Patterico's Pontifications

2/15/2017

Meet Your Blogger: Yours Truly on Trump and More

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:45 am

Shameless Self-Promotion Department: If you’re looking to take a break from the silly news of the day, take a moment to read this interview of yours truly at Fault Lines. The interview is conducted by Scott Greenfield, managing editor of Fault Lines, blogger at Simple Justice, and . . . criminal defense attorney. I think an interview of a prosecutor (which is my day job) by a criminal defense attorney is inherently interesting, no? Since this is a political blog, I’ll tease you with one of the political questions and answers, about (what else?) Donald Trump:

Q. You parlayed your skill and experience with writing into commentary gigs at various websites. (You’ve been published in the LA Times, your blog posts have been covered in the New York Times and Washington Post, and you used to write at Breitbart before it went alt-right.) These days, apart from the blog, you’re best known as a regular at RedState.

Whether at RedState or Patterico’s Pontifications, you haven’t been one to express much support for our current President. You opposed his candidacy, and even deregistered from the Republican Party after he became the GOP’s torchbearer in the general election. By lining up behind Trump, have Republicans betrayed their limited-government ideals? Now that he’s been in office for a few weeks, has he proven as bad as you feared? Is he even worse?

What about the current immigration debacle? Is it the constitutional travesty left-leaning lawprofs claim it is? Do you take as dim a view of plenary power as they do? Was it, perhaps, unwise of Trump to deny re-entry to lawful permanent residents? In the age of Trump, can we expect the same, ahem, scrupulous level of commitment to the Constitution we were used to from Obama?

A. I do not think that support for Trump, by itself, reflects a betrayal of limited-government principles. Plenty of my readers, like me, supported another candidate in the primary, and don’t care for Trump. Many of those people voted for Trump just because he is not Hillary Clinton. That was not my decision, but I understand it and can’t criticize that point of view.

However, on May 3, 2016, the day Ted Cruz bowed out of the race, I instantly saw that the Republican party was going to start conforming itself to Trump’s vision more than I knew I would be comfortable with. Republicans were going to support big government initiatives, worry less about state sovereignty and the Constitution, and defend any number of outrageous Trumpy statements and positions. I wanted no part of it, and I wanted to disassociate myself from a Trump-led Republican Party in a very public and clear way.

My abandonment of the GOP, and my personal distaste for Trump, have been very disturbing to the part of my readership that is more partisan and less concerned with limited government principles. It’s difficult to watch some long-time readers view me as a “leftist” and treat me contemptuously, as if I were the enemy, simply because I can’t stand the demagogue that has seized control of the Republican party. But I don’t change my views to suit my readers. I suspect some other bloggers have — especially those who are dependent on their blogs for income. In that sense, it’s nice to have a day job. It makes it easier to say what I really think.

I despise Donald Trump as a person. I liked that state senator’s description of Trump as a “loofa-faced sh*tgibbon.” He’s obviously a vindictive, nasty, narcissistic, dishonest clown who has probably never read a book in his life. He is the best argument for the irrationality of the American voter we have ever seen. That said, I wasn’t looking forward to Hillary Clinton being in office, and I think Trump has done and will do some good things. His selection of Neil Gorsuch to replace Justice Scalia was brilliant.

You asked about immigration. I’m very sympathetic to Trump’s concerns over an influx of refugees from war-torn Muslim nations. I don’t think that accepting those refugees in large numbers with insufficient screening has worked out very well for Germany. The Nordic countries have seen their very successful cultures threatened by an inordinate number of immigrants with a murderous ideology and a desire to inflict Sharia law on everyone. All that being said, I am a fierce critic of runaway executive power, and I think Trump should be working with Congress on this issue. It’s also beyond debate that Trump’s rollout of this particular executive order was hasty, slipshod, and illegal as applied to green card holders and other visa holders.

There’s more about Trump at the link, including some pretty good jokes about him — but we cover a lot more than politics. Scott asks me about my first trial, why I went to school where I did, the crazies who have come after me because of my blogging, and so forth. I get a chance to mention my group the Constitutional Vanguard, for people who believe in liberty, the free market, and the Constitution (sign up here!). My favorite part of the interview is discussing the songs I have written, some of which have been covered by a few of my favorite artists. One example of those songs is called Wrong Side of the Road, covered by Steve Bertrand of The Tories, the band that did “Time for You,” the theme song for the TV show “Jesse” with Christina Applegate. “Wrong Side of the Road” is a song about going against the grain in life, a theme that is near and dear to my heart. If you like that one, there is a link to more in the interview. (And I have more to come, relatively soon!)

I thank Scott Greenfield for the opportunity, and hope you get a chance to check it out.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

86 Responses to “Meet Your Blogger: Yours Truly on Trump and More”

  1. i’m not partisan and limited government is my favorite thing EVER and i still think your animosity on Mr. Trump is very disturbing and i tell you why

    you used to say all the time – before harvardtrash ted “bowed out” anyways – about how this pitiful country had very little time left to avert a very real game over fiscal disaster

    well mister that has NOT changed, and if this poor little country is to have any chance, it’s up to our friend Mr. President Trump to grow the economy and change the math

    he’s trying really hard on that

    cutting regulations and working towards tax reforms and job creation

    the odds are stacked against him

    but I love him for trying and he can have my whole peabnut bubber and jelly sammich today at lunch

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  2. Nice job of preening…

    Rich Vail (339dcb)

  3. Please don’t go Little Green Footballs. Never go full Little Green Footballs.

    Ken in Camarillo (c5b86d)

  4. I’ll never understand, in a million years, how contempt for Donald Fucking Trump somehow equates to leftism.

    The reason I don’t understand it is because it doesn’t.

    Not even close.

    Patterico (2f6716)

  5. Nice job of preening…

    I guess it’s also “preening” that, even though I see you have a blog, I don’t feel the need to come piss on it.

    Patterico (2f6716)

  6. Ken in Camarillo,

    Please specifically define what it means to go Little Green Footballs and then explain how anything I say even remotely begins to approach that in any way.

    You can’t, and I doubt you’ll even try. Note I said specifically.

    Patterico (2f6716)

  7. cutting regulations and working towards tax reforms and job creation

    Presidents don’t create jobs.

    Patterico (2f6716)

  8. Nice job counselor. Glad you did it.

    crazy (d3b449)

  9. that seems glib to me

    regulations and obamacare destroy jobs with extreme prejudice

    President Trump’s gonna turn that tugboat around for the American way!

    plus pro-growth tax policies will help so so much

    plus he has other ideas stay tuned

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  10. Re LGF, its bike riding that leads to Little Green Footballs.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  11. I’ll never understand, in a million years, how contempt for Donald Fucking Trump somehow equates to leftism.

    Maybe it’s like how you equate the OK sign to white supremacist?

    I know, I know, context. Well, maybe they see the context as you posting about every flaw, real or perceived, no matter how small, when it comes to Trump, yet stories of far greater significance about the left (like this for instance, https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2017/02/14/top-california-dem-half-of-my-family-could-be-deported-by-trump-order/ , or this: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265808/obamas-shadow-presidency-matthew-vadum) are not mentioned at all.

    I find it not at all surprising people think of you as a leftist, or at least allied with the left, which is a difference without a distinction.

    Leon (1bee31)

  12. I’ll never understand, in a million years, how contempt for Donald Fucking Trump somehow equates to leftism.

    The reason I don’t understand it is because it doesn’t.

    Amen.

    Dave (711345)

  13. Great article, it’s nice, your love of music explained

    EPWJ (18476e)

  14. Moderation? I’m just trying to be a helper and a giver.

    Leon (1bee31)

  15. I think overall I agree with a lot of what you say (e.g. I never supported Trump as a candidate, not even in the general).

    This one line however: “My abandonment of the GOP, and my personal distaste for Trump, have been very disturbing to the part of my readership that is more partisan and less concerned with limited government principles. It’s difficult to watch some long-time readers view me as a “leftist” and treat me contemptuously, as if I were the enemy, simply because I can’t stand the demagogue that has seized control of the Republican party.”

    I’ve never considered you as a “leftist” or “the enemy”, I am just as concerned with limited government as I have been for the last 35+ years. I just think there is an over-focus if you will, on Trump (yes I know he’s president) while a government and a media that still seems to think Obama is king is (if anything) running even more amok.

    I won’t speak for anyone else but the tone Dana takes seems more grounded and less vindictive than yours.

    harkin (313db7)

  16. Immigration has come to Paris.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  17. Harkin, if you think Patterico’s tone is vindictive, then you are confused regarding the definition of vindictive.

    John Hitchcock (bf319e)

  18. Sounds like tottenham some years ago, also a more recent scenario in the midlands

    narciso (d1f714)

  19. Leon (and others who have been confused on this point):

    The filter lets the blog owner say fuck and bullshit and words like that. It does not let you do so without your comment first being hand-approved by me or someone else with admin privileges. This is so even if you are quoting me — the filter does not know that. That may seem unfair but you know what mama said about life being fair.

    Please do not assume you are being filtered due to the content of your statement when it contains a curse word. Thank you.

    Patterico (2f6716)

  20. And Leon, a non-aggressive “this might be interesting” email with a link, or a PayPal donation of $100, goes a lot further than bitching that I am an ally of the left because I did not write a post about some story I never saw but that you think is important. Failing that, you can start your own blog. The approach you have taken is most certainly not the way to make me give a shit about your issue or story.

    Also, don’t send me Matthew Vadum links. I find him untrustworthy and unreadable.

    Patterico (2f6716)

  21. Oh, you mean when vadum linked Lynn chi’s rather eelaborated ebunking on the slimming of Monica crowley by buzzfeed and CNN?

    narciso (d1f714)

  22. Please do not assume you are being filtered due to the content of your statement when it contains a curse word. Thank you.

    If it makes Leon feel any better, my comment agreeing with Patrick was also moderated due to quoting the naughty word…

    Dave (711345)

  23. Narciso, are you conflating the police riots which tended to be all POC/Racaille with the Muslim mass rape and groomings? France had a similar flare-up in ’06 or ’07 which started when an NA youth got chased into an electrical substation and poofed. Thats what Sarkozy rode to the presidency a year later.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  24. Critics of vadum at first glance are brad Friedman and media matters that can’t be it.

    narciso (d1f714)

  25. I will read the full interview. This here is my reaction to a small portion of this post:

    For me, I don’t think that Patterico’s assertion that “readership that is more partisan and less concerned with limited government principles” is what is driving some of the recent upset.

    At least not for me.

    Like Patterico, I re-registered No Party Preference the day following the California primary (where I voted for Ted Cruz) and I took a free vote against both major parties in the general election.

    So, I reject the “partisan” label, other than in noting that there IS a binary situation in DC, and given that binary choice, I prefer the party that is half a loaf than the one that is no loaf at all.

    Nor do I disagree with Patterico on limited government. When he criticizes Trump on this basis (e.g. the trillion dollar roads program) I fully understand that this is not Trump-derangement, but an honest aversion to giant slush funds (road building is probably corrupt on Zeta Reticuli).

    When Trump tells the IRS to ignore the law, Patterico is objecting because he has this notion that laws mean something and that Presidents aren’t kings. I may quibble with this a bit, but not a lot.

    Where I have issues, and where Patterico’s readers take most offense, is when he criticizes Trump for things that mostly annoy Democrats, and indeed seem to echo the Democrat party line.

    For example, Patterico objects to Trump maintaining any connection to his businesses. Trump doing so, in itself, does not bother me as his businesses are not the type of things that bankers can run. I think part of the issue here is that Trump’s honesty is, um, in dispute. Perhaps if the President was named Romney or Bloomberg this kind of continued connection to entrepreneurial activities would not prove so troublesome. That’s just my guess from reading posts here. I could be wrong.

    I would not like it if this were to be a precedent that active businessmen could not run for high office. That would cut out MANY of the folks that hold the values of small government and fiscal sanity. Democrats, however, view all businessmen as crooks (Sanders barely tolerates banks) and would LOVE it if businessmen were effectively barred from high office.

    Then there are purely neutral issues — people maybe having their hand in the cookie jar — where it seems that the possibility of Counting Coup against Trump brings a smile to out host’s face, even where it might harm the overall GOP agenda. An agenda which, even if compromised, is moving away from the path that the opposition would choose.

    OTOH, I recognize the difficulty in coming to acceptance of Trump — a man with whom I have expressed deep dissatisfaction. Yet I find that I must, since, as yet I find no better path.

    I do look forward to the 2020 campaign, and hope that there is a significant challenge. Until then I have to support Team Red whenever possible as Team Blue is anathema.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  26. I don’t like the realpolitik of tillerson the china and other major states, re the wall what’s good for Mexico, should be teciprical bet they are torturing my paisans in detention camps that make gitmo seem like club med.

    narciso (d1f714)

  27. Narciso, it was our host that exclaimed Family Before Country in his early summer defense of Cruz’ reluctance to embrace Trump following his own exit. So we are both deigned to support our “paisans” however divergent they are. You at least have soil connection to that island, I, 2.5 generation, get told I should be a Joe or Joseph for my pidgin verbs-poorly-conjugated Spanish gleaned from ex-inlaws, sidejobbers and cooks.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  28. Having read the full interview, I have one additional comment:

    Blogging under your own name is a mistake in this culture. I did that for a while and it is about half the reason I stopped blogging (the other half involving work on a startup). Sure “Patterico” is easily seen through, but not casually seen through. Nor is it likely to be confused with other people with similar names, which is another form of the problem.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  29. Presidents don’t create jobs.

    Not directly, but Presidents can craft policies which allow the market to create more (or fewer) jobs.

    Maybe it’s like how you equate the OK sign to white supremacist?

    Except he didn’t do that, and it’s intellectually dishonest of you to claim so.

    Chuck Bartowski (211c17)

  30. For example, Patterico objects to Trump maintaining any connection to his businesses. Trump doing so, in itself, does not bother me as his businesses are not the type of things that bankers can run. I think part of the issue here is that Trump’s honesty is, um, in dispute. Perhaps if the President was named Romney or Bloomberg this kind of continued connection to entrepreneurial activities would not prove so troublesome. That’s just my guess from reading posts here. I could be wrong.

    I think you have people who are basically honest and do their best to follow the rules. GWB (who was a businessman) and (probably) Romney (we can only speculate since he wasn’t elected) fall into this category.

    Then there are people like the Clintons, Charlie Rangel (#1 all-time recipient of political donations from Donald Trump), Hastert (and most other politicians with ethics issues) who are shady and opportunistic. These types of people recognize that the rules should be followed, but they think they are clever enough to get away with cutting corners when nobody’s looking.

    Finally, there are people like Trump, Blago, Marion Barry, Richard Daley, etc, who are contemptuous of transparency and rules, and flaunt them brazenly (recent examples: the White House campaign to save Ivanka’s business, refusal to release tax returns, which keeps possible conflicts hidden from the public, openly directing campaign and government business to family-owned enterprises, etc). These types of people are indignant at even the *suggestion* that they could have a conflict of interest, while taking advantage at every opportunity.

    Dave (711345)

  31. Going Little Green Footballs would be a significant change in a person’s demeanor towards certain subjects, without some obvious explanation. It also implies obsession, such as a preoccupation with a certain subject beyond what seems normal.

    In your case, yes we know Trump is not so great, but he’s wayyyy ahead of the other choice we had. We also understand your position on him, which you’ve made clear. But now it’s time to settle down and not be obsessed with him, and not be constantly on the lookout for another way to ding him. The indicator I would call a good measure would be “what percentage of your output is devoted to dinging Trump.” If you keep it reasonable, you’ll remain a great blogger.

    After I made the earlier comment, I went over to Little Green Footballs to check my perceptions. My reaction was “whoa.. this is way closer to what I was saying than I imagined!” All anti-Trump, all the time.

    Now obviously the comparison is extreme. LGF is of the sanity scale, and he’s lost touch with reality. You are still firmly planted in reality. Just don’t wander too far in his direction.

    Ken in Camarillo (fe2134)

  32. LGF is OFF the sanity scale.

    Ken in Camarillo (fe2134)

  33. No, Dave, your kind went after not only Rooney but employed fusion gps tonscrounge up dirt on melaleuca’s vanderslip and probably adelson, whets Carlos slim who embodies cronyism nit only in Mexico but china is practically untouchable as for warren buffett who holds our pipeline safety to his greed, he is only pictured a gruff wilford brimley

    narciso (d1f714)

  34. Not directly, but Presidents can craft policies which allow the market to create more (or fewer) jobs.

    Absolutely! You will never find me disagreeing with that.

    The key insight is: the only policies that truly work to create the greatest number of productive jobs are policies that leave the market alone.

    This is why I object when people talk about Presidents creating jobs.

    It’s as if every four years we elected someone who put a greater or lesser amount of sticky glop on the racetrack — and then said that the Glop Pourer creates speed. Well, one Glop Pourer can “create” more speed relative to a previous Glop Pourer, by pouring less glop. But while you could say Glop Pourers can create policies that allow athletes to display greater speed, it would be a grave mistake to say Glop Pourers create speed.

    Now, it could be that there are countervailing interests that could cause people to want Glop poured on the track — or regulations and laws mucking with private business. If so, the point of the Glop is to serve those interests, not to create speed — and the point of the government policies is to serve other interests, not to create jobs . . . unless the policy is to undo other government policy that hampers the market.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  35. I’m loving all the comments where complaints about Patterico are made and the comment maker has a blog of their own… so I check them out and they are all dead blogs. Dead. Out of date. Useless. Kind of tells me who has an effective blog and who doesn’t. Perhaps they are linking an old blog, perhaps they don’t have anything of real substance to share in an extended form and must stick to comment sections. I know I do, not that I have substance in this case either. Just observing.

    Enjoyed the interview. Well done.

    Marci (1cb271)

  36. “Harkin, if you think Patterico’s tone is vindictive, then you are confused regarding the definition of vindictive.”

    You may be right. Perhaps “joyfully snide” works better.

    Regardless – it should not be ignored that celebrating the fact someone called Trump a sh*t-gibbon is curious since anyone (especially a politician) who applied same to Obama could quite possibly have their career destroyed.

    The double standard that seems to grow stronger every day, even from many conservatives, is disheartening.

    Harkin (204b00)

  37. But now it’s time to settle down and not be obsessed with him, and not be constantly on the lookout for another way to ding him. The indicator I would call a good measure would be “what percentage of your output is devoted to dinging Trump.” If you keep it reasonable, you’ll remain a great blogger.

    Yeah, lefties used to say I was obsessed with the L.A. Times too. My response was always to say that when the L.A. Times stops distorting the news, I’ll stop criticizing them for it.

    (What I forgot to say was: in case I get bored with them. Which I did.)

    Ken in Camarillo, I’ll criticize Trump when I think he deserves it, and praise him when I think he deserves it (as with the Gorsuch nomination). I’ve praised his concern for dangerous refugees coming into the country, but criticized the manner in which he rolled out his executive order. I praised the fact that he had a call with Taiwan, but questioned whether he knew what he was getting into, or whether he could keep a cool head if such provocations met with the inevitable response.

    If you’re looking for non-stop TRUMP IS A RAAACIST OH MY GOD I AM GOING TO MOVE TO CANADA hysteria, you won’t find it here, and you never have.

    Where are your specifics? What specific complaint do you have about a specific criticism of Trump I have made? None that I see. To me, you’re acting like someone who cries racism or sexism, but when you ask what the specific complaint is, none can be offered . . . just “it seems like you criticize people from group x a lot.” Well, wait a second: are any of my specific criticisms wrong? Answer: “I don’t want to talk about that, I just want to lodge a general complaint that it seems like you criticize people from group x more than I like.”

    Often complaints like that are indicative of a bias on the part of the audience.

    If you don’t like the tone of the blog, there are any number of blogs cheerleading Trump. They’re everywhere. You can have your opinions validated and there won’t be any pesky person pointing out his faults.

    But if you want me to take you seriously, you have to rebut specific points. By now, I just tune out “whaaa you hate on Trump too much but I won’t give any specifics” complaints.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  38. Except there is so much flop on the tracks, the trains don’t even use that track anymore, the manufacturing base in southern California is gone and that has created a whole degree of social disruption, that the criminal element has filled, schools don’t teach content but sjw memos, we are hostage to the great age figment which I dubbed the skydragon.

    narciso (d1f714)

  39. I’m loving all the comments where complaints about Patterico are made and the comment maker has a blog of their own… so I check them out and they are all dead blogs. Dead. Out of date. Useless. Kind of tells me who has an effective blog and who doesn’t. Perhaps they are linking an old blog, perhaps they don’t have anything of real substance to share in an extended form and must stick to comment sections. I know I do, not that I have substance in this case either. Just observing.

    Enjoyed the interview. Well done.

    Thank you, Marci. I appreciate your taking the time to give me some positive feedback.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  40. No, Dave, your kind went after not only Rooney but employed fusion gps tonscrounge up dirt on melaleuca’s vanderslip and probably adelson, whets Carlos slim who embodies cronyism nit only in Mexico but china is practically untouchable as for warren buffett who holds our pipeline safety to his greed, he is only pictured a gruff wilford brimley

    Would someone be kind enough to translate this into English, so I can decide whether to respond?

    Dave (711345)

  41. So, I reject the “partisan” label, other than in noting that there IS a binary situation in DC, and given that binary choice, I prefer the party that is half a loaf than the one that is no loaf at all.

    I’m pretty sure the election is over. I should think I would be allowed to question whether the party that most lines up with my principles is acting in accordance with those principles without having it be assumed that I am thereby somehow supporting the Democrats.

    For example, Patterico objects to Trump maintaining any connection to his businesses. Trump doing so, in itself, does not bother me as his businesses are not the type of things that bankers can run. I think part of the issue here is that Trump’s honesty is, um, in dispute. Perhaps if the President was named Romney or Bloomberg this kind of continued connection to entrepreneurial activities would not prove so troublesome. That’s just my guess from reading posts here. I could be wrong.

    I’d sure as hell trust Romney a lot more than I trust Trump. Trump has a clear history of self-dealing as a businessman. Again, my “bias” against him is not because I have an irrational prejudice against orange people or people with small hands or bad hair. It’s based on his own damned history, making it not so much a “bias” as just judging his character in the context of his life.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  42. OTOH, I recognize the difficulty in coming to acceptance of Trump — a man with whom I have expressed deep dissatisfaction. Yet I find that I must, since, as yet I find no better path.

    If we have reached the point where we don’t just have to accept the reality of the least bad choice, but also must refrain from criticizing that choice in the ways it’s bad, then I should just quit the blog and post “YAY TRUMP!” in the biggest, boldest font I can find, and walk away.

    I don’t think I have reached that point. I’m going to give myself permission to criticize stuff that should be criticized, even if it’s better than a worse alternative.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  43. The left not only goes after candidates but on a search and destroy after any prospective big ticket spotters, so melaleuca’s pro Christian pro capitalist belufes were too hard forxsay mother Jones to accept is aged war against him, in part using the outfit some were taking seriously a month ago. I was around when jeb ran for gov in 94, and they threw the whole him depot at him. Much like Ted Kennedy dud to Rooney that same year

    narciso (d1f714)

  44. Yrs but when it turns out the left was ginning up the protesters , the woman’s march was as real as the rally for sanity, the up published doctored images of the inaugural, the eo had legislative foundation and Boer was never going to accept any workable screening regimen, you used to pause and consider the alternative

    narciso (d1f714)

  45. Going Little Green Footballs would be a significant change in a person’s demeanor towards certain subjects, without some obvious explanation. It also implies obsession, such as a preoccupation with a certain subject beyond what seems normal.

    It is really unfair to call this “Going Little Green Footballs” when it was Andrew Sullivan who pioneered the phenomenon (and who was – predictably – mocked and demonized by Charles Johnson of LGF at the time…).

    Credit where credit is due.

    Dave (711345)

  46. Yrs but when it turns out the left was ginning up the protesters , the woman’s march was as real as the rally for sanity, the up published doctored images of the inaugural, the eo had legislative foundation and Boer was never going to accept any workable screening regimen, you used to pause and consider the alternative

    I posted about O’Keefe’s videos on ginning up the protesters, I didn’t care about the women’s march, I have no idea what doctored images of the inaugural you are taiking about, your oft-repeated claim about the legislative basis for the EO is now close to a knowing lie on your part given HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE EXPLAINED THE LIMITED NATURE OF OBAMA’S DESIGNATION TO YOU and you have ignored it time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, and your last comment is (shockingly!) too cryptic for me to understand.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  47. melaleuca’s pro Christian pro capitalist belufes were too hard forxsay mother Jones to accept is aged war against him

    This is basically authentic frontier gibberish.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  48. Kevin M:

    Where I have issues, and where Patterico’s readers take most offense, is when he criticizes Trump for things that mostly annoy Democrats, and indeed seem to echo the Democrat party line.

    For example, Patterico objects to Trump maintaining any connection to his businesses. Trump doing so, in itself, does not bother me as his businesses are not the type of things that bankers can run. I think part of the issue here is that Trump’s honesty is, um, in dispute. Perhaps if the President was named Romney or Bloomberg this kind of continued connection to entrepreneurial activities would not prove so troublesome. That’s just my guess from reading posts here. I could be wrong.

    I was one of the first commenters here to object to Trump’s refusal to divest his businesses, establish a blind trust or set forth rules to provide transparency. He has an ethical (and possibly a legal) obligation to separate his business from the country’s business, and so far he has not done it. That is not a Democratic talking point. That isn’t partisan. It is just as much about rules and laws and protecting our country’s interests as the other issues you claim to care about.

    DRJ (15874d)

  49. The fact that a Democrat might criticize Trump on an issue does not make the criticism invalid.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  50. “Acceptance” does not mean “acquiescence.” But perhaps it means recognizing that he’s right more often than a stopped clock.

    And I find myself caught up in “That GD fool! What is he THINKING!?!?!” just as much as anyone else.

    Example: The reported ranting at the Australian prime minister for example. Then I read an Australian blog on the matter, where it was pointed out just WHY Trump was so righteously PO’d.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2017/02/03/how-is-it-playing-out-in-australia/

    1) Chronology is important here.

    1. 10 months out from US presidential election, Turnbull visits US. He meets Hillary and snubs Trump.
    2. In the weeks leading up to US presidential election, Turnbull does a deal with a dead duck President.
    3. Turnbull and Obama agree to not announce it (hide the deal) until the US presedential election is over. They both want Hillary to get up, and the deal would be excellent ammunition for Trump in a campaign dominated by illegal immigration.
    4. Trump wins. Turnbull panics.
    5. Turnbull has to call Greg Norman to find out how to get in touch with Trump.
    6. Turnbull announces deal publicly 5 days later, and before he has spoken to Trump about it.
    7. Trump understandably gives him a smack down on the phone.
    8. Turnbull spins the phone call, and in desperation to announce something good in his otherwise failing Prime Ministership, announces the deal as done.
    9. Trump is annoyed that Turnbull couldn’t keep quiet. Trump has been placed in a contradictory position that could damage him politically.
    10. Trump gives Turnbull a smack down on Twitter, and leaks the phone call to return the favour.

    The problem exists because of Turnbull, and Turnbull alone.
    – At no point has Turnbulll invested in a personal relationship with Trump. Mostly because he exists in the same elitist bubble as people who predicted a thumping Hillary win.
    – He did a sneaky deal with left wingers and helped hide it from voters in the US.
    – He then tried to pump his own political fortunes up and didn’t care about the damage it might do to Trump.

    Turnbull has to go. He is damaging the Liberal party and the nation.

    Much more there. Read the whole thing.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  51. Example: The reported ranting at the Australian prime minister for example. Then I read an Australian blog on the matter, where it was pointed out just WHY Trump was so righteously PO’d.

    I can’t remember if I said it on the blog or just to family and friends, but that ranting seemed very purposeful and calculated to show that it was Obama’s deal and not his.

    I’m pretty sure I said that here, actually, in a comment if not a post.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  52. The fact that a Democrat might criticize Trump on an issue does not make the criticism invalid.

    No. It might even be one that’s bipartisan. Like Trump’s love of asset seizure and eminent domain.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  53. I’m pretty sure I said that here, actually, in a comment if not a post.

    You may have. I was telling on MYSELF there.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  54. Tim Blair, my guide to the crazy down under who is a conditional trump supporters a whole file on trumbull’ s pratfalls, he was motivated to challenge Abbott because he believes in agw like some medieval monk and Abbott was more of a skeptic

    narciso (5f3cb5)

  55. He has an ethical (and possibly a legal) obligation to separate his business from the country’s business, and so far he has not done it. That is not a Democratic talking point. That isn’t partisan. It is just as much about rules and laws and protecting our country’s interests as the other issues you claim to care about.

    I dispute this in the strongest possible terms.

    This would mean that no entrepreneur is allowed to enter high office because he would have to sell or close all his businesses, and that is an extreme sacrifice to expect anyone to make.

    I do not want government service limited to socialists, trust-fund babies and other people who’ve never built something. I want people who have had to fight government for every inch and know WHY government sucks.

    OLD money can assign the clipping of coupons to a bank committee. New money, actively involved in an ongoing business, cannot do that. At best it can turn matters over to other entrepreneurs who are trusted, such as family. In this case that was unsatisfactory, mainly because NO MATTER WHAT HE DID would satisfactory. Trump being a crook, and all.

    Here, I feel I am working on principle, and others, not trusting the man in question, are operating on personality. Which is a lousy way to set precedent.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  56. I really don’t want to get into a pissing match here, because, by and large, I agree with most of the posts here. I’m just saying that the push back, when it happens, isn’t personal or a rejection of small-government principles, or blind support for Donald Trump. It’s just disagreement.

    A couple times I have attributed motive or emotion or whatever to others, and all I can say is that I’d really really like an edit function here.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  57. But I don’t change my views to suit my readers.

    Obviously a successful life in politics is not in your future, Mister.

    People need to stop taking Patterico’s views of Trump personally, and be secure in their own views of the president. So what if he doesn’t like him as a person, what’s that to you? If you like President Trump as a person and think what’s doing as a president has been good for the country, then be at peace with that. Here’s the thing: You can sing President Trump’s praises all day long, and I’m not going to attack you, the person. I am, however, going to attack the argument. Too many commenters appear to be getting those lines blurred. The argument is just that: an argument. Someone disagrees with Patterico and too often pushes back by attacking the person, not the argument. So, come at him fiercely, but make sure it’s with a sound, well-thought out and persuasive argument defending your position and making your case. Because at this rate, it feels like some on the right are demanding a sort of lockstep loyalty to the president and the party – not unlike how the left demands it of its people.

    The interview was a fun read. I thought the questions particularly good. And the answers were illuminating as they presented a fuller picture of Patterico, the person, not just the blogger. Obviously a superb thinker, well-humored, and ever the delightful contrarian. Nice.

    P.S. As a guest contributor, I am not being paid to say that… no, seriously…

    Dana (023079)

  58. Yes we saw this Cheney even though he divested from Halliburton and even to a lesser extent always tracking back to w’ s days at Harlem oil

    narciso (5f3cb5)

  59. Which is why I have suggested rules providing transparency for Presidents like Trump, Kevin M, but he won’t even do that. Every President has issues that need to be addressed. Some have issues that keep them from running because they don’t want to make the sacrifices.

    DRJ (15874d)

  60. 1. 10 months out from US presidential election, Turnbull visits US. He meets Hillary and snubs Trump.
    2. In the weeks leading up to US presidential election, Turnbull does a deal with a dead duck President.
    3. Turnbull and Obama agree to not announce it (hide the deal) until the US presedential election is over. They both want Hillary to get up, and the deal would be excellent ammunition for Trump in a campaign dominated by illegal immigration.
    4. Trump wins. Turnbull panics.
    5. Turnbull has to call Greg Norman to find out how to get in touch with Trump.
    6. Turnbull announces deal publicly 5 days later, and before he has spoken to Trump about it.
    7. Trump understandably gives him a smack down on the phone.

    I think some of this is, at best, misleading.

    Turnbull’s contact with Clinton came in January 2016, when Trump was one of a dozen GOP candidates. According to this contemporaneous Aussie coverage, he did not “meet” Clinton (who he is said to have known for 25 years), but had a “brief phone call”. He also took a call from Marco Rubio, and met with Republican congressional leaders.

    There was no immediate refugee crisis then, and Turnbull’s contacts with US politicians were aimed at encouraging them to support the TPP. It’s obvious why he wouldn’t waste his time courting Donald Trump on that issue.

    The Aussie government was re-elected in a razor-tight July 2016 election, forming a fragile coalition with a majority of a single seat in parliament, on a platform that promised exclusion of unauthorized refugees arriving by boat.

    The refugee crisis only became pressing for the Turnbull after an Australian paper published a devastating expose of the conditions at the off-shore holding camps on August 10, 2016. Due to the government’s platform during the just-completed election, it was impossible for them to admit the refugees, and so the negotiation of a face-saving “swap” with the US originated.

    The point being, the timing of the refugee deal with Obama was not driven by any sinister plot, but by rapidly unfolding events in Australia that were beyond anybody’s direct control.

    I’d also like to know the source for the claim:

    3. Turnbull and Obama agree to not announce it (hide the deal) until the US presedential election is over.

    Certainly Trump’s election added urgency for the Australians reach an agreement. Why is it somehow nefarious for them to finalize a deal before the prospects for it become far worse?

    If Trump plans to “smack down” every world leader for doing what he (Trump) claims to be doing himself (looking out for their country’s best interests), we won’t have many friends left by the time he’s finally impeached.

    Dave (711345)

  61. An interesting article on the Flynn fiasco over at Red State, in which it is argued that a number of Obama officials ought to be arrested and tried for serious misuse of the intelligence apparatus to attack Trump and his minions. Ben Rhodes and John Brennan are mentioned.

    http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/02/15/trump-needs-either-shutdown-pro-obama-leakers-needs-resign/

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  62. An interesting article on the Flynn fiasco over at Red State, in which it is argued that a number of Obama officials ought to be arrested and tried

    Any government official who violates the law should be prosecuted, in my opinion.

    Unfortunately, Trump has already signaled his determination to ignore the law when necessary to shield his personal friends, by reneging on his promise to lock up Hillary Clinton.

    Dave (711345)

  63. I thought after brennan burned that asset in the 2012 plot, that should have sent him packing, but instead he took petraeus job, in part thanks to leak that jeh made about that matter

    Is the president entitled to his own choices on the nsc;

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/democrats-never-trumpers-thrilled-prospect-harward-national-security-adviser

    narciso (d1f714)

  64. @ Ken in Camarillo, #31:

    In your case, yes we know Trump is not so great, but he’s wayyyy ahead of the other choice we had. We also understand your position on him, which you’ve made clear. But now it’s time to settle down and not be obsessed with him, and not be constantly on the lookout for another way to ding him.

    “Oh confound all this. I’m not a scholar, I don’t know whether the marriage was lawful or not but – d*** it, Thomas, look at these names! Why can’t you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship?”

    –The Duke of Norfolk, A Man for All Seasons…and you might do well to look up Sir Thomas More’s reply.

    The indicator I would call a good measure would be “what percentage of your output is devoted to dinging Trump.” If you keep it reasonable, you’ll remain a great blogger.

    Reasonable by whose lights, one might want to ask.

    You are still firmly planted in reality. Just don’t wander too far in his direction.

    Yes, Patterico. It’s a nice little blog you have here. It’d be a shame if something…happened to it…

    In summation: concern troll is concerned.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  65. I liked “They’ll think that somewhere along your pedigree a bitch got over the wall!” line, better than the “Will you join me in hell? [paraphrase]” one.

    nk (dbc370)

  66. The pattern is awfully familiar:

    directorblue.blogspot.com/2017/02/cia-analyst-obama-john-brennan-james.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    narciso (d1f714)

  67. And Leon, a non-aggressive “this might be interesting” email with a link, or a PayPal donation of $100, goes a lot further than bitching that I am an ally of the left

    A $100! Na, I’m not in a buying mood, even if I did have G Soros bankroll.

    Things make a lot more sense to me around here now though.

    Leon (1bee31)

  68. What evidence substantiates the assertion the “Republican party was going to start conforming itself to Trump’s vision”? Pols saying “nice doggy” are being pols. The party platform was not shifted to conform to Trump’s vision and I have not seen actual legislation being promulgated reflecting any conformance.

    I’m not cheerful about the victory by the lesser evil but his lack of innate political skill coupled with the profundity of his manifest ignorance suggests him to be a much lesser evil wrt possible damage than the much greater evil avoided. His press conference today was a true Marvel. I just can’t quite pin down which action figure he was copying.

    Rick Ballard (5e8a41)

  69. Dave (711345) — 2/15/2017 @ 7:00 pm

    the White House campaign to save Ivanka’s business,

    That was not a campaign to save Ivanka’s business, which was not about to collapsem but just lost its outlet at Nordstrom – because of low sales, but Trump really had to know the low sales were because the name Trump had become obmoxious to about half of the U.S. population, but he pretended Nordstrom had done this on its own because he just didn’t like the whole idea of a boycott. That very limited effort struck me as an anti-boycott matter, and Donald Trump got involved because he thought it was aimed at him and he didn’t feel her business should be collateral damage. He even argued, or implied, that she sometimes took the side of the boycotters. Kelly Anne Conway was a little bit too loyal

    refusal to release tax returns, which keeps possible conflicts hidden from the public,

    Trump claims his income tax returns wouldn’t reveal much in that regard, and if you really want to know conflicts of interest, look at his FEC filings. He’s keeping his tax returns private for other reasons, probably most importantly his use or interpretation of tax law.

    openly directing campaign and government business to family-owned enterprises, etc).

    You ignore the fact that he contributed more than enough of his own money to pay for it. By federal law, he couldn’t just give his campaign the use of office space, planes, etc – it had to be accounted for as a contribution and spent by the campaign. He was only getting back his own money, and doing it because it was more convenient, or cheaper than spending the money somewhere else. Let’s say he paid rent for space that would have gone unrented – the money was just making a round trip from his own pocket. This is a specious charge.

    Sammy Finkelman (be6791)

  70. Re LGF, its bike riding that leads to Little Green Footballs.

    SPQR (a3a747) — 2/15/2017 @ 1:44 pm

    You finally realize you’ve full-blown LGF when you badly compose simple photographs of beach settings. Well, that, and you consistently banhammer readers- even long established commenters- for even the mildest of disagreements.

    Bill H (971e5f)

  71. And you of course acknowledge that I am doing neither.

    And you understand that a false accusation of unethical behavior is not a mild disagreement.

    Patterico (74f607)

  72. To be clear: am I reacting in this thread to criticisms of my reaction to Elissa’s false accusations of unethical behavior the way I would react to other disagreements?

    No.

    I have tried to show through many social cues that I do not consider that criticism to be appropriate. I admit that on this issue I am a bit like a snarling dog. He is trying to give you cues not to approach. If you ignore the cues you might get bit. But please note that I bared my teeth and snarled many many times before I snapped.

    Patterico (74f607)

  73. What I find interesting is that at least two people here, Colonel and Cruz Supporter, came on offering points against me while by their own admission they had no real understanding of what was going on.

    It’s almost as if reflexive and unthoughtful criticism of me has become a habit with them.

    These are the same people who accuse me of reflexively criticizing Trump.

    Hmmm.

    Patterico (74f607)

  74. I’ve grown accustomed to those two not knowing what they’re talking about Patterico.

    Tillman (a95660)

  75. And you of course acknowledge that I am doing neither.

    And you understand that a false accusation of unethical behavior is not a mild disagreement.

    Patterico (74f607) — 2/16/2017 @ 1:31 pm

    Patrick, I have not, never have and will never equate you to Charles Johnson. My comment was just a simple reply to SPQR. My comments to some loon who sees this site as an equivalent to LGF cannot be strong enough.

    Bill H (971e5f)

  76. Two sources have told the Financial Times that Trump’s choice for NSC director, Robert Harward, has declined because of “the obvious dysfunctionality”. Trump has reportedly asked him to come back to the White House for a second meeting to change his mind.

    The original link is behind a paywall. If the report is accurate, I imagine we will hear more. HotAir has a short excerpt.

    Is there any precedent for a person being offered the equivalent of a cabinet level position refusing because he feels the president and his administration are simply too incompetent?

    Dave (711345)

  77. Harward reportedly called Trump’s National Security Advisor offer a “sh*t sandwich”.

    Dave (711345)

  78. Well, the CBS Evening News said Harwell declined the job because Trump would not agree to let him fire all the people that Flynn had hired.

    Sammy Finkelman (be6791)

  79. Maybe David Petraeus now gets the job.

    He was done in by that investigation started by Jill Kelley. She complained about e-mails that Paula Broadwell probably never sent.

    That invsigatation, once launched, enabled the FBI to look at her e-mails, and then that of Petraeus and “discover” the fact that she was Petraeus’ mistress, which people in the CIA probably had discovered because everything that goes out of Langley (CIA HQ) is eavesdropped on. But they are nit supposed to use that for any other purpose than protecting government secrets so they couldn’t reveal even that they had paid enough attention to discover that so the CIA careerists/moles whatever had to use a very roundabout way to expose Petraeus and get him fired before he could fire them. They were able to use Kelley because they were both working for the same country, and I don’t mean South Korea. That’s my theory.

    Sammy Finkelman (be6791)

  80. There is reasonable supposition that Johnson as pentagon counsel was was the leaK, you suspect that Jill Kelley nee khawwam, was something other than aggrieved private citizen?

    narciso (d1f714)

  81. What’s wrong with KT McFarland? The worst thing would be that you don’t consider her the biggest expert, but so what? She would be another point of view, and nobody has said she’s dishonest. Trump specifically wanted her to stay. He’s not going to rely blindly on anybody.

    Sammy Finkelman (be6791)

  82. Dana,

    Thanks for your number 57.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  83. narciso (d1f714) — 2/16/2017 @ 5:43 pm

    you suspect that Jill Kelley nee khawwam, was something other than aggrieved private citizen?

    Yes. And it was made to look like Paula Broadwell had sent her some e0mails she did not send.

    Who is Johnson and what leak? The Flynn telephone call leak? The transcript leak? The Washington Post said it had nine sources.

    Sammy Finkelman (be6791)

  84. Heh Johnson, mist recently homeland chief, with a record of missed calls

    narciso (d1f714)

  85. nobody has said she’s dishonest

    Well, actually they have.

    When she ran for the senate, she claimed to have been the highest-ranking woman in the Pentagon during the Reagan administration, and to have written Reagan’s famous Star Wars speech.

    Multiple other Reagan aides called BS, and a review of the paper trail appears to back them up.

    Dave (711345)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3298 secs.