonna be cakes and ices and pretty ladies with fleurs and oh my goodness such fancy hats and we’ll see elephants and monkey tricks and a punch and judy show and we’ll have face-painting and fried scrumptious on a stick and fireworks and goblets of wine and all the different kinds of ice cold diet shasta and the singings!

    you’ve never heard such singings!

    and come evening we’ll dance together all of us americans cause of it’s a Happy Occasion and Momentous Day indeed

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  165. so far there has been too much festivas indeed, particularly the airing of grievances,

    they said Nixon wasn’t outgoing, I would say he was more inner directed, but Reagan wasn’t yet available that cycle, and the alternatives like Rockefeller and Romney pere would not have held up,

    narciso (d1f714)

  166. Don’t count on it. Trump will be sworn in as President, no matter what CNN says.

    nk (dbc370)

  167. Apparently that LGBLT Dance Party in front of the Pence house lasted about 30 minutes.

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  168. Patterico (0a74c4) — 1/19/2017 @ 8:30 am

    Part of my “TRUMP!!” was not about here,
    but about everywhere
    and since we see it everywhere
    here would be annoying,
    especially when it is falling prey to MG-MA (Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia)

    Yes, you have done some nice things about other topics
    others have said what I would like to say, so I’m not sure I should say it. but I will
    Kevin M. can say all kinds of things negative about Trump, including he is an A-hole,
    that clearly shows he is happy to have Trump criticized
    but he makes a comment about people stabbing trump in the side/back where ever with stuff that like the bogus intel
    and you, our host, focus on that,
    as if he just said all criticism of Trump is backstabbing

    Who are the backstabbers?
    Those who criticize Trump along with the MSM on things that are not worth talking about.
    The question will always be is “X” worth talking about.
    I believe it is as simple as that.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  169. ==Simon Jester (6e7588) —/19/2017 @ 9:42 am==

    Simon, I think/hope you know I am a long time fan of yours and agree with you on many many things. (Well except on Mr. Feets who makes me laugh and who I think has much more depth than some give him credit for.) That said, I really don’t think I understand what you are suggesting here, or what you think the solution is for the little problem that we all know has been festering on this blog’s comment section for well over a year now as people come and go. What do you think needs to happen? What do you think should happen? What is it you want people to do inside of the discussions that you don’t see now? How do you suggest people are supposed to know how Pat defines the nature of his party unless they engage him? I don’t think everybody can play nice all the time when discussing politics and I didn’t think that’s what Pat wanted either. So, how does one go about the process of challenging Pat’s comments AKA pontifications 🙂 and/or disagreeing with any other commenter’s statements without risking that he’ll take the pushback as a personal insult and respond back in kind even as it seems to be a misread, broadening and misinterpretation of the original pushback?

    We all know Pat pays for the site and we appreciate that.

    elissa (909106)

  170. One thing we’ve learned is that Trump is not the man he appeared to be on the campaign trail. Would that Trump have ever nominated Rick Perry to be Secretary of Energy? Perry is the man who said of Trump: “Let no one be mistaken – Donald Trump’s candidacy is a cancer on conservatism, and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised and discarded.”

    There is clearly more to Trump than first meets the eye.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  171. ThOR (c9324e) — 1/19/2017 @ 10:25 am

    So instead, we get get another highly qualified White male.

    And 70 years old. There’s something going on in which almost all the apointees are no more than 10 years apart in age from him. Some are about ten years older, like Wilbur Ross and he wanted Carl Icahn.

    But still, this is right approach – find people whom he wants. Done thee oher way it is somebody who would never been considered.

    There has also been the truly extreme behavior of Trump’s opponents. Comparing Trump to his most extreme critics across the political spectrum has had the effect of normalizing Trump’s rough edges. If there is one thing we’ve learned during this cycle, it is that there are a lot of closeted crazies in this country, especially – though not exclusively – on the left. I find it deeply troubling that this extraordinary democracy has produced such a large and violent, anti-democratic opposition. Maybe “sickening” is a better word. If Donald Trump is the enemy of these enemies of democracy, maybe I’ve got Mr. Trump wrong.

    It’s more like – he’s nothing compared to some of these people, bad as some things might be, (but we don’t know it yet) and it definitely looks like this was the better fork in the road to take, and that’s no contradiction to a 37% approval rating.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  172. Maybe speaker ryan should not be in DC, would be my thought

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  173. yes, the syndrome does seem more pronounced doc, like in groundhog day, but we’re not bill murray,

    narciso (d1f714)

  174. Maybe I missed something,

    it seems to me that a whole lot of the recent heat, rather than light, has been generated over the one CNN story and conflicting views of it,
    and a lot of doubling down on it

    Is that not true?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  175. Not only are we not Bill Murray,
    but even if we were,
    I don’t think this would be as near as funny….

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  176. Wow! “At Donald Trump’s inauguration, his wife Melania will perform a song she wrote called ‘The Star-Spangled Banner.'”

    Tillman (a95660)

  177. “They took at his word that he had experience grabbing women, but chose not to believe that they let him do it.”

    – Sammy Finkelman

    Again, I think they chose not to believe that “letting him do it” was the same as “wanting him to do it,” or “consenting to it.” But I do see you point. Would it be fair to say that it the unfairness of the media in that situation was in giving the least charitable interpretation of Trump’s remarks that they could?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  178. Well,
    we could lighten things up a little bit,
    you asked for it:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwZciH3hx-A

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  179. Leviticus (efada1) — 1/19/2017 @ 10:56 am

    Would it be fair to say that it the unfairness of the media in that situation was in giving the least charitable interpretation of Trump’s remarks that they could?

    And treating it like it was the only possible interpretation, although that was maybe coming more from his politial opponents. It was also being ignored that Trump has said that over ten years ago.

    Part of the probem is that there was a women, who worked for People magazine at the time of an alleged incident, who claimed just that had happened to her (except that she never made the slightest complaint, so the there was a claim that she had told someone)

    And a dispute over whether Melania Trump had met her on he street later and wondered why they weren’t seeing her any more. Meania denied it, and this other women had a witness to the supposed chance meeting.

    And we eevn had this:

    http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/six-witnesses-say-people-writer-melania-trump-were-friends.html

    After former People magazine reporter Natasha Stoynoff wrote a first-person account for the magazine about being sexually assaulted by Donald Trump, Melania Trump threatened to sue her. It wasn’t the accusation Mrs. Trump objected to, but the allegation that, after the fact, she and Stoynoff had run into each other on the street outside Trump Tower:

    That winter, I actually bumped into Melania on Fifth Avenue, in front of Trump Tower as she walked into the building, carrying baby Barron.

    “Natasha, why don’t we see you anymore?” she asked, giving me a hug.

    I was quiet and smiled, telling her I’d missed her, and I squeezed little Barron’s foot. I couldn’t discern what she knew. Did she really not guess why I hadn’t been around?

    In a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper on Monday, Melania repeated her claim that, “I was never friends with her; I would not recognize her.” But on Tuesday, People produced six witnesses to corroborate Stoynoff’s story, and one, Lisa Herz, was there during the alleged run-in.

    There were other accusations, and it was easy to get the feeling they were cooked up to be used by the Clinton campaign.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  180. This never got to the stage where people were being cross examined.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  181. @Leviticus:Would it be fair to say that it the unfairness of the media in that situation was in giving the least charitable interpretation of Trump’s remarks that they could?

    No. It was creating another interpretation not based on anything he said, i.e. that he confessed to sexual assault.

    Same with the Russians and Hillary’s emails.

    Where they didn’t do it was with his “I could shoot someone of Fifth Avenue” because they knew no one would buy it.

    Suppose Trump had said, “When you’re a star, you can do anything and they let you get away with it. You can pick up hitchhikers, kill them, and leave them on the side of the road and nobody minds!”

    Would that have been a confession of murder? No.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  182. @Leviticus: Because there are celebrities who have done awful things and the public lets them “get away with it”. Suppose Trump had said “When you’re a star, they let you do anything. You can shoot Kelly Preston.” Would that be a confession to shooting Kelly Preston? She was shot, of course, but by a different celebrity, not by Trump (and it’s like everyone just forgot about it).

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  183. @Leviticus: And none of this is really the point. The point is that by saying these kinds of criticism are in my view unfair, it is then unfair for someone else here to say that I oppose any and all criticism of Trump. It would also be unfair to say, for example, “Mr. Trump applauds your determination to ignore all information provided by the running dog media. You are well on your way to being a subservient subject who takes all direction from the Great Leader. Congratulations!” in response.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  184. stabby things are include:

    syrian refugee terrorists

    clowns

    nevertrumpers

    Brutus

    monkey hunters

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  185. clowns must be carefully watched, although they are not in and of themselves a clear and present danger,

    narciso (d1f714)

  186. Rick Perry’s oft stated position was that the Department of Energy should be abolished – except the time he forgot it. What are we to think of a man who nominates Governor Perry to be his Secretary of the Department of Energy?

    Good things. Very good things.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  187. Then there was the Jessica Leeds accusation.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  188. “Suppose Trump had said, “When you’re a star, you can do anything and they let you get away with it. You can pick up hitchhikers, kill them, and leave them on the side of the road and nobody minds!”

    Would that have been a confession of murder? No.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    Suppose Trump had said, “I’m automatically attracted to hitchhikers – I just start kissing them. I don’t even wait.” That would be describing his own conduct with hitchhikers, not the possibly-hypothetical grabbing of hitchhikers by the p*ssy.

    Would that have been a confession to sexual assault? Maybe. Maybe not. After all, “the hitchhikers just let him do it” because he’s famous. Is that consent? Maybe. Maybe not.

    But let’s not pretend that the whole discussion of hitchhikers was entirely hypothetical.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  189. the first time perry was recovering from spinal surgery and was on strong pain killers, the second time he was listening to doctor evil and chip barbour, I suggest that clouds the mind more,

    narciso (d1f714)

  190. What Trump confessed to in the conversation with Billy Budd was trying to bed a married woman. He said he didn’t succeed, but he had tried (and named the woman)

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  191. “It would also be unfair to say, for example, “Mr. Trump applauds your determination to ignore all information provided by the running dog media. You are well on your way to being a subservient subject who takes all direction from the Great Leader. Congratulations!” in response.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    That’s why I’m interested in where you get your news. I asked you before, since I’m on the lookout for more reliable sources of information. Where do you get your news?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  192. Billy Bush

    He said there were certain things he could do that Melania was OK with.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  193. “What Trump confessed to in the conversation with Billy Budd was trying to bed a married woman. He said he didn’t succeed, but he had tried (and named the woman)”

    – Sammy Finkelman

    He also confessed, if we are to take his actual words at face value, to kissing beautiful women without waiting to see if they were okay with that. Is that sexual assault? I guess it depends on a lot of things – but it might be.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  194. I don’t blame Perry.

    My own list of federal commissions, boards, agencies and departments that need abolishing is so long I could never remember them all.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  195. Trump’s campaign promises/not-promises may well be amount to Forrest Gump’s proverbial box of chocolates – you never know what you’re going to get.

    Money quote:

    Putin came to Trump’s defense himself on Tuesday. He said claims in the leaked dossier, such as Russia having a tape of the billionaire-turned-politician cavorting with sex workers in Moscow, are “obvious fabrications.”

    “I find it hard to believe that he rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world,” Putin said.

    JP (f1742c)

  196. So, again: what would fair criticism of Trump have looked like in that situation? Given his description, in his own words, of kissing beautiful women without waiting?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  197. I see your Ojays, Doc, and raise teh Undisputed Truth!

    https://youtu.be/8CJZcVi5BA4

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  198. The point is, the statement about “they let you do it” has to be false as a general rule. Not even waiting?

    Trump claimed there was a special situation (that he implied applied to himself) when it was true.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  199. @Leviticus:But let’s not pretend that the whole discussion of hitchhikers was entirely hypothetical.

    Ah, but has Trump ever actually picked up a hitchhiker? Or is he hyperbolicly describing what one could do if so inclined? If you started scanning the cold case files for any mention of Donald J Trump in the area after that statement I would think you were out of your mind.

    The original statement is about what a person in Trump’s position could do if so inclined. If you interpreted it hyper-literally, it is a statement about what Billy Bush could do (since he was talking to Billy Bush and the second-person pronoun is “you”).

    What you could not do is construe it as a statement about an action performed by Trump in the past, without additional information. That did not stop the media, though.

    And again, not the point. A fair response to my objection, Leviticus, is much along the lines of what you have said to me on this. An unfair response would be, “Mr. Trump applauds your determination to ignore all information provided by the running dog media. You are well on your way to being a subservient subject who takes all direction from the Great Leader. Congratulations!”

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  200. mention it briefly, point out they hadn’t seen fit to air the actual tape for eleven years, and then move on,

    narciso (d1f714)

  201. Tillman gonna chain teh train!

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  202. @Leviticus:Given his description, in his own words, of kissing beautiful women without waiting?

    Fair to say that he’s weird and creepy and that being rich does not give him a pass.

    Fair to say that his “grab them by the p—-” is disgusting and coarse and reflects badly on his character.

    Unfair to say he confessed to sexual assault.

    Pretty simple.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  203. The meaning is he had found out by experience that it was true.

    Now you know that has to be a lie, either about the attempts, or the results, or both.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  204. @Sammy: The meaning is he had found out by experience that it was true.

    Again, I disagree. What if he’d said “When you’re a star they let you get away with murder?”

    @Leviticus:f kissing beautiful women without waiting?

    This reminded me that you are probably not old enough to have seen Richard Dawson when he hosted Family Feud. Whether he should or shouldn’t have kissed the wives of every family on the show, most people in the audience at the time didn’t think anything of it.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  205. “The original statement is about what a person in Trump’s position could do if so inclined. If you interpreted it hyper-literally, it is a statement about what Billy Bush could do (since he was talking to Billy Bush and the second-person pronoun is “you”).

    What you could not do is construe it as a statement about an action performed by Trump in the past, without additional information. That did not stop the media, though.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    I will concede that it was unfair for the media to intimate that Trump had actually “grabbed women by the p*ssy.” He was speaking of what a person in Trump’s position could do if so inclined.

    It was perfectly fair for the media to intimate that Trump had actually “kissed women without their permission.” He said as much. (Which of course goes to show his inclination in the other regard, but whatever).

    So, does kissing women without their permission amount to sexual assault? Debatable. I’m assuming you don’t think it does, based on your statement that it’s “unfair to say he confessed to sexual assault.” But is it unfair for others to think that it does amount to sexual assault? And for those who believe as much, is it unfair for them to accuse Trump of confessing to sexual assault?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  206. “This reminded me that you are probably not old enough to have seen Richard Dawson when he hosted Family Feud. Whether he should or shouldn’t have kissed the wives of every family on the show, most people in the audience at the time didn’t think anything of it.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    Okay. Cultural standards shift. How far they have shifted is up for debate. But again: is it unfair for some to think that it kissing women without their permission amounts to sexual assault? And for those who believe as much, is it unfair for them to accuse Trump of confessing to sexual assault?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  207. This is, in fact, a very important point: drilling down to see what assumptions lie at the root of accusations of “unfairness.”

    Leviticus (efada1)

  208. Since there have been so many accusations of unfairness in both directions in recent weeks/months.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  209. @Leviticus:(Which of course goes to show his inclination in the other regard, but whatever).

    And of course if you shoplift a pencil you would commit grand larceny, right? If you would hit a man, you might cut his throat? A bit of a stretch in logic don’t you think?

    is it unfair for them to accuse Trump of confessing to sexual assault?

    They weren’t referring to the kisses. That’s the thing. And if they were, then they redefined “sexual assault” in the same way that “colorblind” has been redefined as “racist”. And if they don’t explain their redefinition than it is unfair, yes.

    But again, not the point.

    Is it fair for you to characterized what I have said here as a lack of toleration for any criticism of Trump?

    Would it be fair for you to respond to what I have said here with “Mr. Trump applauds your determination to ignore all information provided by the running dog media. You are well on your way to being a subservient subject who takes all direction from the Great Leader. Congratulations!”

    I’ve patiently answered your questions, which are taking us way off topic. Kindly answer mine.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  210. @leviticus:This is, in fact, a very important point: drilling down to see what assumptions lie at the root of accusations of “unfairness.”

    Not really because this example is overspecialized.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  211. no it’s wasting time on issues of little consequence,

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tom-cotton-the-iran-deal-is-dead/article/2612295

    narciso (d1f714)

  212. AND what narcisco said.

    So Leviticus, what say you to my questions, the general and the specific?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  213. 204. Well, somebody remembered the tape, and they went looking for it after Hillary Clinton had raised the issue of Donald Trump’s sexual conduct in the first debate, on Monday, September 26, and they found it. Now maybe it was better co-ordinated than that, but they apparently went looking for it after the first debate where Alicia Machado was brought up.

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/07/media/access-hollywood-donald-trump-tape/

    Access Hollywood and NBC were both going to do a show about after the second debate, (and prpptect Billy Bush) but somebody leaked it to the Washington Post and a reporter started calling, and then NBC quickly did a story about it – all before the second debate October 9.

    be published in the washington Post and have a TV show(that wold have porotected Billy Bush) but somebody decided to leak the whole thing, probably for political advantage.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  214. “Is it fair for you to characterized what I have said here as a lack of toleration for any criticism of Trump?

    Would it be fair for you to respond to what I have said here with “Mr. Trump applauds your determination to ignore all information provided by the running dog media. You are well on your way to being a subservient subject who takes all direction from the Great Leader. Congratulations!”

    I’ve patiently answered your questions, which are taking us way off topic. Kindly answer mine.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    1) No

    2) No

    3) No

    My questions have not taken us way off topic. The topic was, “let’s try to figure out some principle for determining whether particular criticism of Trump is fair or unfair.” You yourself said you would be happy to tell me where you think that line is. I appreciate your efforts, but we’re not there yet.

    And since we’re asking each other to answer questions, would you kindly tell me where you get your news?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  215. (Whoops, I see that there was an extraneous “3)” in my previous response. Please ignore)

    Leviticus (efada1)

  216. @Leviticus: 1) No

    2) No

    3) No

    Excellent.

    The topic was, “let’s try to figure out some principle for determining whether particular criticism of Trump is fair or unfair.”

    That may be your topic of interest but it was not mine.

    You yourself said you would be happy to tell me where you think that line is. I appreciate your efforts, but we’re not there yet.

    No, I have not given you an exhaustive set of principles that let you decide so in every case, no. And I don’t have time for it.

    And since we’re asking each other to answer questions, would you kindly tell me where you get your news?

    Multiple sources cross-checked against one another, supplemented by any experience I have that bears on the topic. As a physicist I can tell you that most of the popular physics news is to some degree bunk, for example. I cannot say so on every topic, so I seek out people who know and can tell me, on that topic, how much of what is in the media is bunk.

    But I take no one source at face value.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  217. JP beat me to that but not hadn’t seen it.

    I thought the line about the Russians finding the missing emails was great,
    No, he didn’t ask them to hack her,
    The comment pointed out that the US government, that should have had them, didn’t,
    And since her server was not secure, if she had already been hacked by the Russians,
    Maybe they did

    Both of those points needed to be pushed out of sight,
    So all of the wailing and wringing of hands

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  218. GH seems to be asking us to employ MG-MA antidote frequently,
    Seems to me,
    And nothing more.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  219. “Multiple sources cross-checked against one another, supplemented by any experience I have that bears on the topic. As a physicist I can tell you that most of the popular physics news is to some degree bunk, for example. I cannot say so on every topic, so I seek out people who know and can tell me, on that topic, how much of what is in the media is bunk.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    Okay, but can you give me some examples? Like, for example, I get a lot of my news from the Guardian, and read the Atlantic a lot. How bout you? Not for physics stuff – that’s over my head – but for, like, news stuff.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  220. “Gabriel, what is the dividing line between fair criticism of Trump and unfair criticism of Trump? Or between productive criticism of Trump and unproductive criticism of Trump?”

    – Leviticus

    “If you actually want to know, I will be happy to tell you where I think the line is, but I can’t speak for Kevin M.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    “You yourself said you would be happy to tell me where you think that line is. I appreciate your efforts, but we’re not there yet.”

    – Leviticus

    “No, I have not given you an exhaustive set of principles that let you decide so in every case, no. And I don’t have time for it.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    Leviticus (efada1)

  221. @Leviticus: I’m not a performing monkey to be dismissed when I’ve satisfied you. I spent quite a bit of time with you on this already.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  222. @Leviticus: How bout you? Not for physics stuff – that’s over my head – but for, like, news stuff.

    Washington Post, Daily Mail, Telegraph, Atlantic, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal

    Whatever you read there, you always need to dig deeper if there is any “narrative” aspect to it.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  223. “The topic was, “let’s try to figure out some principle for determining whether particular criticism of Trump is fair or unfair.”

    That may be your topic of interest but it was not mine.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    Graciously, you were happy to tell me where you think the line is. It’s still not clear to me where you think the line is, based on the example that you selected. What I’ve gathered is, you don’t think that kissing a woman without asking is sexual assault (which is certainly a commonly held opinion) and you think that the media redefined sexual assault by referring to Trump’s admission as such.

    But isn’t that a bit subjective? I mean, can’t reasonable minds differ about what constitutes sexual assault? And if they can, why was it unfair for some media outlets to have that outlook?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  224. “@Leviticus: I’m not a performing monkey to be dismissed when I’ve satisfied you. I spent quite a bit of time with you on this already.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    Whoah! I never said that you were a performing monkey to be dismissed when you had satisfied me. I appreciate the time you’ve spent discussing this topic with me thus far, I just don’t think we’ve reached a clear answer yet.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  225. @Leviticus:Graciously, you were happy to tell me where you think the line is.

    In two examples. Only one of which you wanted to go into great detail on. You seem fixated on that one for some reason and you don’t address the other. And it’s boring now.

    And here

    What I’ve gathered is, you don’t think that kissing a woman without asking is sexual assault (which is certainly a commonly held opinion) and you think that the media redefined sexual assault by referring to Trump’s admission as such.

    I do not agree that this represents what I said. So now I’d have to correct this, and then we’d argue about the correction. I’m not interested in that. I’m interested in not being accused of intolerance to any criticism of Trump.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  226. 🤡 vs. 🐒 ???

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  227. ==the first time perry was recovering from spinal surgery and was on strong pain killers, the second time he was listening to doctor evil and chip barbour, I suggest that clouds the mind more,==

    LOL, narciso. Good one.

    elissa (909106)

  228. “@Leviticus:Graciously, you were happy to tell me where you think the line is.

    In two examples. Only one of which you wanted to go into great detail on. You seem fixated on that one for some reason and you don’t address the other. And it’s boring now.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    I’m sure it must be boring, sorry about that. I got fixated on one example because it made my point for me, and because it’s easier to focus on one example at a time so that facts don’t get all jumbled up. To be fair, you did get to pick the example. But I’m sorry you’re bored.

    Does this mean you’re not interested in helping me find the line of distinction between fair and unfair Trump criticism any more?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  229. “I’m interested in not being accused of intolerance to any criticism of Trump.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    I haven’t accused you of that, so we’re good there.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  230. I get that Patterico said something mean to you. I would say I’m sure he’s sorry, except that I know that I can’t speak for him any more than you can speak for Kevin M.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  231. “is it unfair for them to accuse Trump of confessing to sexual assault?”

    – Leviticus

    “They weren’t referring to the kisses. That’s the thing. And if they were, then they redefined “sexual assault” in the same way that “colorblind” has been redefined as “racist”. And if they don’t explain their redefinition than it is unfair, yes.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    “What I’ve gathered is, you don’t think that kissing a woman without asking is sexual assault (which is certainly a commonly held opinion) and you think that the media redefined sexual assault by referring to Trump’s admission as such.”

    – Leviticus

    “I do not agree that this represents what I said.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    Leviticus (efada1)

  232. 🦈 🦈 🦈 🦈

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  233. #171 Colonel Haiku, apparently the dance is still going on! (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  234. @Leviticus:Does this mean you’re not interested in helping me find the line of distinction between fair and unfair Trump criticism any more?

    It means I feel that in this circumstance we’ve gone farther into it than is productive. As for a general elucidation that would tell you, in every situation that has ever come up, what is or is not fair, we don’t have time. You’d have to do that for me and then every other person with an opinion.

    So this approach is a non-starter. It will not fix what is wrong with the comments section.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  235. Reading Leviticus, Sammy and Gabriel discussing pussies was the absolutely LAST thing I thought I’dd be doing when I got out of bed this morning. Forrest Gump was right. Life is like a box of chocolates. “You never know what you’re going to get.”

    elissa (909106)

  236. Aight, cool.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  237. To be fair, elissa, I thought we were trying to discuss principles.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  238. @Leviticus: Read your characterization of my opinion carefully with respect to your use of the word “admission” and you may discover why I don’t agree you represented what I said.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  239. @Leviticus:I thought we were trying to discuss principles.

    We were, until it became a sperg-out on example not sufficiently general to illustrate those principles, hence I am going back to my hugbox and perhaps you should too.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  240. The 🐱 🦈 was officially jumped at…

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  241. Upthread I said:

    Kevin M said plenty of sensible things in this thread. He also said some crazy stuff about knives and backstabbing and siding with the enemy and “so-called conservatives.” That is what I reacted to and that is what Senor Strawman will ignore because that is mighty difficult to explain as anything but what I said it seems to be.

    Who are the backstabbers? How have they plunged the knife into Trump’s back? Why are they “so-called conservatives”? How have they sided with the enemy? Senor Strawman will never ever answer each of these questions forthrightly. Watch and see. Now I am really out.

    Carnac the Great had nothin’ on me.

    I’ll grant you that I did not phrase that comment in the nicest manner. But Gabriel started this by alleging that I had mischaracterized Kevin M, in the same comment where he mischaracterized me as directing my commentary to all Trump supporters, rather than Kevin M and those who agreed with his more extreme comments in this thread. (More on that in the next comment.)

    I have challenged Gabriel to explain what Kevin M meant by the above. It is a cop-out to say you can’t speak for him. You spoke for him when you said I had mischaracterized him.

    Kindly answer what I predicted you would not. See the block quote immediately above.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  242. Gabriel quotes me as saying:

    But that’s not good enough for Kevin M. I have to stop criticizing Trump entirely, because otherwise I am a backstabber and siding with the wrong side. How else am I supposed to interpret Kevin M’s own comments in this thread?

    And responds by saying:

    As long as Patterico, Dana, etc believe this to be a faithful representation of what those who disagree with them think, the problems here will get worse.

    Unmistakable implication: I (and Dana) believe the accusation that I am a backstabber is “what those who disagree with them think.” So I reject that by saying:

    Also I did not say this is what “those who disagree with me” think but “those who agree with Kevin M’s extreme imagery.”

    Emphasis added.

    And Gabriel comes back with

    Another extreme interpretation of what I said. It is understood we are discussing Kevin M.

    So it is “extreme” to interpret the words “those who disagree with me” to mean “those who disagree with me.”

    I can’t have a discussion with someone who argues like this. How can I be expected to reason with someone whose claims that quoting him is an extreme interpretation???

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  243. @Patterico:I have challenged Gabriel to explain what Kevin M meant by the above.

    I can only tell you what I think he meant. You should get his interpretation. I objected to your interpreting it in the most unfavorable way to him, that’s what I thought unfair. There are many things he could have meant and it was wrong for you to canalize it into one blanket statement which I know he didn’t mean.

    But this is what I think he meant.

    Who are the backstabbers?

    Republicans and conservatives piling on media narratives du jour when that narrative is insufficiently supported by facts, and not trying to get those facts.

    How have they plunged the knife into Trump’s back?

    By piling on when the facts don’t justify it, and not trying to get the facts.

    Why are they “so-called conservatives”?

    I suppose by making harder for Trump to do anything approved by conservatives, by helping to erode what support he has with them and the public.

    How have they sided with the enemy?

    By making harder for Trump to do anything approved by conservatives, by helping to erode what support he has with them and the public.

    That’s what I think is what he meant, based on the things I’ve seen him say over the years.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  244. “Republicans and conservatives piling on media narratives du jour when that narrative is insufficiently supported by facts, and not trying to get those facts.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    For the record, Patterico, we’re still having a hard time distinguishing those “media narratives du jour” from “accurately using Donald Trump’s words in a news story.”

    Leviticus (efada1)

  245. @Patterico:I can’t have a discussion with someone who argues like this.

    It does not feel that you are trying to understand. It feels like you are seizing on forms of words, written extemporaneously, and avoiding understanding.

    That may not be your intention.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  246. The colonel, with his “jumped the shark” comment, has thereby asked to be muted for the balance of the day, and I have accommodated him.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  247. @Leviticus:“accurately using Donald Trump’s words in a news story.”

    it’s like the whole discussion didn’t happen. “Accurately using” is exactly what I denied happened.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  248. Who are the backstabbers?

    Republicans and conservatives piling on media narratives du jour when that narrative is insufficiently supported by facts, and not trying to get those facts.

    1. Do you think Kevin M believes I am one of those people?

    2. Do you?

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  249. It does not feel that you are trying to understand. It feels like you are seizing on forms of words, written extemporaneously, and avoiding understanding.

    That may not be your intention.

    You said a direct quote of you was an extreme interpretation. Review the quotes in my comment.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  250. @Patterico:1. Do you think Kevin M believes I am one of those people?

    He needs to answer that for himself.

    2. Do you?

    I credit you with good intentions. I do not think you intend to do it, and I CERTAINLY think that many, perhaps most, of your criticisms of Trump are wholly justified by the facts.

    Do you think it is fair for you to say to me “Mr. Trump applauds your determination to ignore all information provided by the running dog media. You are well on your way to being a subservient subject who takes all direction from the Great Leader. Congratulations!”

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  251. You think the media redefined “sexual assault” by saying that Donald Trump sexually assaulted women, even though Donald Trump admitted to kissing women without waiting for their permission. You also think that the media was referring to the “grab them by the p*ssy” comments,” but of course you can’t speak for the media anymore than you can speak for Kevin M.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  252. @PAtterico:a direct quote

    A “direct quote” can be interpreted in different ways, right?

    When the subject of the discussion is already understood, if I ever forget to mention it again, I am to be held to a different interpretation to my disfavor? My comments will start to get awfully repetitive.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  253. “A “direct quote” can be interpreted in different ways, right?”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    Now we’re getting somewhere!

    Leviticus (efada1)

  254. @Leviticus:Now we’re getting somewhere!

    Never in dispute. Can be done fairly or unfairly. And who’s to say what’s fair. Now we’re back to full circle but I’ll not join you on the merry-go-round.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  255. BTW, the most unpopular President-elect in history was Lincoln. Just sayin’.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  256. He needs to answer that for himself.

    You seemed willing to interpret his comments so far…

    If you can’t answer this question, then you have no basis to assert that I misinterpreted his comments unfairly. Please retract that.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  257. @20. The fowl are furiously flapping their left and right wings now. But the bird will never get off the ground.

    “As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.” – Arthur Carlson [Gordon Jump] ‘WKRP in Cincinnati’ CBS TV, 1978

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  258. @Patterico:If you can’t answer this question, then you have no basis to assert that I misinterpreted his comments unfairly.

    That’s not true. If it can be taken multiple ways, you don’t have a license to assert he meant only it in one specific way.

    But since you demand it, I think he would answer you as I have, that it’s not something you intend, and that he agrees with most of your criticisms.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  259. @Patterico: Do you think it was fair for you to say to me “Mr. Trump applauds your determination to ignore all information provided by the running dog media. You are well on your way to being a subservient subject who takes all direction from the Great Leader. Congratulations!” on the divestment issue?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  260. This is why I majored in English. (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  261. Gabriel:

    Do I understand this correctly? When you said:

    As long as Patterico, Dana, etc believe this to be a faithful representation of what those who disagree with them think, the problems here will get worse.

    Your contention is that the phrase “those who disagree with him” was intended to refer to the individual who calls himself Kevin M?

    The quoted phrase made me hot because I consider it to be a (widely held) *smear* of me that I am acting contemptuous of all Trump voters or people who disagree with me about a Trump.

    For you to take a comment I made about Kevin M and transmogrify it into a criticism of all who disagree with me was, in my view, a furtherance of that smear.

    So again: “those who disagree with me” in the above quote meant Kevin M and Kevin M alone?

    Because if it did, you need to work harder on precision in language, especially when an imprecise use of language furthers a smear that upsets me greatly.

    If it didn’t, you were disingenuous above when you implied it did.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  262. @Patterico: Do you think it was fair for you to say to me “Mr. Trump applauds your determination to ignore all information provided by the running dog media. You are well on your way to being a subservient subject who takes all direction from the Great Leader. Congratulations!” on the divestment issue?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/19/2017 @ 1:04 pm

    I think the tone shows it was not altogether serious. It was a response to your suggestion that you distrust all media. (I do not remember the exact quote of yours but look it up if you think my memory is faulty.)

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  263. @PAtterico:Kevin M and Kevin M alone?

    Kevin M and those who agree with him. But the problem is we differ on what Kevin M said, and consequently we differ on who those people might be.

    Because if it did, you need to work harder on precision in language, especially when an imprecise use of language furthers a smear that upsets me greatly.

    Very likely I do. Very likely many people do.

    So are you trying to convict me of smearing you, or are you trying to understand my perspective, or Kevin M’s perspective?

    And speaking of smears, do you think it was fair for you to say to me “Mr. Trump applauds your determination to ignore all information provided by the running dog media. You are well on your way to being a subservient subject who takes all direction from the Great Leader. Congratulations!” on the divestment issue?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  264. When I say that tendentious mischaracterizations at the outset of a discussion are your signature move, I’m being pretty serious. This thread illustrates the tendency to a T.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  265. This is why I majored in English. (LOL)

    I’m trying to learn Turkish.

    Sometimes this means reading about Turkish politics and Ottoman history.

    Trying to follow a Gabriel disputation is more confusing.

    That is really saying something.

    JP (f1742c)

  266. @Patterico:I think the tone shows it was not altogether serious.

    We cross-posted.

    Okay, we have a direct quote of yours. You say it doesn’t mean what it seems to mean. Okay, but do you find it at all understandable that I might have thought you meant it as it is on its face, the direct quote?

    And doesn’t have that some bearing on today’s discussion?

    That perhaps we could understand that we are not all as precise as we might be, that even so doing there might be misunderstandings, and that perhaps we should try to charitably understand one another rather than convict each other of things?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  267. “Those who disagree with Patterico” is hopefully a different set than “those who agree with Kevin M’s comments about so-called conservatives, backstabbing, and supporting the enemy.” You admit you equated those sets. Your writing needs more precision.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  268. @Patterico:tendentious mischaracterizations at the outset of a discussion are your signature move, I’m being pretty serious.

    Then you are taking the least charitable interpretation of what I am saying, as you did with Kevin M.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  269. No, I used a slightly ironic tone, which is distinct from a lack of precision.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  270. @Patterico:Your writing needs more precision.

    Be that as it may, you could be charitable regarding my intentions, unless and until I give you good reason to show I meant to do it, right?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  271. Please never again make broad brush accusations about my alleged contempt for people who disagree with me. This is a very sore subject right now.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  272. @Patterico:Please never again make broad brush accusations about my alleged contempt for people who disagree with me.

    Right, but this is not something that I intended to have said; it is something I think you were expecting me to have said, and it seems like you were looking hard for evidence I said it. But that is not what I was trying to say and not the discussion I was trying to have.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  273. Maybe there is a different interpretation of Kevin M’s bizarre and repeated “backstabber” “joined up with the enemy” style commentary here. I hope so, and if there is I would like to know what it is.

    I opposed Trump in the primaries. I did not vote for him in the general election. I had a long list of people I would have preferred, but they did not include Hillary Clinton (whose election I though Trump’s nomination ensured). About half my displeasure had to do with believing that Trump was the weakest candidate we could reasonably find. What was unexpected was that Hillary was even weaker.

    So then Trump won. Narrowly, by a handful of votes in critical states. It wasn’t a landslide by any means, but it oddly WAS a mandate given the heavy media thumb on the scale.

    In the last couple of months he has shown EVERY indication that he intends to further a conservative-ish agenda. His appointments to the Defense, Energy, Education, HHS, State and Justice departments, not to mention the EPA, show a decidedly conservative mindset.

    There are reasons to criticize some of these, but when the criticism comes from Leftist cant (e.g. blind trusts for entrepreneurial businesses), rather than conservative principles, I’m gonna call it for what it is: Leftist cant. When it aligns with what the editors of the NY Times whine about, I’m not going to confuse it with conservatism.

    For example, I dislike Sessions as AG because he is the happiest civil forfeiture warrior in Congress, and that is about as statist and anti-Constitutional as one can get. Sure, he’s against illegal immigration, but those folks are legion and someone else could have been picked.

    I dislike Ben Carson in anything more meaningful than Surgeon General, and I don’t like him much even then. He’s whackadoodle in too many scientific fields.

    But many of the attacks on Trump are personal. They take the fact that he’s a jerk and use that to tar his entire administration and buy defeat in advance. This helps no one but the bad guys, and coming from the conservative side, when EVERYTHING HE HAS DONE SINCE THE ELECTION has been conservative, seems like “backstabbing” to me.

    Wait until he turns liberal, like W did, before you reach for the knives. Or admit that conservatism is not your objective, but you just are embarrassed by Trump and don’t want people to think you aren’t.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  274. BBC discussion about Trump and Twitter.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_h8-NnSf8M

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  275. Hi Kevin M., I have a bill for you here.

    You may be able to plead incompetence of counsel.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  276. A comment like this:

    As long as Patterico, Dana, etc believe this to be a faithful representation of what those who disagree with them think, the problems here will get worse.

    Is waving a red flag in front of a bull.

    I’m sick to fucking DEATH of people telling me what is wrong with my blog.

    And everyone is pretending like my problem is with everyone who disagrees with me which is exactly what your comment said.

    Now you’re saying you didn’t quite mean it that way but blah blah blah

    You know what? Retract that fucking statement as written or get off my blog.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  277. Piers Morgan discusses Trump: (Jan. 15)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeYckZ-gicM

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  278. @Patterico:You know what? Retract that f—-g statement as written or get off my blog.

    As your friend, I ask you: do you think you are trying to understand my perspective by this statement? What are you trying to accomplish by saying this?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  279. If clarifications are to be disallowed because you don’t like the first extemporaneous statement, what becomes of discussion?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  280. Kevin M, I have some plain questions for you.

    Am I a backstabber?

    Am I a “so-called conservative”?

    Am I siding with the enemy?

    Can you please give me a handbook so I can distinguish which criticisms of Trump will cause you to answer one or more of the above questions “yes”?

    Can you accept that someone might actually disagree with you about whether a particuar criticism of Trump is legitimate as opposed to leftist can’t?

    Finally, I extend a cordial invitation to anyone who would answer any of the first three questions “yes” to get off my blog.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  281. elissa,
    more like Bertie Botts many flavored beans,
    even the worst thing in a box of chocolates is not usually too bad, unless it is a nut one is allergic to,
    on the other hand…
    but then Forrest was in his prime before Harry

    Painted Jaguar wanted to get in on this conversation, but I told him it was not the time

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  282. So then clearly say that this quote of yours:

    As long as Patterico, Dana, etc believe this to be a faithful representation of what those who disagree with them think, the problems here will get worse.

    was overbroad and unfair as stated.

    Have I failed to communicate that this is important to me, and why?

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  283. An old interview (after the 2010 election) of Donald trump by Piers Morgan.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gGIu9tj7IA

    Trump knows and likes Bill Clinton and mentions Clinton is a member of his golf club. Disccusses running for president (in 2012)

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  284. Nobody ever asks what I meant, even when criptic. I must not be ask mysterious as I think I am.

    Or I’m a really great communicator.

    Sure. Let’s go with B.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  285. The “so-called conservatives” “knives in the back” “siding with the enemy” rhetoric was waaaaay over the top. If I cannot criticize that without being told that I am taking a high-handed attitude towards everyone who disagrees with me, there is something wrong. If someone says that but does not really mean it then they should retract it. It is basic decency.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  286. Btw, I was never happy about the “grab them by the pussy” remark, but that was a private conversation recorded and exposed.

    I would LOVE to hear recordings of private remarks by Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, heck HILLARY Clinton, Jack Kennedy, LBJ, etc. Bet you there would be some doozies. But we generally don’t judge presidents by what they do in private.

    As far as public classlessness, wasn’t LBJ the guy who whipped his dick out in front of reporters to make a point (of sorts) about VietNam? Trump hasn’t done anything like that, on or off the record that I’m aware of. Let me know when he does.

    And I’m still waiting for the Khalidi tape.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  287. Awww. Ask should be as.

    Back to plan A.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  288. The back and forth between Patrick and Gabe has lost all touch with the context of Kevin M’s original point several hours ago. Now its degenerated into a pissing contest about who has misquoted/misinterpreted who over the course of several hours.

    IMO, Patrick took this off the rails when he focused on the “backstabbing” issue — which is not all that accurate paraphrase of Kevin’s original post. Kevin, in a series of posts, was taking issue with Eliot Cohen’s article, which Patrick adopted by agreeing “almost with every word” in his post. He was also commenting on earlier comments made by others, one by Dustin who posited that Trump was going to be the most unpopular President to take office in history.

    It was in response to that comment — nothing written by Cohen or by Patrick — where Kevin made reference to the “knives coming in from his own side,” as a basis for understanding how he could go from being elected with 47% of the popular vote, and now have a popularity rating (IF you believe the polling) somewhere in the low 40s. You don’t expect people who didn’t vote for him to like him, but that’s a big number of people who did vote for him who now say they don’t like him. What exactly has HE done that might have caused that??

    How is Kevin’s comment not fair on the facts?? Among the main reasons Trump enters office as unpopular as he finds himself is that he’s attacked on a range of topics from all aspects of the political spectrum regardless of what he does.

    The almost universal contempt of the media for Trump means the attacks get amplified, and the attacks by Republicans get super-amplified.

    Those who are cautiously supporting the Administration based on what it has showed over the past 2 months — at least me — would like to tell the GOP critics “Just hold your fire until there’s something really to complain about.” So much of the antipathy expressed from the right — or maybe I should simply quote Eliot Cohen about himself and his compatriots, the “Intellectual Conservatives” (you agree with that conceit Patrick?) — is gratuitous. Its offered not because it meaningfully advances any particular point or position — its offered simply as a “tut tut” in recognition of his not-seen-before behavior, and to distance them from what they anticipate will eventually unfold into a train wreck. They are the “Intellectual Conservatives” after all.

    And, I’m sure I’ll have more to say as I catch up on the 200+ comments on this post, but I find Cohen’s article to be particularly loathing, because I can’t divorce the words from the author.

    There may be no single individual who feels himself more left out in the cold by a GOP Presidential Administration than Eliot Cohen. He was a signer of the infamous “WarontheRocks” open letter to Trump. He is a first-order Neocon of the Paul Wolfowitz/Richard Perle GOP foreign policy establishment. Trump, in large measure, has rejected the “GOP National Security Community” behind the open letter, and few if any of the folks who signed the letter have been brought into the Trump administration. Instead, Trump has opted to look to the ranks of retired military generals and admirals — you know, guys who actually make decisions and do things when asses are on the line — not the folks who sit at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University, and write articles for fellow “Intellectual Conservatives” in the American Thinker.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  289. it is just so bizarre, the premises one is expected to consider reality, the Russia question, is totally devoid of current fact or past context, china is presented as an avatar of internationalism,

    narciso (d1f714)

  290. Trump says Palkistan probably has Osama bin Laden and he’s on dialysis. He says they are oprobably housing him. BBut he could also be in Saudi Arabia.

    It sounds like early 2011.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  291. @Patterico:So then clearly say that this quote of yours:

    As long as Patterico, Dana, etc believe this to be a faithful representation of what those who disagree with them think, the problems here will get worse.

    was overbroad and unfair as stated.

    That is quite fair–that quote of mine, without any of the context or subsequent clarifications, is overbroad and unfair as stated. My subsequent statements make it more clear what I meant.

    Have I failed to communicate that this is important to me, and why?

    No.

    Most of these new ones lately are with people who’ve been here a while and agreed and disagreed with you many times on many topics. These are people who know for a fact that you tolerate disagreement. Hence the disconnect.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  292. Mr Supporter wrote, well above:

    I think of this place as a bit like The McLaughlin Group or CNN’s old Crossfire, where people can argue, object, and trade snarky barbs or streams of consciousness, yet not go to bed angry at each other.

    I’m not so certain that some people don’t go to bed angry about politics.

    The pessimistic Dana (1b79fa)

  293. SWC,

    Kevin M’s comment was explicitly directed at Dustin. If you are going to chime in with your little two cents worth, kindly refrain from throwing up a lot of dust and obscuring the issue with nonsense arguments that show you did not read the thread carefully enough.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  294. “It was in response to that comment — nothing written by Cohen or by Patrick — where Kevin made reference to the “knives coming in from his own side,” as a basis for understanding how he could go from being elected with 47% of the popular vote, and now have a popularity rating (IF you believe the polling) somewhere in the low 40s. You don’t expect people who didn’t vote for him to like him, but that’s a big number of people who did vote for him who now say they don’t like him. What exactly has HE done that might have caused that??

    How is Kevin’s comment not fair on the facts??”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    Because it implied that Dustin was backstabbing Trump by criticizing him.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  295. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/19/2017 @ 1:34 pm

    You don’t expect people who didn’t vote for him to like him, but that’s a big number of people who did vote for him who now say they don’t like him.

    They didn’t like him the day they voted for him. Is this a surprise?

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  296. I fear that Trump, whose major skill is that of a pitchman, will succumb to every bad idea that has an effective pitchman behind it. Since he has no core principles, he will value the technique of the presentation and ignore the soundness of the product. Salesmen are notorious for being that way.

    My first job after college was to maintain the stock levels in the warehouse of a regional distributor of janitorial supplies. With both inflation and interest rates in the double digits it was a balancing act between never being back ordered and being over stocked. This was in the days before computerized inventories. My bane was the VP of Sales, who had authority to order new product lines. A great salesman in his own right, Morris had almost no ability to evaluate the actual merits of a product. At the end of every fiscal year there would be pallets full of stuff Morris had ordered that no customers bought.

    For such people, the function of gatekeeper is vital. If they don’t hear the bad idea or the pitch for the unsalable product, they can’t run with it. I recall Donald Rumsfeld once noting his biggest task as the President’s Chief of Staff was to kill bad ideas. Rummy note that often something would be raised at a meeting that hadn’t been on the agenda. Some one would think it was a good idea and further action would be proposed. But upon reflection, there was a reason the idea had not been on the agenda.

    NC Mountain Girl (eaf922)

  297. @shipwreckedcrew:The back and forth between Patrick and Gabe has lost all touch with the context of Kevin M’s original point several hours ago. Now its degenerated into a pissing contest about who has misquoted/misinterpreted who over the course of several hours.

    This is true, and I share the blame.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  298. Thank you, Gabriel.

    Back to work.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  299. Patterico,

    I do not believe that you (or Dustin) side with the socialist. I do believe that you have said things that reflect personalities far more than they do principles.

    I get it that Trump is repellent. I said things during the primaries that should suggest that I agree with that feeling. But we are here, now, and all that is spilt milk. Continuing the “Trump is an assh0le” tirade doesn’t seem like a worthwhile endeavor when he seems to be leading a conservative revolution that needs support.

    You say that he is no conservative, but what, in particular, in the last 2 months suggests that? Attacking him while he is BEING more conservative than any US president since Reagan does not seem like it burnishes one’s conservative credentials. How can you argue that it does?

    I admit I’m upset with you and Dustin, primarily since we have been in such agreement in the past. At least one of us is very wrong this time. I don’t think it’s me.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  300. Trump, in large measure, has rejected the “GOP National Security Community” behind the open letter…

    By nominating as SecDef James Mattis, who shares a lot of Cohen’s “neoconservative” security concerns about the region? Come off it.

    Incidentally, Cohen’s life wasn’t (and isn’t) on the line for his opinions. His son’s was.

    JP (f1742c)

  301. I see Trump as benevolent throughout his entire history, whereas Patterico, you make mountains out of distant molehills in his past.

    The media hyped up those Trumpian molehills to color the public perception in contemporary reportage. Of course he pushes back as best he can. The main difference between then and now is Trump has gotten better, much better at the repair side of his reputation. That’s a skill set that is developed over years of practice.

    Think about it this way. Pat, you chafe and flail under a few months of the type of pushback that Trump has labored through for a lifetime. Taking time outs. Developing safe spaces. Retreating to Redstate. Uncharacteristically closing off comments on blog policy posts.

    That’s because you are not used to it.

    Trump is used to it. And every Republican politician damn sure could use a dollop of it, because the country is riding on their shoulders.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  302. I do have to agree with Patterico on one thing. We disagree from time to time but I have NEVER EVER held him in contempt and I have every reason to believe that the same could be said on his part.

    God knows he’s more tolerant of commenters that some bloggers I could name.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  303. In the original pilot for Star Trek, Captain Christopher Pike learned that the Talosians couldn’t read his mind when it was filled with hate’ strong emotions blocked their telepathy and illusions. But, as Vina, the human woman who had been wrecked on Talos IV 18 years earlier told him, no one can keep it up long enough, you just can’t maintain a feeling of rage forever. I wonder: for just how long can the left keep up their feelings of maniacal rage over the election of Donald Trump to be the next President of the United States? How long can the two (?) sides of conservatism on this site remain urinated off at each other?

    In the end, our esteemed host, who has a thick skin, but not so thick that it can’t be scratched through, will continue this site, and both the Trumpinistae and those really worried about the next President will calm down;some few will depart.

    The transition is almost over; starting tomorrow at noon, we’ll have Mr Trump’s own actions as president to discuss, and not the extraneous stuff.

    The Star Trek fan Dana (1b79fa)

  304. the wider point is true, presidents don’t drastically change from the nomination, to ascession to office, although some habits change as w did during the Iraq w, certain orientations toward policy change,

    narciso (d1f714)

  305. In the meantime, MSNBC tried to make a Big Deal this afternoon about Mr Trump getting his real national security briefing tomorrow morning, the briefing about his responsibilities with the codes to use nuclear weapons. The hostess was trying to convey the feeling that a lot of people do not believe Mr Trump can be trusted with control of the bomb.

    Not that MSNBC would be biased, or anything.

    The Dana who watched it so that you wouldn't have to (1b79fa)

  306. Kevin M’s comments about so-called conservatives, backstabbing, and supporting the enemy.”

    Looking back at my comments the following probably could have been left on the editing floor:

    Again, it is sad to see that so-called conservatives siding with folks who would gladly put them up against a wall and shoot them, just because they didn’t get the Republican they wanted in office.

    All I can say is that it WAS 1:15AM when I wrote it. This I will retract as unfair.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  307. Those who criticize Trump along with the MSM on things that are not worth talking about.
    The question will always be is “X” worth talking about.
    I believe it is as simple as that.

    MD gets it.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  308. “At least one of us is very wrong this time. I don’t think it’s me.”

    – Kevin M

    No one ever does.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  309. “The transition is almost over; starting tomorrow at noon, we’ll have Mr Trump’s own actions as president to discuss, and not the extraneous stuff.”

    – The Star Trek fan Dana

    That’s a good point.

    We live in interesting times.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  310. I guess this is where the issue really takes hold with me vis-a-vis the host’s POV, and why I’m repeatedly lining up against him in these fights over the last few weeks:

    I would simply say to Patrick, go back and read Eliot Cohen’s public comments about Trump over the past year.

    Now think again about having thrown in with him on the article that you have linked to.

    BUT, don’t ignore this little nugget from Eliot on November 10, 2016, two days after the election:

    Trump may be better than we think. He does not have strong principles about much, which means he can shift. He is clearly willing to delegate legislation to Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. And even abroad, his instincts incline him to increase U.S. strength—and to push back even against Russia if, as will surely happen, Putin double-crosses him. My guess is that sequester gets rolled back, as do lots of stupid regulations, and experiments in nudging and nagging Americans to behave the way progressives think they should.

    This is the POV that a lot of CONSISTENT conservatives have had with regard to Trump, finding little to support at first, eyeing him warily as he maneuvered closer to GOP mainstream conservatism through the course of the primaries, and then beginning to grudgingly admire the fact that in some ways his lack of an ideological center allows him to make deals that are on balance good for conservatism even if they aren’t deals that the Paul Ryan and/or the Freedom Caucus would propose.

    Cohen’s problem is that his Nov. 10 effort only exposed his lack of principles as he sought a position of prominence again in the GOP NatSec. apparatus that was going to be assembled. But he had overtly supported HRC, called her the “lesser of two evils” as compared to Trump, and signed the scathing WarOnTheRocks letter.

    So, throwing in with a Cohen diatribe simply hangs a target for me.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  311. 297 –.

    Thanks Patrick.

    Goodbye all.

    SWC.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  312. I have a bill for you here.

    For inflaming our host? There’s probably a reason they don’t have toreadors in courtrooms.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  313. @309. The hostess was trying to convey the feeling that a lot of people do not believe Mr Trump can be trusted with control of the bomb.

    Rest easy. If Rick Perry is confirmed, he will be “in control” of America’s nuclear arsenal.

    Oops. Sleep well, world.

    “Sarge! Who says I’m dumb?” – Corporal Randolph Agarn [Larry Storch] ‘F Troop’ ABC TV, 1966

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  314. Actually, let me say this in response specifically to Patrick with regard to 297:

    I presume — since you didn’t specify — that you are referring to my comment at 292:

    You said:

    SWC,

    Kevin M’s comment was explicitly directed at Dustin. If you are going to chime in with your little two cents worth, kindly refrain from throwing up a lot of dust and obscuring the issue with nonsense arguments that show you did not read the thread carefully enough.

    At 292, I has written:

    Kevin, in a series of posts, was taking issue with Eliot Cohen’s article, which Patrick adopted by agreeing “almost with every word” in his post. He was also commenting on earlier comments made by others, one by Dustin who posited that Trump was going to be the most unpopular President to take office in history.

    It was in response to that comment — nothing written by Cohen or by Patrick — where Kevin made reference to the “knives coming in from his own side,” ….

    So, I explicitly recognized in my comment that Dustin had made the comment that Kevin was responding to, and I explicitly stated that it was not in response to anything in Cohen’s article or written by you.

    So, now who was it that didn’t read the thread carefully enough??

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  315. Am I a backstabber?

    Maybe you’re just caning Trump. But you are highly critical for reasons having little to do with policy.

    Am I a “so-called conservative”?

    No. Again your criticisms are from another direction entirely. But coming from a conservative they probably hurt more.

    Am I siding with the enemy?

    You do not seem to be siding with the new administration’s strongly conservative direction. I get it that you despise the guy. I would happily exchange him for any of a dozen people, but I have been more and more happy as this transition progresses. Sure, he may destroy it all in a night of tweeting, but for right now I would hope that more conservatives would swallow their pride and get behind the movement.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  316. #292

    I wish I could write as well as swc.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  317. Because it implied that Dustin was backstabbing Trump by criticizing him.

    No, it said that Dustin was repeating Democrat talking points about people preferring Hillary and, in essence, that Trump was unpopular because he was illegitimate and that the Electoral College is an affront to democracy. Coming from Dustin’s Conservative/libertarian direction this seems like it’s “friendly fire.”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  318. SWC,

    I was responding to the part of Cohen’s article I could get down without being sick. That Patterico said that he agreed with almost all of it means that criticizing it is criticizing him. But it was Cohen that got my fingers typing (and Dustin’s comments about votes and the EC).

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  319. And again, Lincoln was the most unpopular. Seven states seceded before he was sworn in.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  320. nonononono

    Mr. Crew we would miss you

    you have many intelligence and i like to read your comments and we’re on the cusp of a new epoch and your voice is valuable

    thank you please to not go

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  321. So President-elect Trump w/family in tow are at the Pre-Inauguration Welcome Concert this evening on the Mall… and the U.S. Army Band strikes up the march [or dare I say, the larch]… ‘The Liberty Bell March’… which also happens to be the theme music to… ‘Monty Python’s Flying Circus.’

    Probably unintended but positively hilarious.

    “And now for something completely different.” – John Cleese 1971

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  322. Kevin M, our friend Dustin stated on many occasions during the campaign that he believed Hillary and her cabinet would be better for the country than Mr Donald and his cabinet.

    Now that we’ve seen the solid people nominated by Mr Donald, I wonder if Dustin has had a change of heart.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  323. Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/19/2017 @ 11:33 am

    If you interpreted it hyper-literally, it is a statement about what Billy Bush could do (since he was talking to Billy Bush and the second-person pronoun is “you”).

    What you could not do is construe it as a statement about an action performed by Trump in the past, without additional information.

    The additional information is that Donald Trump could not possibly have had any basis for saying that, unless he had done it himself.

    That does not mean that in fact he had done it. It could, and probably does, mean he had no basis for saying that, and he knew that he had no basis for saying that.

    Some women accused him after that, but theydid not support what Trump had said. They said they had not let him do it – a distinction the major media managed to miss.

    The assumption they made then was that Trump was lying (as he in fact shortly claimed he had been) but that the lie was that the women consented, rather than that the lie (implied) was merely that he had had a basis for claiming that if you are a star they let you do it.

    They assumed he lied about what a star (like Donald Trump) could expect. They then assumed it had taken place in Donald Trump’s life, but without the women’s consent, rather than that it not taken place at all.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  324. “No, it said that Dustin was repeating Democrat talking points about people preferring Hillary and, in essence, that Trump was unpopular because he was illegitimate and that the Electoral College is an affront to democracy. Coming from Dustin’s Conservative/libertarian direction this seems like it’s “friendly fire.””

    – Kevin M

    That seems pretty similar. I believe you made specific reference to knife thrusts.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  325. mr shipwreckedcrew, america needs you
    so does patterico.com

    it’s unanimous — you can’t leave!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  326. 100% everyone agrees

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  327. Or that’s what the Hillary Clinton campaign wanted people to think.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  328. Now we’re talking about knife thrusts.

    ISIS cuts people’s heads off on a daily basis, yet we can never get the lefties to talk about knife thrusts. (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  329. > for just how long can the left keep up their feelings of maniacal rage over the election of Donald Trump to be the next President of the United States?

    for how long did the right keep up its feeling of maniacal rage over the election of Barack Obama? and for how long did the left keep up its feeling of maniacal rage over the election of George Bush? and for how long did the right keep up its feeling of maniacal rage over the election of Bill Clinton? and for how long did the left keep up its feeling of maniacal rage over the election of Ronald Reagan?

    Why would you expect the anti-Trump left to calm down any faster than any of the other groups I just named did?

    While I agree the partisan divide is getting noticeably worse, partisan outrage has been a feature of American politics for as long as I’ve been alive, and it’s unique to neither political party.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  330. “ISIS cuts people’s heads off on a daily basis, yet we can never get the lefties to talk about knife thrusts. (LOL)”

    – Cruz Supporter

    Whoah, great point! We really shouldn’t talk about anything but ISIS decapitations. Thanks for solving that one for us.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  331. P.S.

    LOL

    Leviticus (efada1)

  332. The Star Trek fan Dana (1b79fa) — 1/19/2017 @ 1:54 pm

    for just how long can the left keep up their feelings of maniacal rage over the election of Donald Trump to be the next President of the United States?

    Till they have a rewal live issue.

    For now, they’re trying to make do with climate change. I heard a little bit of Red Eye radio in the middle of last night. A caller said he hadd watched the Tillerson hearing. He thought Marco Rubio might have had a point, but he wasn’t getting any help from Democrats. They did not follow up. Cory Booker wanted to ask Tillerson about climate change. In fact every Democrat in almost every hearing brought up climate change. Climate change. Climate change. Climate change.

    I think that was brought up just to suggest that Republicans are ignorant/stubborn/stupid/corrupt. They’ll need other things for evil. Obamacare and the Supreme Court (= back alley abortions) are coming up, and there’s immigration and deportation, but they’ll let the people affected complain and bring up things case by case.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  333. and el chapo is being put forth as an inaugural offering,

    narciso (d1f714)

  334. 337, lets hope its not for dithering on Daca, and check between the cheeks before he is presented on stage.

    urbanleftbehind (e959b1)

  335. fealty to the skydragon is a prerequisite for high office,

    https://twitter.com/RebeccaJarvis/status/822213425627590659

    narciso (d1f714)

  336. aphrael-
    Anyone who has made common cause with white domestic terrorists, Puerto Rican domestic terrorists, and aided jihadist terrorists in releasing them to fight against us another day,
    will always be opposed by me,
    whether they are Democrat, Republican, New Party,
    or whatever.

    As soon as Trump does any of those things, along with failing to uphold US law as was required of him by his oath of office,
    I will be against him every bit as much as I was against Obama.

    MD in Philly (fb70b7)

  337. Cohen’s piece is bitter whine for ideologues to swallow. Meanwhile, tomorrow, pragmatist Donald J. Trump will become the most powerful man on Earth.

    That should sober him up.

    “It’s showtime!” – Beetlejuice [Michael Keaton] ‘Beetlejuice’ 1988

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  338. Obama could not hide his true nature, no matter how much varnish the press applied, as these last few days have proven,

    narciso (d1f714)

  339. aphrael, just remember there’s nobody more angry at gays than Jihadists.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  340. #334 Leviticus,

    I never said we shouldn’t talk about anything other than decapitations.
    Seriously, do you ever represent other commenters factually? Come on, bro.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  341. You guys are maundering.

    Question: What do you do when you come across a Hollywood starlet?

    ___ Wipe it off and apologize.
    ___ Offer to pay for the dry cleaning.
    ___ Buy her a new outfit.
    ___ Ask the cameraman if he managed to film all of it.

    nk (dbc370)

  342. “No, it said that Dustin was repeating Democrat talking points about people preferring Hillary and, in essence, that Trump was unpopular because he was illegitimate and that the Electoral College is an affront to democracy.”

    Dustin preferred Hillary! Clinton. Hey, it’s a free country. May God bless his heart.

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  343. You know, I was so quick to respond to Pat’s statement about not respecting Trump because of his position, that I never looked at the article.

    I found the article very unhelpful.
    He seems more concerned about his status as a conservative intellectual than he is about the country.

    Trump is president. He may still be all of the worst that some have said about him.
    That said, I would hope that maybe we could hope for the best and that skilled and wise counselors would help improve the state of the nation,
    rather than worry if they sullied their conservative intellectual credentials.

    Obama I had no problem with opposing from the start, I knew what he stood for, I knew who he palled around with. I was not interested in seeing an anti-American leftist who was willing to stand up for infanticide but little else make progress in his fundamental changing of America.

    I can hope that Trump, for all of his faults, will at least have some pro-American sovereignty, pro rule of law tendencies that might come up with some good things a long the way.
    To not hope for that, and instead carry on as the article did, seems to me , as I said, more interested in his own self-opinion than anything else.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  344. I plan to stand ready to offer praise when it is deserved, but mostly to oppose and expose, to contradict and stand up, without apology, without compromise, and without hesitation. Whatever company I find in that enterprise, I have no doubt that it will be infinitely superior to any that will be found in the White House mess.

    So, he has no doubt that he will be in the infinitely superior company of people who stand on the outside and complain instead of those willing to try to be of assistance???

    I am not saddened that that is the last free article of the month from that site.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  345. that publication has occasional insightful pieces, but as is as afflicted with conventional wisdom as most other journals of opinion

    narciso (d1f714)

  346. Cruz Supporter,

    LOL.

    Leviticus (70ca80)

  347. while we’re all here we should make s’mores

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  348. And in Brazil, Casas De cartas takes an ominous turn. As the judge prosecuting dies in an aerial accident.

    narciso (d1f714)

  349. Mr Finkelman, I’ll be more impressed with the warmists when they start behaving as though they believe their own statements. They can show me by cutting back on their own consumption; deeds speak louder than words.

    The Dana who watched it so that you wouldn't have to (1b79fa)

  350. Dustin, I think I see what you mean but forgive me: I don’t see how anyone is being disenfranchised here. No one is revoking or restricting the rights of ordinary Californians or Texans from voting at the polls.

    Even in first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system countries which do not use the electoral college, and therefore dodge the issue of Poobah Contrarian Electors, “battleground” regions where votes are more hotly contested (and therefore “worth more” in the contest for office) are inevitable. This has been a feature of FPTP systems ever since the time of John Stuart Mill.

    JP (f1742c) — 1/19/2017 @ 5:54 am

    Great reply. My Texas vote is pretty disenfranchised compared to a vote in Florida so you’re obviously making some sense. I just like to muse about this electoral college and how it benefits the country (not the partisan GOP, but the actual country) at the expense of justice.

    Interesting discussion, others.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  351. All the links at whitehouse.gov will go bad before noon tomorrow.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  352. Still over macho grande, huh. Objections about policy are important lets see if there are some of note.

    narciso (d1f714)

  353. MD in Philly – I hope that Trump can overcome his manifest faults and be a great President. I have little faith that he will, and see scant reason for optimism.

    But I’d like to be wrong.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  354. SWC is right.i read his comment too hastily and overlooked that he had acknowledged Kevin was replying to Dustin. I’m sorry, SWC. I should not have said what I said, or said it that way.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  355. It does not excuse things that I was getting dressed after a workout and reading hastily on the phone when I made that comment, but if Kevin M can note he made his comment at 1:15 am, I can note that. 🙂

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  356. I should also note that SWC, while being pretty caustic a week or two ago, was pretty supportive of me recently, making me feel extra bad now.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  357. We’re all going to butt heads in the coming few years. It was easy to be united against Obama. It’s much harder to support what Trump does right while criticizing him where he’s wrong in a mixed audience. Especially when things go wrong, the market starts its rapid decline, the trade war with china or the real estate market erupts, Russia does something bad and we let them, etc etc.

    In good faith, if we can admit when we’re wrong and give the other side of each discussion a little respect, I think it’s on the other side to appreciate that. It’s going to take two to have a pleasant conversation. This is why my patience with those who really have no interest in an honest back and forth, whether they are jerks or just saccharin sweet sophists, is basically zero. It’s hard enough for the good faithed to get along now.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  358. 359.I should also note that SWC, while being pretty caustic a week or two ago, was pretty supportive of me recently, making me feel extra bad now.

    He’s just kissin’ your butt to set you up. Beware the Ides of March, Patterico.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  359. SWC’s next to last post at 315 appeared to be a good bye.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  360. My Texas vote is pretty disenfranchised compared to a vote in Florida

    You need to explain what “pretty disenfranchised” means. Is that like “a little pregnant”?

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  361. A big part of the problem, Dustin, is who is deciding what is honest back and forth or not.

    I think it is easy to withhold saying “Trump is an a**, will always be an a**, and my friends and I who criticize him as an a** will be in superior company than those in the WH trying to help him be less of an a**”.

    Which seems to me a relatively good, if a little more blunt than he already was, condensation of what he had to say.

    I hope to ignore posts on Trump in the future.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  362. I don’t expect Trump to overcome his faults, I don’t expect him to be a great president,
    although I will be pleasantly surprised if one or both of those things happen.
    i think he is enough of an opportunist and ego-driven that he may on occasion jump on the right bus and do some good.
    That is one major thing that is different between Trump and Obama, Obama new where he wanted to drive the bus, and it was not a direction I appreciated.

    But I hope a little bit of sanity can on occasion peak its head out of the cacophony against him and anything else the left targets.

    What was that saying about not wasting crises? I guess the corollary to that is the more crises one can foment, the more opportunity for seizing opportunity.
    I am just looking for some R of center to help minimize the crises.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  363. I hope to ignore posts on Trump in the future.

    That’s interesting. Why is that?

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  364. Alright Patrick — I was watching (LOL). Mistakes happen.

    Lets go back to fighting — I do get a kick out of it.

    And you’re still a great guy — that opinion has not ever wavered on my part.

    SWC

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  365. This is why I chose to fill in some details outside of the customary press scrum, those projections are at the David remnick levelof jeremiad,
    dustin, like that frank miller graphic novel.

    narciso (d1f714)

  366. Nicholas 1sr was the one who constituted the third section, the predecessor to the okrana and the cheka, that went after pushkin among others

    narciso (d1f714)

  367. Dustin at 360 is exactly right.

    Its easy to be in opposition to someone we all opposed because his political views were antithetical to ours.

    Trump is harder because he’s a shape-shifter. He looks a bit different to each of us — in a way its similar to the way Obama allowed liberals to project onto his blank canvas what they wanted him to be.
    Trump’s philosophy is so ever changing that even when he hits point that I disagree with, I don’t have to look too far in the past to find things he’s said or done that I like, which makes it easier for me to look past the things I don’t like.

    For those with Patrick’s view, I think they simply have more difficulty looking past what they don’t like, and that’s no something to find fault with.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  368. R.I.P. Miguel Ferrer, actor

    Icy (44c63a)

  369. I tried to post that at several instances today, icy. I guess the way they were writing his character on ncis was a clue

    narciso (d1f714)

  370. Great reply. My Texas vote is pretty disenfranchised compared to a vote in Florida so you’re obviously making some sense. I just like to muse about this electoral college and how it benefits the country (not the partisan GOP, but the actual country) at the expense of justice.

    Interesting discussion, others.

    Thanks. I’m more familiar with voting in the UK, but British electoral apportionment exhibits some of the same issues.

    In the UK there is a perennial call for a Proportional Representation (PR) electoral system instead of FPTP.

    While this system (or systems), as I understand it, will often ensure that elections are broadly more representative of proportional voting patterns, I’m not thrilled with the relative complexity and untimeliness of many PR systems, the chance that they too can end up with voting samples where the “popular” will is not reflected in final results, or the tendency they have to elevate fringe parties and movements to the national forum by discouraging majoritarian positions and general compromise.

    It doesn’t help that UK parties which haven’t shown much promise when it comes to winning over constituencies (Liberal Democrats, UKIP, Greens, RESPECT) tend to be the loudest voices in favour of PR.

    JP (256276)

  371. He seems more concerned about his status as a conservative intellectual than he is about the country.

    By “he” you mean Cohen. Yes, I got that, too. I’ve long been of the belief that what other people think of me is beyond my control. Certainly I can’t tailor my behavior to satisfy ALL of them, and probably not some of them all of the time.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  372. if Kevin M can note he made his comment at 1:15 am, I can note that.

    I noted that AS I withdrew it as unfair.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  373. Might we expect you to start respecting him if he proves to be a good President?

    That’s a good question. The answer is no. I’ll be pleased and surprised. But it won’t make me respect him, since he is a garbage pile of a human being.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  374. I noted that AS I withdrew it as unfair.

    Indeed, just as I am noting these facts about my comment as I withdraw it as unfair.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  375. He’s just kissin’ your butt to set you up. Beware the Ides of March, Patterico.

    You’re funny, Hoagie. I like you. Always have.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  376. Easy.

    From my point of view, we have never come to closure on the CNN article, whether there was any “there” there or whether it would have been prudent to exercise restraint and see if it was all disinformation campaign intended to undermine Trump.
    I expect trump will undermine himself enough that it would be good to identify propaganda for what it is.

    I disagree with the approach of the linked article as I said above;
    I do not enjoy wondering if today will be the day where irreconcilable splits happen;
    and there is no need for me to repeatedly bang heads here when there are enough flesh and blood people that I have to interact with that are going nuts thinking that the dark riders will be sent forth to terrorize the populace (seriously).

    And I think this is no where near the worst of it. It should be obvious that people with XX chromosomes are different from people with XY chromosomes, and if we can’t agree on that in our schools, there is little glue holding society together.

    And that, I believe, is called a Jeremiad.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  377. I should probably tell people that SPQR and I made up as well, a couple three days ago.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  378. I am glad to hear that about SPQR.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  379. Look, guys; Trump is madding. He’s suboptimum and always will be. He’s capable of undermining months of work while tweeting in the loo. President LePetomane.

    But right this very moment he’s listening to advice and setting up a better administration than we’ve seen in quite a while. Hopefully he can sit back and let people work and only get involved when it’s time to sign things and take credit. I see no reason to dump on him while he’s headed in the direction I would have him go.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  380. I think there is more than evidence i pointed up some upthread that suggests that the dossier was illfounded, however everything seems to be ‘a wilderness of mirrors’ as angleton put it.

    narciso (d1f714)

  381. Meanwhile he’s commuted the sentence of four medical cartel figures, just another Bronx cheer to law enforcement.

    narciso (d1f714)

  382. Think about it this way. Pat, you chafe and flail under a few months of the type of pushback that Trump has labored through for a lifetime. Taking time outs. Developing safe spaces. Retreating to Redstate. Uncharacteristically closing off comments on blog policy posts.

    That’s because you are not used to it.

    Trump is used to it.

    Not everyone can overcome the inherent disadvantages that the heroic Donald Trump has had to overcome in his hard-knock life, for sure.

    That said, your comment is silly.

    Taking a time out from responding comments during a three-day weekend is chafing and flailing? What planet do you live on?

    “Retreating to RedState”? WTF (Why The Face)?

    As I have explained, my deal with them requires that I generally give them one hour of exclusivity on most posts (this is relaxed in the evenings when they don’t really care) and toss them an exclusive every so often. Adhering to this deal is not “retreating” and you made that bit up.

    “Developing safe spaces.” What safe spaces? Again, WTF are you talking about?

    “Uncharacteristically closing off comments on blog policy posts.” I’ve closed comments before, but it’s rare.

    Again, not everyone has the character that Donald Trump developed while overcoming the adversity of being born into an incredibly rich family, and inheriting millions.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  383. ‘a wilderness of mirrors’

    Jesus James was a clever guy. Paranoid as all get-out, but clever.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  384. “Tomorrow we have a speech. Probably around 12 o’clock.” – Trump, moments ago, at Union Station.

    Priceless.

    “And it’s going to be a ree-ally big shew!” – Ed Sullivan, “The Ed Sullivan Show” – CBS TV

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  385. Dustin,

    I so appreciate your comment. I think one thing that will help in discussing Trump from here on out is a concerted effort made to avoid mischatacterizing comments from a commenter holding a different view than their own. It just doesn’t help. Assuming the worse of a commenter before taking the time to repeat back what you think they meant to get some clarity does everyone a favor.

    Leviticus,

    I loved your thoughtful efforts to dig down and find a place of agreement on how to criticize Trump, and what is fair and unfair. I think it is a very worthwhile discussion to be had. I realize it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but I want to know what the criteria might be.

    Dana (023079)

  386. Yes, that is what I thought, narciso.
    And it really doesn’t matter what I think, because I am at the “mercy” of what all the spooks, spook wannabes, and their willing and unwilling accomplices want me to know.

    MD in Philly (fb70b7)

  387. Well I don’t know anything for sure, only not to accept the narrative 9/10 times, bow Craig Murray suggests Obama let the cat out of the bag in the press conference.

    narciso (d1f714)

  388. ==SWC is right.i read his comment too hastily and overlooked that he had acknowledged….==

    I thank you for saying this, Pat. I am repeating your statement again not to bust your chops but to generally emphasize that probably all of us here are guilty of the same at times. We are busy and also prone to skimming, fast-reading, overlooking, mis-typing, misunderstanding, adding assumptions, cherry-picking irrelevant piece parts, having biases, and taking on slights from comments that others have make even if they are not even addressed to us. Then we launch off on some sort of attack (or defense) often complete with media talking points which amplify the perceived insult, causes crossfire, creates a backlash from kindred spirits and ends with people huffing off or demanding apologies, retractions, etc.

    elissa (8b9703)

  389. We can talk six ways to Sunday about the nuanced minutae regarding when it’s okay to cricicize Trump, but I’m just thrilled that Hillary won’t be sworn in tomorrow.
    Let’s party!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  390. fwiw, I thought all of the recent Trump related angst was based exactly on what was legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Trump. P thought the CNN article had meat in it to discuss, other people didn’t, and off to the races.

    Today the question is whether it is fair to remind everyone that Trump is an a** early, often, and repeatedly,
    or whether judgment should be withheld and addressed at each new issue.

    So it appears to me arguments about what is fair to argue about will be a common feature,
    and it quickly gets heated to the point that appeals to the argument clinic or observations by Painted Jaguar about language curling upon itself like an Anaconda are too late.

    At least that is how it appears to me.

    Besides, I haven’t seen DRJ back since she thought I was mad at her.
    That was not worth the discussion,
    Not by a Texas mile.

    MD in Philly (fb70b7)

  391. papertiger’s comment makes me feel like this is the sort of comment thread where I start to feel like it was not a good idea to write comments and maybe not a good idea to read them. In my haste to respond to everything, I bit off the head of someone who didn’t deserve it. Meanwhile, absolutely nobody is, or ever will be, convinced by anything I am saying who is not already convinced. How is this not a giant waste of time?

    I do sort of get MD in Philly’s desire to avoid Trump posts, because when I posted this I said to myself: “Well, this is sure to be a shitshow. But why should I let that prevent me from saying something I believe?” And a shitshow it was.

    Now: why did I think that?, I wonder to myself, just because I was writing a post critical of Donald Trump? After all, so many here opposed him in the election and apparently sincerely claim not to be reflexively defensive of him now? I don’t know why I thought it, but I was right.

    But I think that some of the comments in this thread show that some people actually have come to the conclusion that criticizing Trump is counterproductive.

    Gabriel Hanna:

    Why are they “so-called conservatives”?

    I suppose by making harder for Trump to do anything approved by conservatives, by helping to erode what support he has with them and the public.

    Translation: criticizing Trump is counterproductive. Now here’s Kevin M:

    Continuing the “Trump is an assh0le” tirade doesn’t seem like a worthwhile endeavor when he seems to be leading a conservative revolution that needs support.

    You say that he is no conservative, but what, in particular, in the last 2 months suggests that? Attacking him while he is BEING more conservative than any US president since Reagan does not seem like it burnishes one’s conservative credentials. How can you argue that it does?

    Translation: criticizing Trump is counterproductive.

    Now, I’m sure these folks would say they meant valid criticism is OK and only invalid criticism is not. But look at their reasoning, and notice how it applies to valid criticism as well as invalid criticism. When you are arguing that he is conservative and he needs our support, you’re not really saying: criticize him when it’s valid. You’re saying: be a team player. When you argue that criticism makes you a “so-called conservative” because it erodes Trump’s support, that is a criticism that applies to valid criticism as well as invalid criticism.

    Not to mention that most criticism I level lately gets deemed invalid.

    It seems to drive MD in Philly into fits if I suggest that there are people who seem to get upset at any criticism of Trump. But I just gave you two quotes from people that fairly translate as: “Criticizing Trump is counterproductive.”

    Kevin M gets even more specific: “You do not seem to be siding with the new administration’s strongly conservative direction.” I would like to challenge Kevin M to provide proof of a conservative direction on any given issue where I have criticized Trump. I’ll make this easy: you’re not going to find one. I have criticized him on protectionism. Protectionism is not conservative. I have criticized him on kissing Putin’s ass. Kissing Putin’s ass is not conservative. You will not find an issue where Trump has been conservative and I have criticized him.

    Again, consider the gauntlet thrown down. If I’m wrong, show me.

    What this comes down to, I think, is that some people have concluded that overall, he is generally conservative and therefore they want people to choose sides and simply back him up. Note: I say “some” and not all. If this does not describe you, great!

    This sort of partisan attitude is common among blog commenters, and it is comfortable for many. But it is not the path I have chosen and I am not going to be bullied or cajoled out of it. I am firmly on the path of supporting Trump when he does right, criticizing him when he does wrong, and generally thinking him to be what he is: a liar, a cheat, a bully, and forty other uncomplimentary nouns, because that’s what he indeed is.

    That is going to be this blog, folks, until Trump is gone. You might as well get used to it. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: if that makes you uncomfortable, stop telling me that my blog used to be better or that I am doing it wrong. Just leave.

    If you can handle someone speaking their mind and can deal with the fact that we are bound to disagree from time to time, then stay.

    It’s really just that simple.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  392. I see no reason to dump on him while he’s headed in the direction I would have him go.

    I do see reason to dump on him when he is headed in the opposite direction I would have him go.

    Like protectionism.

    Like Tillerson and a pro-Putin policy.

    To take a couple of examples where I have criticized him.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  393. Besides, I haven’t seen DRJ back since she thought I was mad at her.

    I think DRJ sees the same problems with the general tenor of the comment section that I see.

    I’m told all the time that I am driving readers away. Nobody ever stops to reflect on whether the tenor of the comment section drives people away.

    Well, “nobody” is an exaggeration. I do.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  394. Patterico said above that we had “made up”. I want to assure my fan (not a typo) that there was no kissing.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  395. I’m still waiting for someone to give me the rulebook that explains what criticisms of Trump will be consider “fair” or “valid” or whatever.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  396. @ MD,

    Today the question is whether it is fair to remind everyone that Trump is an a** early, often, and repeatedly,
    or whether judgment should be withheld and addressed at each new issue.

    I don’t think that was at question in this thread. I think most everyone here already agrees that Trump is an a**. I don’t think anyone really needs to be reminded of it.

    It’s a matter of when the criticisms are made, how are they delivered and how are they received.

    Dana (023079)

  397. Patterico said above that we had “made up”. I want to assure my fan (not a typo) that there was no kissing.

    Bleccch. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  398. Border security, either strengthening or lack there of, is a protectionist policy.

    Which side of the fence are you on?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  399. Well, I don’t think I have said don’t criticize him or be a team player,

    I thought I said
    I was not convinced some story about some document that McCain sent an aide to fetch that at some point Trump was briefed on by somebody for some reason by the intel community we know will undermine him at least as bad as they did Bush,
    and that I thought it was unhelpful for someone to preen his feathers about being with the superior crowd outside of the WH instead of among those inside trying to help govern the country,

    but since that is what my comments have been taken as meaning,
    and the gauntlet is thrown down,
    then I will ignore Trump posts.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  400. There are certain long-standing positions of mine that often get me at odds with people.

    One is my general reluctance to deem the left as generally morally inferior to the right, as opposed to just wrong.

    Another is my dislike of citing the other side’s use of nasty or underhanded tactics to justify doing it ourselves.

    What I find clarifying about Trump is that the more you are likely to disagree with me about the above — the more than you are the sort who paints the left with a broad brush and loves talking about fire with fire — the more likely you are to support Trump.

    I honestly think there is a correlation there.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  401. Dana, that was the point of the linked article, that was the point of the end of the article that I quoted above.

    And as I said, discussions that alienate people like DRJ are things I don’t want to be part of, especially if I get into the middle of it.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  402. but since that is what my comments have been taken as meaning,

    You persist in acting as if every comment is directed at you personally, MD in Philly. I don’t get it. You’re a long-time commenter here. I like you. But you’re taking this all very personally.

    I specifically said:

    Note: I say “some” and not all. If this does not describe you, great!

    Do you want to know why I wrote that? Because if I didn’t, I believed you would take my comment as directed at you. So I put that there so you wouldn’t.

    And you did anyway.

    I don’t get it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  403. It would be helpful if those who are sensitive to criticism of Trump would explain why they are more so with him than with Obama, given that both work for us. Because he’s on this side of the aisle, that shouldn’t inhibit us from scrutinizing him with the same standard that we did Obama. At least for me, that’s so.

    Dana (023079)

  404. And as I said, discussions that alienate people like DRJ are things I don’t want to be part of, especially if I get into the middle of it.

    That’s most of the discussions here lately, to be honest. And that’s how I feel. And how Simon Jester feels. And how Beldar feels. And a few other people too.

    This comment is not directed at you, by the way. I am citing your statement because it speaks to a general subject.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  405. Who does not fit the broad brush treatment, I’d say Tutsi gabbard on some us, but heard dean, schumer, warren, Perez, the Castro bros of San antonio?

    narciso (d1f714)

  406. It would be helpful if those who are sensitive to criticism of Trump would explain

    Nobody is sensitive to criticism of Trump, Dana.

    Every post that criticizes him turns into a shitshow.

    But nobody is sensitive about criticism of him, and don’t you dare say anyone is, because they’re not.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  407. Who does not fit the broad brush treatment, I’d say Tutsi gabbard on some us, but heard dean, schumer, warren, Perez, the Castro bros of San antonio?

    My wife. My father in law. My brother in law. People I know at work. Need I go on?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  408. I felt relief when the lesser of two evils prevailed. That doesn’t mean I will ever do more than watch the lesser evil very carefully with a very jaundiced eye. What passes for his character is fully formed and not subject to change. There is no reason whatsoever to trust or believe a word he says.

    Rick Ballard (1c290b)

  409. And Dana, the thing is, I think people believe they’re really not.

    But then someone has to explain to me why every comment thread under a post that criticizes Trump turns into a disaster.

    If I stopped knifing Trump in the back maybe I could figure it out.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  410. Are they really the left or just rank and file demicrats?

    narciso (d1f714)

  411. I felt relief when the lesser of two evils prevailed. That doesn’t mean I will ever do more than watch the lesser evil very carefully with a very jaundiced eye. What passes for his character is fully formed and not subject to change. There is no reason whatsoever to trust or believe a word he says.

    “I voted Trump because he will be scrutinized more closely than Hillary would. Now shut up about him!” — some Trumpers who are not MD in Philly which I say not sarcastically but so he knows I am really not talking about him

    Patterico (115b1f)

  412. Are they really the left or just rank and file demicrats?

    My wife is almost apolitical. She doesn’t care. My father in law is passionate about this stuff but not in a way that is annoying or mockable. He’s very smart and a great guy.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  413. Well using an ahominem from Eliot Cohen as your springboard want the best approach, now for socratic purposes I understand the tool being employed.

    narciso (d1f714)

  414. Since you specifically addressed me,
    IMO, I don’t see many people here who are averse to criticizing Trump,
    I see people who are averse to criticizing Trump as much as you do,
    so since I am in the camp that doesn’t criticize Trump as much as you appear to want to,
    I feel that I am not in “your” camp”,
    but “their” camp.

    And if that is the way I feel, and things aren’t going to change, it will be better for us all for me to forgo Trump posts,
    unless for some bizarre reason my education and background lend something.

    Dana, you may feel my characterization of the link was unfair,
    but this is what I noted above:
    I plan to stand ready to offer praise when it is deserved, but mostly to oppose and expose, to contradict and stand up, without apology, without compromise, and without hesitation. Whatever company I find in that enterprise, I have no doubt that it will be infinitely superior to any that will be found in the White House mess.
    So, he has no doubt that he will be in the infinitely superior company of people who stand on the outside and complain instead of those willing to try to be of assistance???
    I am not saddened that that is the last free article of the month from that site.
    MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/19/2017 @ 3:59 pm

    I am not interested in being in his company.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  415. So, Melania Trump knows how to make an entrance. On this, I think we can all agree.

    Dana (023079)

  416. Well using an ahominem from Eliot Cohen as your springboard want the best approach, now for socratic purposes I understand the tool being employed.

    I disagree. Cohen spoke the truth.

    Donald J. Trump has repeatedly revealed himself as a lying, crooked, narcissistic ignoramus, incapable of generous thoughts or deeds, indeed, incapable of seeing beyond himself at all.

    Truer words have never been spoken. I’m not going to pretend Trump is a good guy. He’s not.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  417. Since you specifically addressed me,
    IMO, I don’t see many people here who are averse to criticizing Trump,
    I see people who are averse to criticizing Trump as much as you do,
    so since I am in the camp that doesn’t criticize Trump as much as you appear to want to,
    I feel that I am not in “your” camp”,
    but “their” camp.

    And if that is the way I feel, and things aren’t going to change, it will be better for us all for me to forgo Trump posts,
    unless for some bizarre reason my education and background lend something.

    ‘Kay.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  418. Tonight’s the last night we sleep under the sick duress of the soul-destroying fear and numbing dread of awakening to another day of food stamps and hopelessness.

    Now I lay me down to sleep I pray thee Lord help Mr. Trump fullfil your plan for us amen.

    I am very happy.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  419. The Devils Brigade full movie popped up in the recommended category for YouTube. I can almost kid myself that a quarter of William Holden’s head and one shoulder being cut off in the frame is a result of happenstance, instead of the censors demanding the film be chopped in order to defeat a copywrite infringement.

    China has no respect for these types of intellectual property rights. Indeed they have no respect for property rights what so ever. And yet we are deluged with Chinese knockoffs. Hulu has a category for Anime, International, Korean Drama, LGBT, and Latino,, yet no category for Western.

    Are we supposed to ignore that this weird and foreign programming is due to a one sided trade agreement. Just nod our heads, or more likely bow from the waist, and go along with it, on the basis of your free market purity test?

    Silly me for having a different opinion.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  420. It is that simple,
    Pat quotes the part of Cohen he especially likes and defends it,
    I quote the part of Cohen I especially dislike.

    It is Pat’s blog, he can do what he wants, and we don’t need to play this out every time there is a post on Trump, so it makes sense for me to abstain.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  421. I think that as of his inauguration, that general criticism of Trump’s past clownish behavior will be boring. He got elected at least in part or in spite of his boorish nature.
    And I can see the argument that someone who speaks plainly, even if crudely, on public topics will be a net improvement over the sly winking lies Obama gave us. (Doesn’t mean I think Trump is honest, he isnt.)

    Going forward, I’ll happily criticism him for his conduct in office.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  422. So, Melania Trump knows how to make an entrance. On this, I think we can all agree.

    I don’t care for her. I’ll just keep my more specific thoughts to myself because I don’t think anyone cares to hear them.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  423. Our friend mr happyfeet has the right perspective.
    Beginning tomorrow, Barack and his weird partner will be evacuated in favor of someone who loves America.
    This is good, Americans — this is good!

    If we had left it up to the # NeverTrumpers, we would be currently dicussing Hillary’s swearing-in ceremony.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  424. Are we supposed to ignore that this weird and foreign programming is due to a one sided trade agreement. Just nod our heads, or more likely bow from the waist, and go along with it, on the basis of your free market purity test?

    Government should get out of trade entirely.

    Immigration is a different matter. Countries have a right to protect their territorial integrity.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  425. ==Meanwhile, absolutely nobody is, or ever will be, convinced by anything I am saying who is not already convinced. How is this not a giant waste of time?==

    I had no idea that you felt that was your main goal and mission on this blog–to convince. But now with that tidbit out, a lot of what has been going on makes more sense. You maybe hope people will agree with you because you believe you’ve already done the hard thinking and examination of an issue, more than you want to use your blog for discussion and exploration. Is this a fair characterization of how you view your role?

    I look at nearly everyone who posts here, certainly with you at the top of the list, as being a person I might (and do) regularly learn from or who may cause me to view some things in a more nuanced and informed way. And I hope that sometime something I say here may be a tiny “aha” moment for somebody else. I enjoy the life experiences shared, the professional inputs, the geographic differences in culture and politics that are exposed, and the book and film recommendations. I enjoy links to obscure sites I might have otherwise missed.

    But I’ve never seen that it’s the job of this or any blogger to convince, or to change minds, or to try to tell readers how to think. Especially so if there is an inherent and obvious starting bias at the core of what is being blogged.

    elissa (8b9703)

  426. If we had left it up to the # NeverTrumpers, we would be currently dicussing Hillary’s swearing-in ceremony.

    I’ve never called myself a “NeverTrumper” — but if you left it up to me, we would be currently discussing Ted Cruz’s swearing-in ceremony.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  427. @Patterico:Translation: criticizing Trump is counterproductive.

    False. We just got done talking about reading carefully, and giving people the benefit, right?

    I made it very clear what sort of criticism I found to be unconstructive and what kind I don’t, and here you’re taking one sentence divorced of context and putting to it a meaning I explicitly disavowed.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  428. Well Cohen’s piece, generAted a similar reaction at the American interest, releasing more heat than light, trump focused on the tripwires in culture and politics that are not only present here, but across the pond, all the way into central Europe, in the case of Poland and Hungary, he used a flash bang grenade when more tactful techniques could have been used.

    narciso (d1f714)

  429. @Patterico: But I just gave you two quotes from people that fairly translate as: “Criticizing Trump is counterproductive.”

    No, they don’t, and here we are back where we started.

    If you’re just doing to me because you think I’m doing it to you, I don’t know what to say. But if you really read what I wrote and chose to characterize it that way, I guess I still don’t know what to say.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  430. @ Patterico, #394:

    Meanwhile, absolutely nobody is, or ever will be, convinced by anything I am saying who is not already convinced. How is this not a giant waste of time?

    This is why I used the phrase “sucker’s game” the other day. (Maybe it wasn’t too harsh.) Trumpers gonna Trump. And they’re going to go after you until you either knuckle under or walk away…because, alpha, or something. I’d like to say I’ve stopped paying attention to them, but that’s only mostly true.

    The most depressing cases here, in my view, are people like MD in Philly and Gabriel Hanna, who obviously aren’t Trumpers but who seem to have made peace with them. Maybe that’s not the best or most precise way to put it…but I’ve been sleep-deprived lately, and it’s been a long day. So that’s about the best I’ll be able to do.

    Demosthenes (5df06b)

  431. elissa,

    I’ve never seen myself as someone who would be influential and change people’s minds if they don’t want to listen. But a) I enjoy the mere process of writing about things in posts and b) sometimes I will bring something to the attention of someone who never heard it before and it could have an influence on their thinking, in much the way you described.

    By contrast, responding to comments made by people who are angry at me is a) not something I enjoy and b) not an exercise in which I have even a prayer of changing minds in the way that people’s minds are (very occasionally) affected by the non-confrontational process described in part b of the first paragraph.

    Therefore, more and more, I see responding to critical comments as not just a waste of time in many instances, but counterproductive. It eats up my time, frustrates me, and accomplishes absolutely nothing positive and often something negative.

    If I saw blogging the same way, I wouldn’t do it. Which is a way of saying that, even though responding in comments has become a habit, it is a habit I am considering trying to break.

    Reading comments is different, again because of the process you described. I learn things. The issue becomes, is it worth wading through an ocean of bile to get to a possible nugget? In a post about Donald Trump, the answer to that question will generally be “no.”

    Patterico (115b1f)

  432. @Patterico: Furthermore, my quote that you applied the contextectomy to was in reponse to your demand that I interpret Kevin M’s other post for you. So, two misinterpretations in a way.

    Which I hope were not deliberate.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  433. Brexit generated similar feelings, as does practically every culture clash. On the continent.

    narciso (d1f714)

  434. I don’t care for her. I’ll just keep my more specific thoughts to myself because I don’t think anyone cares to hear th

    Heh. My observation of her was based on the grand entrances of previous First Ladies. And the fashion. Mostly that.

    Dana (023079)

  435. @Patterico:’ve never called myself a “NeverTrumper” — but if you left it up to me, we would be currently discussing Ted Cruz’s swearing-in ceremony.

    This is exactly true of me, sir.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  436. I made it very clear what sort of criticism I found to be unconstructive and what kind I don’t, and here you’re taking one sentence divorced of context and putting to it a meaning I explicitly disavowed.

    Well, I don’t mean to do that.

    Note that I did say:

    Now, I’m sure these folks would say they meant valid criticism is OK and only invalid criticism is not. But look at their reasoning, and notice how it applies to valid criticism as well as invalid criticism. When you are arguing that he is conservative and he needs our support, you’re not really saying: criticize him when it’s valid. You’re saying: be a team player. When you argue that criticism makes you a “so-called conservative” because it erodes Trump’s support, that is a criticism that applies to valid criticism as well as invalid criticism.

    So let’s take your quote.

    Why are they “so-called conservatives”?

    I suppose by making harder for Trump to do anything approved by conservatives, by helping to erode what support he has with them and the public.

    How have they sided with the enemy?

    By making harder for Trump to do anything approved by conservatives, by helping to erode what support he has with them and the public.

    First of all, I’ll grant you this: you were not declaring your own thoughts there, but trying to interpret Kevin M’s. So let’s just take it one step at a time: do you agree with this argument of his, if indeed it was his argument?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  437. Some cross-posting…

    Patterico (115b1f)

  438. @Demosthenes:are people like MD in Philly and Gabriel Hanna, who obviously aren’t Trumpers but who seem to have made peace with them.

    Both he and I are quite critical of Trump. And have been. Within literally hours of you writing this…

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  439. @Patterico: I’m going to pause for like five minutes to wait for cross-posts to settle out.

    I do not want to repeat what we did before.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  440. @ Gabriel Hanna, #432:

    @Patterico: But I just gave you two quotes from people that fairly translate as: “Criticizing Trump is counterproductive.”

    No, they don’t, and here we are back where we started.

    “Translate” is, I think, the wrong word. But having read those quotes, both yours and Kevin’s, I do think it’s fair to say that Patterico is on the right track when it comes to implications. Both of you do seem to be implying that, from a conservative’s perspective, it is counterproductive to criticize Trump — at least, at this time, and given his actions since winning the presidency.

    Look, Gabriel, I think that you and I can both agree that no matter what hypothetical candidate we imagine in Trump’s place — be it Cruz, or Rubio, or my personal favorite Scott Walker — neither of us would be agreeing with all their decisions to this point. And we certainly wouldn’t like to watch the decisions being made by Hillary or Bernie. That far, I can agree with you. But I think it’s fair to say, even when I haven’t commented, that I would agree with our host on most of his post-election complaints about Trump. And as far as I’m concerned, if complaining about him makes it harder for him to enact any agenda, that may well be a good thing. Because I don’t trust the man, and I don’t trust his instincts…and I have decades’ worth of the public record that says my evaluation of him is a good one. (Or at least legitimate.)

    Demosthenes (5df06b)

  441. Last comment,

    How is simply wanting a negative story about Trump to be accurate “making peace with Trumpers”?
    fwiw, it is not even Trump that I was concerned about, it was the general principle of giving credence to the media-intel complex to manipulate public opinion.

    And as far as the Cohen article, what do you want, for everyone who is even 1/4 competent to refuse to work for Trump? Do you think with the white house empty of workers Trump will resign?

    The media and all of the world will be jumping on Trump and trying to link the worst of him with Repubs and conservatives,
    all that I am asking is to make criticisms of Trump pointed enough to be helpful in the public discussion,
    instead of just adding to the overall din of it all, where everything gets drowned out.

    I wish I could do a “Bugs Bunny”,
    getting all of the people who apparently are looking for every opportunity to dump on Trump, like Cohen
    and getting them into an argument
    with all of the people who think Sauron has sent out the dark riders out in KKK white robes
    and
    standing back with a glass of sweet tea and watching

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  442. What I hear in a lot of the criticism of my criticism of Trump is:

    Hey, criticize Trump all you want. I didn’t support Trump. I don’t mind criticism of him. But when YOU criticize him, it’s unfair! You rely on stories from the MEDIA! Don’t you know we can’t trust the media? Also, this media outlet says that the media outlet you cited is wrong! Don’t ask me where I get my information from besides the media because that will make me uncomfortable because ultimately 99% of news comes from the media and I know that — but I like to bash blog posts that rely on the MEDIA because it’s an easy out for me. Also, you criticize Trump like ALL THE TIME. I mean, look at just the last dozen posts you wrote on this blog, Patterico! Criticism of Trump was the main topic of fully ONE of them!!! How do you expect us to listen to this incessant criticism of Trump all the time???? Also how come you never ever ever ever attack the left? I mean, look at the last few days on this blog. Aside from mocking Fiona Apple and John Lewis and global warming alarmists and people gathering to clap for Obama you never ever ever mocked the left even once!!

    This is a mishmash of different complaints from many different people and yes I am applying a heavy measure of exaggeration and satire, but this is what a lot of it sounds like to me.

    Maybe if people could be a little more fair in their criticism, I would be less defensive. Stop pretending I have become some kind of single-minded agent of the left, that I never criticize the left, or that every single post is just a media-driven set of diatribes against our New Conservative Warrior.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  443. @ Gabriel Hanna, #441:

    Both he and I are quite critical of Trump. And have been. Within literally hours of you writing this…

    I want you to read the quote of mine that you cited. Then I want you to take a look at this response of yours. And then…and just so we’re clear, I really do say this with genuine respect, and not a trace of mockery or ire…I want you to consider whether both of these statements can be true at the same time. Because as far as I can see, they can be.

    You have voiced that you have complaints about Trump. I grant you that. But you also seem to frequently butt heads with our host over his complaints. That was why I chose the words I did. If you think my phrasing is inadequate or uncharitable, and you can think of a better way to put it, I await correction. But you know what I’m talking about.

    Demosthenes (5df06b)

  444. @Patterico: It seems to me that you think that I meant something different from what I intended you to take from my attempt to characterize Kevin M’s argument. Perhaps this is my fault, but I think you did not read what I wrote carefully or describe it accurately. My evidence is this:

    When you are arguing that he is conservative and he needs our support, you’re not really saying: criticize him when it’s valid. You’re saying: be a team player

    Does the pronoun “you” mean that you are summarizing what I said? If so, this is not what I said. At no point did I say Trump was a conservative or that I believe Kevin M thinks so. So that’s one thing that I believe you got wrong.

    What I said was “by making harder for Trump to do anything approved by conservatives, by helping to erode what support he has with them and the public.”

    Which is NOT saying Trump is a conservative. Trump is Trump. He does stuff, some of which is conservative, some (perhaps most) is not. When he does something conservative (so I thought Kevin M to say), and he gets opposition from conservatives, that will make it less likely to do conservative things.

    But nothing there says Trump is a conservative, or that Kevin M (according to what I wrote) thinks Trump is one.

    Now you asked me, do I support the argument that I attributed to Kevin M? And I would not want to say when it seems to me you have misinterpreted (I do not say deliberately) what I wrote there.

    It may seem tedious now but I’d prefer to get this clear before going on to answer your question.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  445. Above all, I value clear thinking and clarity based on the best evidence, and then let people’s decisions and opinions fall as they may.

    I did not think falling in with the CNN story fit that.

    As far as whether it will be best for the country to just try to interfere with all things Trump because we do not trust him,
    or hope for some good things to come out because of who he surrounds himself with and on occasions gets things right,
    I have no idea,
    because events and the media spin on them are things I have no idea abut what will transpire.

    It does seem that directly opposing Trump has not gotten many people anywhere,
    and now that he is president,
    opposing him just to oppose him doesn’t seem to be an automatic winner.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  446. @Demosthenes:I want you to consider whether both of these statements can be true at the same time.

    It’s really the “made peace with [Trumpers]”. Given that he and I are critical of Trump, given that Trumpers–real Trumpers–do not tolerate criticism of Trump well, then no we are not at peace with Trumpers. Broken clocks can be right twice a day, and a media narrative regarding Trump can be false even if the Trumpers say it is false. That’s what I’m trying to say there. That’s why I perceived a contradiction.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  447. Does the pronoun “you” mean that you are summarizing what I said?

    No, I cited a comment from Kevin M and I cited one from you (albeit summarizing his viewpoint). In my discussion with you, I mean to focus only on your comment 247, in which you interpreted Kevin M’s comments and (in my opinion, but I don’t want to presume, which is why I am asking you) seemed to agree with this:

    Why are they “so-called conservatives”?

    I suppose by making harder for Trump to do anything approved by conservatives, by helping to erode what support he has with them and the public.

    How have they sided with the enemy?

    By making harder for Trump to do anything approved by conservatives, by helping to erode what support he has with them and the public.

    So do you agree with that?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  448. opposing him just to oppose him doesn’t seem to be an automatic winner.

    How about opposing him on specific issues to advance one’s own agenda? Not an “automatic winner” perhaps, but is it OK with you if I do that on my blog?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  449. What is striking is the coterie of experts that got everything wrong, now venture forth like the black night and now tell us this is what everything means, when Carlos slim will be demanding scalps although likely not that of krugman of friedman

    narciso (d1f714)

  450. I said before it was my last comment, but I keep getting mentioned, and this is still this thread, not the next one.
    In my mind, as I have already said, this all appears to me to be about 1 thing,
    Pat saw meat in the CNN story,
    and some of us didn’t,
    and from there no one said,
    “I see your point”
    we kept screaming, “BUT!!!”

    and that is where it stands
    with the addition today of Pat liking the linked article,
    and some of us think it is self-serving and self-congratulatory and dismissive of anyone who wants to try to make things work.

    I think I would think the same thing if anyone other than Trump were put in these scenarios as well.
    I want Clinton and Obama nailed on things we know for sure, not on whether they were briefed about supposed compromising information gathered by an ex British spy of unknown resources.
    And I would be happy for anybody with a good record to try to last in one of their administrations until they got canned, quit, or accomplished something.

    Trump isn’t the issue as much as the process, the hierarchy of intent.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  451. Btw, anybody else taken a look at taboo, the regency era mystery drama.

    narciso (d1f714)

  452. How about opposing him on specific issues to advance one’s own agenda? Not an “automatic winner” perhaps, but is it OK with you if I do that on my blog?
    Patterico (115b1f) — 1/19/2017 @ 7:53 pm

    That is the kind of statement that seems contrary to all of your statements about not including me in with the Vichy Trump.

    First of all, since it is your blog you can do whatever you want,
    second of all, where have I said anything that would suggest I am not interested in criticism of Trump along specific lines? I have said go ahead and criticize him and get him impeached and thrown out of office if you have cause.

    The linked article to me was more about self-preening and not being involved with the people selling their souls to Trump, and making sure everyone noticed, than it was about sober strategic and tactical opposition to points of police and appointments.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  453. policy, not police,
    good night, 11 pm east coast

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  454. @ MD in Philly, multiple:

    Fair enough. I agree we should all be listening more to each other, so at least we have that common ground between us.

    @ Gabriel Hanna, #451:

    As I said, I’m working on little sleep for the last week, and so my phrasing may not have been the best. Hopefully you’ll be kind enough to chalk up the phrase to me not being on my game.

    And with that, I bid you all good night. I hope you’ll forgive me for bugging out on the comments section, but I have a friend getting into town in an hour that I have to entertain for what little is left of the evening, then I have two big, action-packed days in front of me, and I’d like to be able to get at least four hours of blissful oblivion somewhere tonight…because I know I won’t be getting much tomorrow.

    Demosthenes (5df06b)

  455. second of all, where have I said anything that would suggest I am not interested in criticism of Trump along specific lines? I have said go ahead and criticize him and get him impeached and thrown out of office if you have cause.

    Cool.

    I respect Cohen because it seems to me that most of Washington is just caving to Trump even when it goes against their long-stated principles. It’s refreshing to me to see a guy who is willing to say: hey, you know, I’ll praise him when he does something right, but I’m not going to forget that deep down, he is fundamentally a waste of oxygen. So many people are praising him and saying give him a chance that I appreciate it when someone is willing to flout the conventional wisdom from the right (and Cohen is from the right, not the left) and tell the truth: he’s always been a self-centered bully and fucking asshole, and he always will be.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  456. If a self-centered bully and fucking asshole were to nominate Bill Pryor to the Supreme Court (and I think Trump might), I might be so temporarily pleased that I would want to kiss said self-centered bully and fucking asshole on the lips.

    Then I would remember where they’d been and I’d get over the impulse. I’d still be wildly happy though.

    He would still be a self-centered bully and fucking asshole though.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  457. @Patterico:So do you agree with that?

    I am very reluctant to say until I know what it is you think I wrote. But that won’t get us anywhere. I’ll just do my best to clear up misunderstandings as they arise.

    I do not agree with what I thought Kevin M was saying, no. I was trying to express, as best I knew how, what he might be thinking as well as I understood it in a way he would agree was fair.

    My own answers to those three questions:

    Who are the backstabbers?

    I think the only people that I would use this word for are government officials who are breaking the law and their oaths to leak to the press, that which they cannot or should not say publicly or officially; I don’t think this is an appropriate word to use for Republicans or conservatives who oppose Trump. There might be people close to Trump it might apply to, or #NeverTrump officials who are mad Trump won’t give them a job now, but not voters anyway.

    Why are they “so-called conservatives”?

    Arguably you might say any conservative who voted Trump is a so-called conservative. I don’t think support or opposition to Trump correlates well with either. There are men of good will in good faith on both sides of Trump who are conservatives by any definition I would accept.

    I myself am not a conservative, I am at most sympathetic to many of their aims and I generally find them much easier to live around than progressives, so I may not be in the best position to apply ideological purity tests. I think words are defined by how people use them, and that’s the situation as I see it. I see people who a year ago everyone agreed were conservatives on both sides of Trump.

    I think it was better for the country that he be elected instead of Hillary but I would have preferred any of the others to actually be President now, though I’m not sure any of them would have been as likely to be elected. No way to know now. Lesser of two evils is all it was for me.

    I am afraid though that many things once associated with the conservative movement, like free trade, are now rejected by most conservative voters. If so, all is not lost. Free trade, like gay marriage, can be implemented by working up through the institutions of the Republican party in exchange for other concessions, and I’ve advocated at length for this view elsewhere.

    How have they sided with the enemy?

    Given my answers to the first two, I don’t think this question is very relevant to my thinking. I have a different idea about backstabbers from Kevin M, and I don’t know who are the “real” conservatives when I see them on both sides of Trump.

    But I do think there is an “enemy” and it is possible to “side” with them in the sense of making the wrong things they do more potent at the expense of other goals one might have, and this is generally done by people with good intentions, unwittingly.

    That “enemy” is the media-administrative state-nonprofit-NGO-progressive complex. They deal in narratives created from half-truths, selective citation, and amplification through repetition. I think they are enemies of freedom as I understand it.

    I have been asked for some kind of “rule” about when it is “okay” to “criticize” Trump. Strictly speaking no one really needs a reason to criticize Trump, of course.

    I would say, in light of what I said about the real “enemy”, when it comes to media narratives, you have to question them and tear them apart, seeking facts that disrupt them, whether or not you agree with that narrative.

    I was first attracted to this site because you, Patterico, are very good at this. I think that sometimes–not all the time, there are some exceptions–that when the topic is Trump you do not exercise this faculty as well as you might (certainly not as well as when the media was trying to trick Republicans into voting Trump) and when I am criticizing you for criticizing Trump, like I did with the CNN story and the divestment story, this is why. I perceived in your commentary, perhaps wrongly, an unwillingness to criticize the narrative in some, but not all, of these cases.

    And since I myself criticize Trump, frequently, and I perceive you as describing me as thinking it is not okay to criticize Trump at all, then I perceive, perhaps wrongly, that you are not really taking the trouble to understand what it is that I am saying.

    Okay that is quite long enough.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  458. “STEVEN HAYWARD: What Trump Is Up Against. Reagan fought the Deep State, too, and often as not it won.

    Related: “That bureaucratic government is the partisan instrument of the Democratic Party is the most obvious, yet least remarked upon, trait of our time.” Well, given that the civil service laws have failed to produce honest, nonpartisan government employees, perhaps we should repeal them.”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/255007/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  459. Gabriel Hanna, you’re doing pretty well.
    You know, there’s just a certain percentage of our friends who are so angry about Trump winning that they forgot the fact that if Trump hadn’t won, Hillary would have.

    Of course, in that case, they would be screaming that Trump’s a jerk because he ran a losing campaign! (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  460. ==If a self-centered bully and fucking asshole were to nominate Bill Pryor to the Supreme Court (and I think Trump might), I might be so temporarily pleased that I would want to kiss said self-centered bully and fucking asshole on the lips. Then I would remember where they’d been and I’d get over the impulse. I’d still be wildly happy though. He would still be a self-centered bully and fucking asshole though.==

    OK. I think I see where you’re going with this. 🙂
    There’s really not a lot left to discuss or parse.

    elissa (8b9703)

  461. The security services, were following that ridiculous beauchamp story re alpha bank, that suggests a serious lack in judgement

    narciso (d1f714)

  462. elissa,

    Yeah, I kind of have an opinion on the guy already.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  463. @467. Yeah, I kinda have an opinion on the guy already.

    ROFLMAOPIP

    Patterico, that’s the funniest thing you’ve posted in six months.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  464. “By contrast, responding to comments made by people who are angry at me is a) not something I enjoy and b) not an exercise in which I have even a prayer of changing minds in the way that people’s minds are (very occasionally) affected by the non-confrontational process described in part b of the first paragraph.”

    – Patterico

    I would recommend that you soldier on regardless. You will learn a lot, about yourself and others, regardless. And, if I might say so: now you know how I (and possibly aphrael, though I don’t want to speak for him) have felt for the past ten years or so.

    Leviticus (70ca80)

  465. This wasn’t a post “critizing” Trump. The linked column was simply an exercise in name-calling for no particular purpose other than it is timed to run the day before his is inaugurated.

    And you chose to link it and adopt it.

    For no particular reason other than tomorrow is 1/20.

    You asked for rules for when its ok to criticize Trump.

    How about this rule — criticize him for something he does or says. But be prepared to defend your view and don’t be offended by the fact that others disagree.

    Who he is, based on how he’s lived his life in public for 4 decades, was baked into the cake in the election. We know, we heard, we read.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  466. I like your long comment, Gabriel.

    As to this:

    I was first attracted to this site because you, Patterico, are very good at this. I think that sometimes–not all the time, there are some exceptions–that when the topic is Trump you do not exercise this faculty as well as you might (certainly not as well as when the media was trying to trick Republicans into voting Trump) and when I am criticizing you for criticizing Trump, like I did with the CNN story and the divestment story, this is why. I perceived in your commentary, perhaps wrongly, an unwillingness to criticize the narrative in some, but not all, of these cases.

    I noticed something peculiar at Hot Air today.

    Ed Morrissey had a rip-roaring post decrying as “fake news” the NYT story alleging that Rick Perry didn’t know what the Department of Energy did. You have to read the whole thing to get an idea of the beating Ed Morrissey appears to administer to the Times. Here’s a little bit of it:

    “Fake news” alert: NYT narrative on Perry blows up

    All of this comes from a passage in a New York Times article about Rick Perry, one that uses one quote from an energy lobbyist to paint the incoming Secretary of Energy as ignorant of the actual job, without any other corroborating direct evidence or testimony. Supposedly Perry just thought he’d be an ambassador for American energy production . . .

    . . . .

    Let’s get back to their single source for Perry’s supposed ignorance. As both Hemingway and Adams point out, McKenna wasn’t even around when Perry got the appointment in December, having left the transition team on November 16th — eight days after the election. In fact, as a quick scan of our own archives shows, Perry didn’t meet with the transition team until December 12th, four weeks after McKenna’s departure, and was appointed the next day.

    Therefore, it’s impossible for McKenna to have been a source for Perry’s assumptions either during the meeting or at the appointment. Even without that knowledge, though, it’s clear from the quote that it’s only McKenna speculating on Perry’s state of mind, not actual testimony. “If you asked him on that first day” is nowhere near “I spoke to him on that first day,” or “He told Trump on that first day …” It’s McKenna projecting himself into Perry’s mind.

    It goes on like that. It’s just the kind of anti-media broadside you have praised me for writing. If I wrote Morrissey’s piece, people here would be standing on their chairs and applauding.

    But . . .

    Morrissey’s piece went up at noon Eastern. What’s weird is that 40 minutes earlier, this post from Allahpundit had dropped. Allow me to quote it:

    Energy department nominee Rick Perry: I regret calling for the elimination of the Energy department

    A key point from this morning’s confirmation hearing. To think, if only he’d had this epiphany sooner, the “oops” moment that helped sink him in 2012 never would have happened.

    There’s an easy joke to be made here about conservatives warming to the idea of big government in the age of Trump, but that would be unfair to Trump. It’s too easy to imagine Perry giving this same speech as President Ted Cruz’s Energy nominee. This isn’t a lesson about Trump corrupting tea partiers, it’s a lesson about how some tea partiers clearly never cared as much about shrinking the federal government as their hottest rhetoric suggested. (But then, we’ve known that since last year’s primaries.) This guy is actually reduced to pleading ignorance about the tasks performed by the department to explain away his earlier demand that it be eliminated, an admission that at least some of his small-government views are a product of bad information — even though he ran for president on them twice. I wonder which other federal agencies’ virtues he might come to appreciate if a tutorial on them came packaged with a job offer.

    Stupid Allahpundit, slamming Perry with that Fake News stuff! Except . . . here’s a quote from Perry:

    I have learned a great deal about the important work being done every day by the outstanding men and women of the DOE. I have spoken several times to Secretary Moniz and his predecessors. If confirmed, my desire is to lead this agency in a thoughtful manner, surrounding myself with expertise on the core functions of the department.

    My past statements made over five years ago about abolishing the Department of Energy do not reflect my current thinking.

    In fact, after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination.

    Kinda sounds like . . . Perry actually didn’t know much about the Department of Energy after all.

    Oops!

    It was sort of odd reading Morrissey’s post after Allahpundit’s. Had Morrissey read Allahpundit’s post? Listened to Perry’s testimony? I was guessing not.

    The thing is, we have to be skeptical of the media, but we also have to be skeptical of self-righteous denunciations of the media.

    We have to be skeptical of everything.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  467. @Patterico:We have to be skeptical of everything.

    Erm, there are unproductive kinds of skepticism. Like solipsism. But it’s not a bad rule followed judiciously.

    Glad that I am able to make my views more clear and here’s hoping we have fewer misunderstandings.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  468. 46. JP (f1742c) — 1/19/2017 @ 5:54 am

    battleground” regions where votes are more hotly contested (and therefore “worth more” in the contest for office) are inevitable.

    Actually the place it makes most sense for a candidate to campaign in is an area where his opponent is very strong – more votes to switch, and less to lose. Especially when there’s going to be pretty high turnout nyway.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b8667)

  469. There is another explanation, the democratic side of the aisle and not a few republicans so believe the ingrained narrative, its better to lipsynch the preferred answer.

    narciso (d1f714)

  470. I would recommend that you soldier on regardless. You will learn a lot, about yourself and others, regardless. And, if I might say so: now you know how I (and possibly aphrael, though I don’t want to speak for him) have felt for the past ten years or so.

    Heh. Yeah, probably.

    I hope I spoke up for you guys when the swarming got too bad.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  471. “18. I wrote him off when his tax return came out

    I did not. I was upset though when he wouldn’t defend it in a logical way: Money-losing years offset money-winning years. But he could not admit that he ever lost money.”

    ::Sigh:: He leaked that himself. I thought that everybody had figured that out by now.

    ———————

    “356. MD in Philly – I hope that Trump can overcome his manifest faults and be a great President. I have little faith that he will, and see scant reason for optimism.

    But I’d like to be wrong.”

    Omaba hated America and wanted to fundamentally transform it.
    Hillary cares about her own power and getting money.
    Trump loves America.

    So, by all means, let’s tear him down. God forbid we should have a President who is proud to be an American.
    Perfection is not on offer. You can only take what you can get. Re-read what Lincoln said about Grant. Sadly, Ronald Reagan wasn’t in the running this year.

    ——————

    “376. Might we expect you to start respecting him if he proves to be a good President?
    That’s a good question. The answer is no. I’ll be pleased and surprised. But it won’t make me respect him, since he is a garbage pile of a human being.”

    We aren’t picking a wife/husband, we are picking a President. What matters is what he does, not the panache.

    Geesh, I really don’t get it. Would you prefer a polite, pleasant President who wrecks America and treats the COnstitution as a set of interesting guidelines?

    fred-2 (ce04f3)

  472. “I hope I spoke up for you guys when the swarming got too bad.”

    – Patterico

    You did. It’s part of the reason I stuck around.

    Leviticus (70ca80)

  473. “398. I’m still waiting for someone to give me the rulebook that explains what criticisms of Trump will be consider “fair” or “valid” or whatever.”
    A handy rule-of-thumb is any criticism that echos whatever gripe CNN and MSNBC are making.

    Kind of like, “Hillary made a policy statement I agree with. Now I need to rethink my position and see where I went wrong.”

    Also, an unfair criticism is one that takes his words and interprets them in the most unfavorable way possible. The Access Hollywood being an example of that.

    As for me, if I had to choose between a guy who spits on the carpet and nominates Bill Pryor to the Supreme Court, or a guy who is suave and polite and nominates a Sotomayor, I’ll take the former.

    Also, BTW, Cruz would not have beaten Hillary.

    fred-2 (ce04f3)

  474. I’m still waiting for someone to give me the rulebook that explains what criticisms of Trump will be consider “fair” or “valid” or whatever.”

    I think the same rules Trump applies to people who piss him off would be fair. Also the rules that his spear carriers apply. So, for example:

    “Trump is an ugly, fat pig. I feel sorry for Trump’s new partner in love whose parents are devastated at the thought of their daughter being with Trump, a true loser. I hope Trump catches mad cow disease after being caught having relations with a Hereford and dies before his trial and is buried in a cow pasture next to Carl Paladino, who died weeks prior, after being convicted of sedition and treason, when a Jihadi cell mate mistook him for being a nice person and decapitated him. Alternatively, I’d like Trump to return to being a female and go to live in the outbacks of Borneo with Maxie the orangutan.”

    That would be eminently fair, I think.

    nk (dbc370)

  475. Patterico, at 475: you did, and others did as well. It’s part of why I still have faith that liberals and conservatives can talk to each other and find common ground.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  476. I would like to challenge Kevin M to provide proof of a conservative direction on any given issue where I have criticized Trump. I’ll make this easy: you’re not going to find one

    No, as I said elsewhere you are not attacking him on policy grounds. Nor are you much supporting him on policy grounds. You dislike the man — I get that — and you want everyone to know you dislike the man and think he’s a lying thieving weasel. Fine. But it still does not “burnish your conservative credentials” to be attacking him this way.

    I’ve just looked back over the last couple of week’s posts and I can only find one policy direction you’ve posted on (I have not read all the comments). You don’t like the apparent tilt towards Russia and view Tillerson to be part of that tilt and therefore suspect.

    I have not seen one post where you actually supported anything Trump was doing. Perhaps if I looked further. I have seen a number of posts where you express unhappiness with Trump himself. As I said, it isn’t about policy, so your challenge is pretty much moot.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  477. I should point out that while Gabriel interprets some of what I said correctly, he misinterprets other points. He does not speak for me.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  478. As far as directions that our host dislikes, I agree that we should not be cozying up to Putin. But we should be engaging with him in a constructive manner if at all possible.

    Our departing President and his woeful Secretaries of State have been unable to do that, to the point that the effing WaPo derides their efforts as wishful fantasy. We have to approach the mess Obama has left with cold hard eyes, and the CEO of a $500 billion company has got all the cold, hard eyes there are.

    (Thank GOD Kerry was never President. We would have lost Alaska.)

    As for “protectionism”, well, there are aspects of “free trade” that are just a suckers’ game. Particularly the free flow of temporary workers, used as tag teams to beat down domestic worker wages, or to replace them fully.

    I can compete against other people who have the same costs and obligations I have. I cannot compete against an endless stream of unmarried men who come here for 2 years, live in dorms and then go home with what passes for wealth in Pakistan.

    I suspect that other forms of labor competition that have occurred seem unfair to others. Thirty years ago, the construction biz was mostly American-born. Now it mostly isn’t.

    Yes, I have seen all the arguments that say that, in the long run, this is all a blessing and the country benefits. Then again, when white male working age men see a 20% drop in employment over 30 years, they might reasonably decide that the long run isn’t worth it and/or they are being lied to.

    When every example of free trade seems like it’s tilted against us, maybe it is time to pound the table a bit, since what the politicians call “free trade” is only negotiated protectionism anyway.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  479. And again it’s 1:15 in the AM and maybe I should stop tweeting posting.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  480. 471 — not sure you’re point here fits the facts.

    In debates before the 2012 election, Perry made the famous gaffe about wanting to eliminate 3 cabinet level departments if elected. Could only name 2, and it was DOE that he forgot.

    Four years later, having been named DOE Sec., he states at confirmation hearing that he has revised his thinking on DOE, now that he has a much better understanding of the porfolio of responsibilities that fall under DOE.

    As an aside, I think Perry’s 2012 position is entirely defensible because much of the portfolio that he now says he understands would be easily assumed by other agencies which have significant overlapping responsibilities as it is. Two that are mentioned are monitoring non-proliferation agreements — that probably belongs under the joint responsibility of the intelligence community and the DOD. Safeguarding/modernization/maintenance of the nuclear stockpile — the same.

    It seems to be a mismatch to have one agency responsible for dealing with Nuke weapons, and under the same roof giving grant money to research alternative forms of energy. Both could be spun off.

    The NYT story from earlier this week is clearly directed at the idea that when Perry was offered the Sec. position in December, he STILL did not have an understanding of the full portfolio of responsibilities that fall to DOE. But, its that aspect of the story that came under withering fire, based on the fact that the sole source for the claim said 1) he was quoted out of context by the Times (to fit their pre-determined narrative that Perry should not be taking over the agency), 2) there was only one source, and he wasn’t with the transition team when Perry was named so there is not foundation for his view on Perry at that point in time, and 3) its simply another example of “fake news.”

    You’re posts seems to suggest that because Perry, as a Presidential candidate in 2012, didn’t have a grasp of all things falling under the DOE, that the NYT description of his ignorance of the issues in Dec. 2016 when picked by Trump to lead DOE must also be true.

    In fact, Perry simply admitted in his testimony what was apparent back in 2012 — at the time he he said he would eliminate DOE, he didn’t realize the multiple roles in government that DOE filled. He said in his testimony that he has a much better understanding now, and was incorrect in his views back in 2012.

    Morrissey’s post is an indictment of the NYT for a single-sourced article disparaging Perry’s CURRENT understanding of the DOE, where that source doesn’t hold up.

    Allapundit’s post revisits Perry’s view in 2012, and contrasts it with his testimony.

    Allapundit’s post DOES NOT — as you seem to suggest — validate the NYT story because it focuses on a different point in time that the NYT story focuses on.

    There was an article linked here a while back written by a former LAT/NYT media reporter who laid bare the was the editorial functions worked at the two different papers. He said at the NYT, stories were driven by editorial decision making, and then reporters were tasked with digging up facts and writing the copy that fit the pre-determined narrative.

    The NYT piece on Perry seems to fit perfectly within that mold. It has a premise that the DOE has recently been run by scientists of eminent technical qualifications (it does mention Bill Richardson as a past DOE Sec. who had none), and then clearly makes the point that Perry is a Texas rube who shouldn’t be anywhere near the place. That’s the narrative established in advance by the NYT editors, and they sent reporters out to chase facts. Well, they seem to have found what they could, and made up the rest.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  481. “THAT WAS FAST: All References to ‘Climate Change’ Deleted From White House Website at Noon Today.”

    Colonel Haiku (603887)

  482. EVERYTHING was deleted (although it will be archved somewhere) from theWhite House web site, except maybe the bare bones software.

    And the same thing happened with everything President George W. Bush put on theer, and Bill Clinton (who established the White House web page)

    You’d think somebody would want to keep it available. But Bill Clinton established the precedent.

    The photograph of Obama’s official birth certicate, printed out on April 25, 2011, is undoubtably also gone. Although I don’t know if the Nation is going to make a headline out of that.

    All the computers in the White House have been scrubbed, and people going to them will be presented with a piece of paper giving the computer’s password.

    Sammy Finkelman (ff268d)

  483. The photograph of Obama’s official birth certicate, printed out on April 25, 2011, is undoubtably also gone

    I wonder if they’ll post photographs of book blurbs and other items from back with Obama was playing his “poor kid from Kenya makes good” shtick.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  484. 485. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/20/2017 @ 12:23 pm

    As an aside, I think Perry’s 2012 position is entirely defensible because much of the portfolio that he now says he understands would be easily assumed by other agencies which have significant overlapping responsibilities as it is.

    What Rick Perry said now indicates that he doesn’t understand what to “abolish” a department means. It doesn’t mean that everything it does stops being donwe.

    The Department of Energy is a hodge podge, as is Interior, Commerce and Homeland Security.

    It deals with non-proliferation because in the 1950’s Preident Eisenhower and otehrs wanted to show that nuclear power could be peaceful and they estaboished the atomic Energy Commission which got folded into theDepartment of Energy later. I think it actually also maintains nuclear weapons.

    The AEC was split in 1974. Part of it was folded into the Energy Research and Deveopment agency or ERDA, and part of it was spun off into an independent agency – the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    This was on the grounds that the same people shouldn’t be both promotng and regulating nuclear power. ERDA was folsed into the Department of Energy when it was created in 1977. One of its first accomplishments, under Secetary James R. Schlesinger, was to create an unnecessary gasoline crisis in 1979. This was because of the Iranian revolution, which cut oil productionn in Iran. It was anticipated there’d be less oil available on the international market, and the Department of Energy “solved” that problem by beating the shortage to the punch.

    Sammy Finkelman (ff268d)

  485. Kevin M. 488. I’m not sure theer were book blurbs. His literaryu=y agent wrote taht on her website I believe It wasn’t corrcted until 2007.

    When Obama was sworn in for the forst time in 2009 Chief Justice Roberts made a mistake, which Obama repeated, and they worried maybe somebody could argue he wasn’t properly sworn in and thus not the president. So I think that night they re-did the oath of office, but recorded only the audio, not video.

    This time Roberts didn’t make a mistake, I think.

    Sammy Finkelman (ff268d)

  486. Sammy, I have seen the jacket copy. And if you believe that Barack Obama would let a book by him be published without his OK, I have some bridges you might like.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  487. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp

    OK, booklet. This doesn’t prove anything other than Obama maybe playing loose with the truth to get attention. But it IS funny.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  488. Meanwhile a certain pattern recurs down under,

    narciso (d1f714)

  489. 491. Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/20/2017 @ 2:42 pm

    Sammy, I have seen the jacket copy. And if you believe that Barack Obama would let a book by him be published without his OK, I have some bridges you might like.

    You mean the jacket ccpy of the first edition of “Dreams of My Father?” I never saw it. I never read t described or quoted, either – only what the literaryy agent wrote. Is or was taht edition of the book a rarity?

    Sammy Finkelman (8a31dc)

  490. Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/20/2017 @ 2:49 pm

    This doesn’t prove anything other than Obama maybe playing loose with the truth to get attention. But it IS funny.

    I’m not sure exactly what’s funny about it. It’s just a difference from the truth.

    So it’s the literary promotion booklet from 1991, when he was going to write another book. That I read about. And I don’t say that Barack Obama didn’t know what it said. He probably decided not to interfere because it might cost him a lot of money, or because it would take him a loot of trouble to correct, and well, he may have thought, it was such a irrelevant lie. He was indeed raised in Hawaii and Indonesia.

    The author of this biographical squib, Miriam Goderich, then a clerk of some sort, but by 2102 a partner at Dystel & Goderich, then called Acton & Dystel, said that Baarack Obama was not the source of the untrue things there – she made it up a fact checking error. I guess you could say she guessed.

    There was another wrong thing there, too:

    The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister

    His mother only became an anthropologist later. She had just started college when she got pregnant. His father never became a Finance Minister. They never lived in Kenya. (he did live with and marry, bigamously, a second white American woman and had two sons with her)

    This description makes his mother look like she was at least in her mid-20s and probably older when he was born. And that his father was already a finance minister.

    It may be true that Barack Obama worked, for a short time, as a “financial journalist” except I think he was only a researcher or something lke that. And he later claimed he didn’t like the job. Maybe more true was that he didn’t want that kind of job. That job, after all, was not a path to elected office.

    “Journeys in Black and White” was to be the title of the book he was going to write. He couldn’t write it, and substituted an autobiography, with some facts altered.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a31dc)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2982 secs.