Patterico's Pontifications

10/15/2017

Jimmy Kimmel Does Not Want to Talk to You

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:00 pm

Turns out Jimmy Kimmel thinks he is better than you, and doesn’t care that he alienated you with his tearful lecturing about ObamaCare and guns:

Late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel said he would perform the same emotionally-charged monologues about healthcare and gun violence “again in a heartbeat,” despite a drastic reduction in Republican viewership of his show.

“Three years ago, I was equally liked by Republicans and Democrats,” Kimmel told CBS’ “Sunday Morning” of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” which has aired on ABC since 2003. “And then Republican numbers went way down, like 30 percent, or whatever. And you know, as a talk show host, that’s not ideal but I would do it again in a heartbeat.”

I used to like Jimmy Kimmel. He had a show called “The Man Show” with Adam Carolla, and I used to get together with a group of guys and watch it every week. It was fun. Now, Kimmel is just another annoying Hollywood guy — worse, a manchild who cries at the drop of a hat. On “The Man Show” they would have taken men who cried about political issues and beaten them with a Louisville Slugger for our entertainment. (OK, not really, but you see what I mean.)

Kimmel’s brand of self-righteousness has reached the point where he doesn’t even want to talk to you:

Critics like conservative commentator Ben Shapiro have slammed Kimmel for parading as a “moral arbiter.”

“I’m not. I mean, I agree with him. I’m nobody’s moral arbiter,” Kimmel told CBS. “You don’t have to watch the show. You don’t have to listen to what I say.”

A defiant Kimmel added that he doesn’t say “I don’t mind” because he preferred “everyone with a television to watch the show.”

“But if they’re so turned off by my opinion on healthcare and gun violence then, I don’t know, I probably wouldn’t want to have a conversation with them anyway,” he continued. “Not good riddance, but riddance.”

If I can get serious for a second: this is a big part of the problem with our country. People don’t want to talk to other people just because of their opinions.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to talk to people who are abusive or rude. I don’t want to talk to people who are giant hypocrites. I don’t want to talk to people whose principles appear or disappear depending on whether they’re defending Trump or Obama or some other worthless politician.

And often, certain political opinions go hand in hand with abusive attitudes, rudeness, hypocrisy, or lack of principle. But not always.

If, for example, you defend Trump on his threats to NBC, citing in your argument the public interest, I will want to know whether you made similar arguments when Harry Reid or Barack Obama made similar threats. If you are consistent in the application of your principles, and if you can address the issue politely and respectfully, without using weapons like aggressive mischaracterization and/or irrationality, I’m happy to talk to you — no matter how wrong you might be. You might be my political opponent, but we can still talk about it. We’re both Americans, after all.

If, by contrast, you’re a hypocrite who applies different standards to both sides, calls people names, and is otherwise abusive — now I’m tuning you out. I’m blocking you on Twitter and refusing to engage with you in comments sections. I don’t care whom you support.

So: I will never decline to talk to anyone simply because they have a defensible but different opinion than I have. That sort of retreat into partisan enclaves is a big problem in this country. The Jimmy Kimmel attitude is wrong for dialogue and wrong for the country.

I expect better from a guy who co-hosted “The Man Show.” And if this is his attitude, I hope his show suffers for it, until he learns to be respectful to people who respectfully disagree with him.

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

372 Responses to “Jimmy Kimmel Does Not Want to Talk to You”

  1. Gosh because Obama has been pushing the banning of guns for. 20 years since he wee at the Joyce foundation, because Reid was being a copperhead on Iraq, next question

    narciso (d1f714)

  2. “, I’m happy to talk to you — no matter how wrong you might be. You might be my political opponent, but we can still talk about it. We’re both Americans, after all.”

    I’m afraid Trump has overtaken you as to self-awareness. This time I’ll be the one to depart the field in the first quarter, declaring victory. Good night.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  3. The Joyce foundation has pushed all the fake science re gun ownership and use. This along with forcing banks into the subprime racket is what he did.

    narciso (d1f714)

  4. Consider this a farewell. No apology deserved, and none offered. If you were offended, it was intended and purposeful.

    You posed a good question — why am I still here? Go back and look at the last few dozen substantive comments I have posted here. I think you’ll find in just about every instance I have NOT defended Trump or what he has done or said. I have not jumped on the “bandwagon” and cheered Trump from the sidelines with every move he’s made.

    I have a general point of view that Trump is non-politician outsider who is a huge threat to the establishment arms of both political parties, and along with a hostile national press corps, both parties are working with maximum effort to render him a failure. The GOP is trying to do so in a manner which would result in as little blowback on them as possible, and the Dems see nothing they do or say about the man as being over the line given the fact that the socialists on the far left wing of their party have effectively seized control of their party.

    Trump is truly a man without a party, whether elected as a nominal Republican or not. He’s a party of one — but he’s not without a constituency. And his constituency is loyal more to themselves than to him. So long as he is giving voice to the things they find important, he’ll maintain his support because that constituency has been largely abandoned by the establishment ranks of both political parties. How else do you explain him so easily dispatching 15 GOP candidates, and then beating the Dem Party Standard Bearer for the past 30 years?

    I personally consider myself a “conservative”, but not a doctrinaire conservative as you seem to represent yourself to be. But I don’t allow dogma to get ahead of facts. Facts drive outcomes, not philosophy. You have to take into account reactions before taking action. Unforeseen and unintentional consequences flow from actions driven by dogma.

    For more than a year since I returned to this site with regularity, what I have found myself doing almost exclusively is simply challenging your anti-Trump dogma on factual grounds. And I’ve done so because your pronouncements regularly include some form of collective condemnation of anyone who doesn’t overtly express agreement with your point of view.

    You also employ an intellectually dishonest practice of burying a small proviso within the text of your posts accounting for the possibility that maybe you are wrong – and when your factual underpinnings are challenged you retreat behind the proviso and scream “YOU’RE MISREPRESENTING MY POST!!”

    Its gotten to the point that you simply wave-off any need to rebut or respond to my criticism when I introduce inconvenient new facts into the scenario that you’ve spun. Your most recent comment in this regard was along the lines of “I’m not going to change your mind and your not going to change mine” as a general refusal to even engage on the merits of what you had written. Now its banning dissenters and/or putting them on ignore. Its just a variation of “I’m taking my ball and going home.”

    Our differences in opinion re Trump have to do with my view of him has the elected President, where the baggage he brought with him to the office is just that — baggage. Your view of him has NEVER gotten beyond the baggage. And I understand that – and I don’t find fault with your view. Posts involving Tiannamen Square, the Russian apartment bombings, murders of journalists, etc., involving thugs and strongmen around the world about whom you view Trump as having expressed admiration, hang those millstones around Trump’s neck. They form an almost impenetrable barrier through which nothing he does or accomplishes AS PRESIDENT will ever break through.

    You personally fault him with all manner of character assassination. Last night, for the first time that I recall seeing, you claimed these re-countings of his character flaws are just “trolling” the Trumpers because “Trumper tears are the best tasting”. I call BS. You’ve been doing some form of that same character assassination for 18+ months. It’s what you believe about him at your core — and that’s fine. Again, I say there is plenty in the public record that supports a reasoned and considered view of the man which arrives at those conclusions.

    But it doesn’t justify mischaracterizations of facst just so you can pull events into your wheelhouse to land another sucker punch. Simple example on a meaningless topic – last week you wrote that Trump “ordered” VP Pence to leave the Colts game if the players did not stand for the National Anthem. Not one report of their conversation on the question said Pence was “ordered”. Pence said they discussed it before he went to the game. Trump said he asked Pence to leave if the players showed disrespect. Pence said he agreed with the Trump’s view.

    But you described it as Trump giving Pence and “order”. That’s not supported as a fact anywhere, and your characterization of their conversation in that fashion is simply another example, in a meaningless context, of your now well established habit.

    I thought maybe there was a flicker of hope last week when Beldar – who we both respect very much – wrote the following in the comments under your post captioned “Trump Thuggery” dealing with his comments about NBC News and their broadcast license:

    Re this from our host:

    To the rest of you: join me in denouncing this.

    Okay, I hereby join you. You’re right that Trump either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about the First Amendment (I think it’s both). You’re right that it’s another of the many things that makes him unfit to be POTUS, and it was another reason I could not bring myself to vote for him even against an abhorrent alternative like Hillary Clinton.

    But this is just everyday idiocy from Trump. He does things that I could just as well “denounce” on just about an hourly basis; I certainly could assemble a new and revised listed every day of his presidency, even of his presidency-elect period.

    He can’t repeal the First Amendment. He can’t stop the courts from enforcing it. He can’t get judges confirmed who’d change that (Gorsuch certainly wouldn’t!). So this is low on my list of things that might drive me to more than this internet denunciation in the comments to your blog. When and if he does something more substantive than stupid tweets to rouse the stupider portions of his base, then I’ll reconsider.

    I’m not discouraging you, by any means, from pointing out Trump’s continuing failings, this among them. But I do think you are right up against, and perhaps beyond, the point of effectiveness as an advocate for your views by trying to blame or shame anyone who fails to join you in today’s denunciation.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 10/11/2017 @ 12:28 pm

    You responded as follows:

    I’ll take that under advisement. But I am increasingly sick of partisanship so rank that it defends even attacks on the fundamental principles of our country. And if you peruse the blockquote from 2010, and follow some of the links, you’ll see that this particular issue has always incensed me. Nobody ever criticized me for my furor then.

    I’m not looking to persuade people who would make excuses for thuggery like this. I am looking to identify them and disassociate myself from them.

    And I am not as confident as you are in the ability of our institutions to deal competently with this sort of threat. Even the threat itself is chilling and frightening even if your confidence is vindicated. Having been through an experience where he courts IMO failed to fully vindicate my free speech rights, I know that even if you get to the right result in the end, the cost of getting there can be too much for many people. I have seen people cave to that pressure. I think everyone needs to raise their voice at a time like this, and I do indeed feel a deep and bitter contempt for anyone who would make excuses for it. That includes some of my former friends here, I am sad to say. They disappoint me deeply — or would, if they hadn’t already accomplished that long ago.

    I have reached a sort of inflection point here. People who defend Trump on this are now my political enemy, just as the left is. I might as well be clear about it.

    Patterico (03f629) — 10/11/2017 @ 12:45 pm

    I’m confident that my name was near the top of the list of people you were referring to in you final four sentences there. So you clearly now see me as your enemy. But for the most part I’ve not been “defending” Trump except to the extent that I’m a bit more forgiving of his verbal faux pas because of the hostility of the press and establishment towards him, and focus more of my attention on what he’s done — as compared to the GOP establishment which controls both houses of Congress, and has done nothing.

    But what has really has gotten to you is the fact that I’m willing to challenge your anti-Trump world-view on the facts as you posit them. You are a zealous advocate on a mission – but you have now entered territory where the mission is more important than accuracy.

    And your post “The Real Problem With Trump” was really not a comment on Trump, but rather a personal attack on people who don’t share all your anti-Trump sentiments and fears.

    “So where do I disagree with French? He says Trump has “damaged” the character of the Republicans who employ such staggering hypocrisy to defend him. Well, I’m not so sure their character was that unsullied to begin with. One could argue that Trump has instead “revealed” their character.”

    “My point is this: there are many examples in history of people supporting really bad things. Don’t think you are different. And when you sign on to defend blatantly unconstitutional suggestions because you hate hate hate the media, you are surrendering a bit of your soul.”

    “The real problem with Trump is that he brings out the worst in people. And bad things happen when the worst in people is brought to the surface.”

    So, there’s condemnation of about 40+ million people.

    Funny thing is, like Beldar, I didn’t agree with Trump’s comment about NBC and I said so in your “challenge” to everyone to take sides on the issue. “Congress shall make no law” is pretty clear to me. But like Beldar I don’t really see much of a threat in Trump’s comments. To the extent that he energizes his base to use its resources to pressure NBC, I’m ok with it. Whether spurred on by political forces or not, the populace can always demand that the press be accountable to the facts. NBC has no shortage of left-wing supporters propping them up and telling them what a great job they are doing. Why should they be immune from pressures from the right? “Congress shall make no law” doesn’t mean politically active partisans cannot make trouble for the press.

    Didn’t this very blog come into existence because a political partisan had seen enough from the LAT?

    How else do you have an accountable press if not from the citizens? When is an unaccountable press the most threatening? Think back over 2008 to 2016, and consider the consequences of an unaccountable press when there was no one occupying a bully pulpit to call them out. Which is more dangerous to democracy, a press that willingly publishes propaganda, or a press and President who are engaged in a running debate over accuracy?

    I could go on for another couple thousand words, but they’d be lost on you.

    You drew the line in the sand, and I stepped over it quite intentionally.

    So why am I here? From now on it’ll be largely just to read the comments of a few here that I find worthwhile. Less and less that has been the case with the posts.

    It’s your site – you built it, you nurtured it, you grew it. In personal conversations between us I’ve expressed my admiration for what you’ve accomplished in that regard. None of that has changed a bit.

    But its current iteration is simply not worth the time or effort because it’s become predictable.

    And I won’t have to suffer any more lectures on Austrian School of economic theory, so that’s a plus.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  5. Hmm. I read Kimmel’s words as meaning the opposite: he’s saying there’s no value in talking to people who dislike his opinions so much that they have no interest in what he has to say. He’s referring to people who don’t want to talk to him, not the other way around.

    Mind you, except for a few scattered bits, I’ve never liked Kimmel. I just disliked him less than most of the rest

    kishnevi (15a549)


  6. You might be my political opponent, but we can still talk about it. We’re both Americans, after all.

    Patterico, you’re a smart and kind man but if you believe that statement you are deluded. At least we know where to begin our disagreements, with what constitutes being an American. Hint: it’s more than just being born here. My wife is an American and she came here from Korea. Bill Ayers is not an American and he was born in Illinois.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  7. This post by the host is dripping with a lack of self-awareness.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  8. late night broadcast network tv’s just for boring drug addicts and witless poor people

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  9. His goal for 50 years has been to bring this country, and he has succeeded through the textbook much mote than the molotov. His counterparts have been the panthers who also absorbed the guerilla ethos and James Baldwin wannabes like coates. Who preach nihilism if not revolution.

    narciso (d1f714)

  10. Rather than endure the insufferable moral preening of Kimmel, what say we watch girls on trampolines?

    ropelight (bbe920)

  11. i’m a miss you Mr. crew

    you made good comments and i liked to read them

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  12. Schemers hand puppet, what else needs to be said, I feared this event in Vegas would provoke a stampede like after dunblane and port Arthur, but we seem to be made of sterner stuff.

    narciso (d1f714)

  13. 1) Hoagie, you don’t own this country. You don’t get to day who is or is not an “American”.
    2) SWC, you seem to be unable to comprehend the simple fact that most of the opposition to Trump comes from the perception that he is not merely of abysmal moral character but totally incompetent and so far over his head that he threatens to be the worst President since Buchanan. Trump causes more disrespect for the flag than the entirety of the NFL.

    kishnevi (15a549)

  14. Ropelight@10

    Not a bad idea.

    kishnevi (15a549)

  15. OT, I suppose
    http://www.winchesterstar.com/new-cedar-creek-battlefield-evacuated-because-of-suspicious-device-sunday/article_caa2167c-b15b-11e7-acd2-c78a6e0b18d3.html

    I was at Belle Grove and Cedar Creek two years ago.

    What the article doesn’t make clear is that a threat to bomb the event was received a few days before, and the motive remains unclear.

    kishnevi (15a549)

  16. kishnevi — people have underestimated Trump and thought him a buffoon for 40+ years. In that time he’s built a billion dollar empire based largely on the self-promotion of his name.

    And he got himself elected President of the United States — only the 44th person to do that in 225 years — with little help from an established political party — in fact it would be fair to say he got himself elected President without the help of an established political party.

    So, you tell me who is mistaken over the question of whether he’s “totally imcompetent and so far over his head….”

    Donald Trump is crazy like a fox.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  17. Shipwrecked, can’t say I blame you but I wish you would stick around, you’re one of the best commenters.

    Then again, not very surprised that a post about Kimmel would turn out to be another harangue by a host who admits he loves to troll, albeit with no pride.

    harkin (7dcbff)

  18. Rather than endure the insufferable moral preening of Kimmel, what say we watch girls on trampolines?

    I met one of the muggy girls, the one named Vanessa who was in Playboy, some years back. This was post-Man Show and she was working for a sports talk radio station who was broadcasting from a popular local bar on Conco de Mayo. She’s very sweet and low-key; she hung out with my buddy and me because we weren’t so drunk that we were openly leering at her like the rest of the clods. It gave me some insight on what women like that go through and it turned me into the woke feminist that I am today.

    JVW (479cd0)

  19. I would concur, I thought his modest immigration pause, following the designation of the seven countries in the 2016 omnibus was the very least that could be done. Yet it was portrayed as ragnarok, or whatever other apocalyptic metaphor applies. The plain reading of the law didn’t matter.

    narciso (d1f714)

  20. Hot, hot, and hot.

    https://www.tienda.com/paella/index.html

    And not likely to last six months while you’re gone on cruise.

    I chose wisely.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  21. All I know about Jimmy Kimmel is what I read here. When you guys first mentioned him I couldn’t tell him apart from Jimmy Fallon, and now that I can (until I forget both of them again), I don’t feel particularly enriched by the experience.

    nk (dbc370)

  22. Getting elected POTUS and doing a good job as POTUS are two very different things. Example from recent history: a certain Obama.

    Most of the good things he has done seem to be things hus staff has done which he kept out of. And some of the so-called good things are mostly showmanship. The immigration pause, for instance, was a rather ill designed thing if the actual aim was keeping terrorists out.

    kishnevi (15a549)

  23. Yes he had to get it past swampy holdover officials who don’t want any pause. Like I say it followed the framework of those seven countries in the legislation.

    narciso (d1f714)

  24. Do Phillip-Morris, Coca-Cola and Starbucks care whether they sell you an objectively good product, or care only whether their brand maintains a good enough reputation to produce a profit?

    nk (dbc370)

  25. I linked a piece on another thread. How they won’t release the memos comey purportedly wrote, jugs like the list of founders behind the flynt dossier collected by steele for fusion gaps 8

    narciso (d1f714)

  26. Coca Cola cares a lot about me but Starbucks is snotty and disdainful

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  27. Starbucks is like the cow in restaurant at the end of the universe. Chatting peoples ear offm

    narciso (d1f714)

  28. That’s not what I asked, although maybe it is.

    nk (dbc370)

  29. @23. Bingo. There’s always the off button but if you can’t handle the program, just change the channel.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  30. Except that his studied ignorance is portrayed as wisdom, hence nothing gets done, premiums skyrocket unexpectedly, and exchanges collapse all leading to defacto dingle payer.

    narciso (d1f714)

  31. Obama succeeded in ways that will take a generation to unravel if ever. Because he had a chorus of tens of thousands that repeated his burning strawmen. Which whitewashed his injuries to the p body oolitic, which are ongoing.

    narciso (d1f714)

  32. late night t.v. ended when Johnny Carson retired. Kimmel is nothing but a pantsuit clean-up boy.

    mg (31009b)

  33. why does trump always get the blame when we all know congress is the problem nothing has been accomplished. Thank the Lord Bannon and the silent majority will take care of all your problems. RIP RNC.

    mg (31009b)

  34. Probably leno wax the last vestiges, that’s why they got rid of him. CAmelbert really
    stinks up the joint, as do all of stewarts proteges

    narciso (d1f714)

  35. But that’s why knowing a little microeconomics is useful. Coke, Marlboro, Frapppuccinos, Jimmy Kimmel, and Mr. President are elastic goods, with an artificial demand created by marketing, and neither necessary nor particularly useful. You can live without them.

    nk (dbc370)

  36. Now Craig ferguson, otoh, had the proper sense of absurd, forced out likewise.

    narciso (d1f714)

  37. Kimmel is Lambchop to Chuck Schumer’s Shari Lewis…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  38. By the way, doesn’t Ben Shapiro market himself as a moral arbiter? Or is it the “parading” he objects to? Personally, I like parades, but my favorites are the majorettes and rifle drill teams.

    (Sorry about the double post.)

    nk (dbc370)

  39. One of the reasons I like Twitter is that if a thought cannot be expressed in a few hundred words it is poorly constructed.

    So, shipwreckedcrew, I have no idea what you are saying except you are pissed at Patterico. Why not calm down, reconsider and make the effort to persuade him to the paths of righteousness? He’s a good dude, clever, a trifle bad tempered, but the right sort, on our side, a good ‘un.

    After years of Clinton, weak Bush and Obama surely some grouchiness is excusable?

    400 and 89 words above, not bad!

    Fred Z (05d938)

  40. Ny giants playing Denver in a game broadcast by Al Michaels…can you guess why that makes me squeamish to go to work in downtown Chicago tomorrow?

    urbanleftbehind (6a13e5)

  41. That would be weird to go from a Steve 57 kind of girl to one of NKs majorettes…id need a ladder

    urbanleftbehind (6a13e5)

  42. Its like crossing the streams?

    narciso (d1f714)

  43. I’m going to need to read shipwreckedcrew’s comment a couple more times. There’s a lot in there. I would not like him to stop commenting especially since anybody who doesn’t wish to read anybody else now has a script to block him. Banning a commenter or quitting commenting is not necessary.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  44. No you’re going from sub 5 to above 6.

    urbanleftbehind (6a13e5)

  45. Oh well, TBS needs it to go 7 anyway.

    urbanleftbehind (6a13e5)

  46. You know its funny, when Obama was pulling put of Iraq, we never heard any complaint anonymous or public about what a disaster that was, as gates and panetta retroactively state in their memoirs fro big wampum, with trump its the converse there are more anonymous whispers than shewood forest and were supposed to take them at faced value.

    narciso (d1f714)

  47. Thass OK Jemmie, I don’t want to talk to you either.

    Bang Gunley (5a4596)

  48. So the Mr. Peabody piece many wee bandying about, didn’t make any sense. The fly on the wall conversations that didn’t come from either trump or schiller, citing barrack as if he was in the know.

    narciso (d1f714)

  49. That would be weird to go from a Steve 57 kind of girl to one of NKs majorettes…id need a ladder
    urbanleftbehind (6a13e5) — 10/15/2017 @ 7:50 pm

    Speaking of weird, a young lady just called me. A hooker with whom I have fond memories. Karaoke. She wanted to make sure I was OK.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  50. Consider this a farewell. No apology deserved, and none offered. If you were offended, it was intended and purposeful.

    Someone asked me to read your comment. I got as far as these sentences and asked them if I really should. When someone starts a wall of text by stating, openly and at the outset, that they intend to cause offense, my inclination is to . . . skip the wall of text. Nevertheless, at their request, I slogged through.

    Here is what I am going to focus on, because it lies at the heart of why I put you on ignore, and why I don’t intend to read your future comments, if any:

    You also employ an intellectually dishonest practice of burying a small proviso within the text of your posts accounting for the possibility that maybe you are wrong – and when your factual underpinnings are challenged you retreat behind the proviso and scream “YOU’RE MISREPRESENTING MY POST!!”

    You might not be surprised to find that I have a somewhat different view. While I don’t always word my posts as carefully as I would like in hindsight, I try my best to do so. When I write a post attacking Trump, and I see a potential counterargument that Trump defenders might raise, I try to address it in the post.

    Take, as a fairly common example, a story that is based on anonymous sources, but is still certain to a) be part of the national conversation, and b) elicit a newsworthy reaction from the President. In writing a post about such a story, I will often include a caveat along the lines: “One should be careful not to accept this story at face value. But if it is true, this is what would result…” If someone comes along and tells me I am trying to push the story as true, I will refer them to my explicitly stated caveat, which I put in the post for a reason. If the person comes back at me and says I included the caveat as a thinly disguised fig leaf so that I could push the story, I will become enraged at the person. In particular because in their first comment, they completely ignored the caveat and pretended that I had never written it.

    This is commonly known as a “strawman” argument. It is perhaps the most infuriating tactic known to the Internet, because there are few things as aggravating to a busy person as having to repeatedly write: “That’s not what I said.” “That also is not what I said.” “Once again, you are ignoring what I said.”

    Go through that enough times, and you reach the point where you simply lose any desire to interact with that person.

    And this has been the pattern with you. Time and time again, you make arguments that respond to points other than the one I actually made. Invariably, the point you claim to be responding to is indeed a stupid point, because the point you claim to be responding to omits a very important caveat — inclusion of which undercuts or even destroys the point you yourself were trying to make. Only what has actually happened, time and time and time again, is that in fact I did include the caveat, and you simply ignore it. Then, when I point out that I included the caveat, you reply by acknowledging that, yes, I did include the caveat — but rather than apologizing, you then double down and accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. Of including a caveat I did not actually believe.

    I usually do not engage in conversations with people who repeatedly accuse of intellectual dishonesty.

    I feel I should include a couple of examples, both 1) to make clear that I am not making this up, and 2) to illustrate how infuriating your practice has become.

    In this post, I quoted another post of mine in which I had said:

    It’s time to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, President Trump’s failure to date has been largely his own fault. Contemptuous of the notion of familiarizing himself with even a superficial level of policy detail, he can’t make the case for ObamaCare repeal the way Obama made the case for the law in the first place. Having created an absurdly chaotic White House by dint of his own lack of discipline and his obsession with television, praise, and his image, Trump is unable to fashion a legislative agenda that garners the votes he needs in Congress.

    . . . .

    [T]he media and the Deep State did not hold a gun to Trump’s head and tell him: “Do not learn about policy. Do not build a well-functioning White House. Instead, act like a narcissistic dummox. Watch television 24/7, tweet stupid nonsense as often as possible, and do your best to come off like a self-obsessed, amoral buffoon, so that your approval ratings tank and you can’t get anything done.”

    I have added the bold and italics — for good reason, as you’ll soon see.

    Another commenter, harkin (whom I now also ignore in my comment script, because of comments like this) said I had blamed Trump “exclusively” for his own failures. I pointed out that, no, I said I had I blamed Trump “largely” for his own failures. That is not the same thing. Along came you, shipwreckedcrew, to claim that this was “[e]xample 2,368 of Patterico mixing in a single word or group of words as a caveat for use in later defending himself against from critics who take issue with the substance of the post.” You called this “purposeful” and “disingenuous.” Leviticus quietly took a two-by-four and whacked you in the head so hard you never knew what had hit you: “wow, its almost like smart people choose their words carefully to force listeners to grapple with their actual arguments.”

    You would benefit from reading the phrase I just placed in bold type several times, and perhaps from writing it on a chalkboard until there is no chalk left in your hand.

    I used the word “largely” for a reason. Because to blame Trump exclusively for his own failures would be ridiculous. And I did not want to leave myself open to an attack that I had made a ridiculous assertion. So instead, I qualified my assertion so that it would be reasonable, and you called my careful choice of words dishonest. Even on ObamaCare, I have written a series of posts (put “turncoat” into the search engine) that have placed most of the blame (and at times all the blame) on the Senators who passed a repeal in 2015 and voted against the same thing in 2017. But you and harkin ignored what I actually wrote, and you called me dishonest when I protested that people should be responding to what I wrote, rather than their distortion of what I wrote.

    In another post (the earlier one that the previously mentioned post quoted), you wrote:

    Wow — an entire post of clap-trap.

    There is no effort by the “Administrative State” to resist Trump’s exercise of authority as President? Really? Its a made-up?

    Wow. You really got me there! It sure was silly of me to write that there was no effort by the administrative state to resist Trump. Had I been more careful, I would have realized that taking such an extreme position would leave me open to easy criticism, and I would have written something like this:

    Are there “Deep State” forces that have declared him the enemy? I am quite sure they have.

    Only . . . Great Scott, it appears that I did exactly that! And when I pointed it out to you, you apologized for misrepresenting my post to make it easier to criticize doubled down, saying:

    another Patterico example of wanting to have it both ways by inserting a few words meant to pre-empt the criticism he knows will be coming his way, while dedicating several hundred words to an argument that are precisely contrary to the caveat he puts in place.

    The link is there for anyone to read my post and see whether I dedicated several hundred words to the proposition that “[t]here is no effort by the ‘Administrative State’ to resist Trump’s exercise of authority as President.” I contend that any fair-minded person who reads the post will conclude that a) I said no such thing, b) I explicitly denied that I was making that argument, and c) you made up that characterization out of whole cloth, as a cheap and lazy way to attack my post, rather than undertaking the harder work of grappling with my points on their own merits, acknowledging my careful language, and respectfully offering up a different point of view.

    A couple more points here. You say, quite laughably, that I am incapable of acknowledging anything that Trump does as President that is good for the country:

    Our differences in opinion re Trump have to do with my view of him has the elected President, where the baggage he brought with him to the office is just that — baggage. Your view of him has NEVER gotten beyond the baggage. And I understand that – and I don’t find fault with your view. Posts involving Tiannamen Square, the Russian apartment bombings, murders of journalists, etc., involving thugs and strongmen around the world about whom you view Trump as having expressed admiration, hang those millstones around Trump’s neck. They form an almost impenetrable barrier through which nothing he does or accomplishes AS PRESIDENT will ever break through.

    You write this on Sunday, October 15, 2017. As of that date, of the last four posts I have written about Trump, two praise an action he has taken: 1) a post acknowledging his executive order in ending illegal ObamaCare subsidies, and 2) a post agreeing with his decertification of the Iran deal. On October 13, 2017, I published a post titled My Two Cents on the Decertification of the Iran Deal, which opened with the following words:

    President Trump had a good day today. First there was the end of illegal “cost-sharing reduction” payments (subsidies) to insurers under ObamaCare — a laudable end to a totally extraconstitutional executive action by Obama. Hooray! Then Trump went even further and decertified the Iran deal. Double hooray! . . . I applaud Trump’s move today. Not out of partisanship, but because I think it’s the right thing for America.

    It probably made you sad that I still found room for some criticism of Trump, saying: “I’m not sure how much of this Donald Trump understands.” Maybe that’s enough for you to pretend that the words of praise for his actions “AS PRESIDENT” were never written.

    On that same date, October 13, just two days ago, I also published a post titled Trump to End Illegal ObamaCare Subsidies to Insurers, in which I said that Trump “is accomplishing some really good stuff on the health care front.” I refuted some dishonest attacks against him from the New York Times.

    It probably made you sad that I also attacked his character in same post, noting my opinion that Trump “is admittedly a moron, an anti-speech thug, and otherwise a generally wretched and narcissistic waste of oxygen.” But I certainly showed my capacity for appreciating his actions, as opposed to appreciating him as a person:

    Trump has done a good job this week on health care. I don’t like him as a person and I never will, but I have always said that I will give him credit when credit is due. And today, credit is due.

    I actually look eagerly these days for things where I can agree with Trump, just to show that I can. So it’s a little aggravating to have someone tell me I never do it, at precisely the moment that I just got through publishing two posts in which I did. But then, I have grown accustomed to your saying things about me that are false.

    I could go on with other examples of your construction of elaborate strawmen, false accusations, and the like. The last one I will make, because I think it’s important, is when you quote me as saying: “The real problem with Trump is that he brings out the worst in people. And bad things happen when the worst in people is brought to the surface.” and you characterize that in this way: “So, there’s condemnation of about 40+ million people.” I’m not sure where the “40 million” number came from, after an election in which Trump won over 62 million votes, but never mind that.

    My main point, and the reason I consider this to be important, is because I have taken pains on this site for several months to say, again and again and again and again and again, that I do NOT condemn all people who voted for Trump as a last resort. The people I hold in contempt are the militant Trumpers, who insist on excusing Trump for engaging the same behavior they have previously condemned in others.

    And for you to come along and pretend, because I make an argument that Trump tends to bring out the worst in people, that I am condemning 40 million people, is just one more example among countless examples of you twisting my words. I think there are many of these militant, hypocritical people — a huge group, I am sad to say, perhaps millions’ worth — but I have never said 40 million worth. I never said that. You made it up. You made it up to make your criticisms seem more valid — at the expense of honesty or respect for me — simply as a lazy way to land a blow a little more easily.

    And accusations like that undercut the olive branches I have repeatedly offered to people who voted for Trump reluctantly, as the least bad alternative. I respect their decision, even while I want to troll, annoy, and otherwise vex the much smaller group of people who voted for him because they love hypocrisy, bullying, and the like.

    And that is why no farewell from you will be lamented. I have spent a lot of time on this comment for two reasons: 1) as I am about to acknowledge, you have had some good points in the past, and 2) because of the time and aggravation involved in writing comments like this, I don’t ever intend to talk to you again. (That’s not a promise, but I’ll be a lot happier if I can stick to it. I fully expect you to engage in future mischaracterizations of my points — leopard, spots, and all that — and this comment can stand as evidence that this is a habit of yours. So I might as well lay all this out in one place.)

    What’s sad is that, in going through your old comments to document my examples, I also see several examples of thoughtful and illuminating commentary. Indeed, there are some interesting observations about Trump and the nature of our political situation in your long post today, among the usual parade of bullshit accusations, mischaracterizations, and other impossible to stomach lawyer-tactics. But frankly, I can get thoughtful and illuminating commentary from other people who don’t constantly mischaracterize my posts or accuse me of dishonesty.

    If you ever want to apologize for your consistent mischaracterizations and baseless accusations of dishonesty, I’m right here, easily reachable. I don’t hold grudges. Just ask papertiger. But since no apology is going to be forthcoming any time soon — since, indeed, you actually intend offense with your long comment — I’ll simply say goodbye, and express some degree of relief at finally ridding myself of one more person whose strawmen cry out for a time-wasting response that I can ill afford.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  51. I’m going to need to read shipwreckedcrew’s comment a couple more times. There’s a lot in there.

    There’s a lot in there indeed, much of it good — and I submit that if you are not the target of dishonest attacks of the sort I just documented at great length, it is far easier to overlook those attacks and see the good points he made. He has made many good points in the past. On the whole, I won’t miss him — but I’ll miss the part of him that made those good points. Trump brought out the worst in him, and I will miss the pre-Trump shipwreckedcrew as well as many aspects of the post-Trump shipwreckedcrew that were untouched by Trump.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  52. Rather than endure the insufferable moral preening of Kimmel, what say we watch girls on trampolines?

    Ha! Another fan of The Man Show!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  53. Hmm. I read Kimmel’s words as meaning the opposite: he’s saying there’s no value in talking to people who dislike his opinions so much that they have no interest in what he has to say. He’s referring to people who don’t want to talk to him, not the other way around.

    That’s a very charitable reading of his words, and if it were what he said, I would have no problem with it.

    The problem is, it’s not what he said. He said:

    But if they’re so turned off by my opinion on healthcare and gun violence then, I don’t know, I probably wouldn’t want to have a conversation with them anyway.

    I agree with Hoagie that it’s rare to find someone really turned off by my opinions who is willing to discuss the issue in a respectful manner. But it can happen. I’ve done it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  54. It gave me some insight on what women like that go through and it turned me into the woke feminist that I am today.

    LOL

    I mean, that’s nice.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  55. It gave me some insight on what women like that go through and it turned me into the woke feminist that I am today.

    That happened to me when I was seventeen. Platform shoes for men were in style (along with double-knit bolero jacket leisure suits) and I bought a pair. Slip ons, at that.

    nk (dbc370)

  56. JVW, did you do that “me too” thing going around FB?

    urbanleftbehind (6a13e5)

  57. Patterico: I’m sorry that this has to happen over and over again. I suspect that many people are disturbed by Trump’s tweets and nonsense and bluster. I know I am. As you say (and as you do), it is important to recognize when the guy does something good. But that doesn’t really take away from the kinds of things that no POTUS should be saying or doing. And I think the latter energizes some of the weirdness on your site, apart from the usual trollery.

    As for Mr. Kimmel, who is quite happy with his newfound holiness, I too used to watch “The Man Show.” And I remember this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTa5X4CzM4E

    So when he carries on about objectifying women…um…

    Simon Jester (d856de)

  58. mg, I enjoy showing this stuff my daughter when I tell her that her generation neither invented crazy nor is the best at it. Thank you, Mr. Google.

    Here’s some septuagenarians singing My Generation.

    nk (dbc370)

  59. showing this stuff *to* my daughter

    nk (dbc370)

  60. Of course its ridiculous, its three degrees than laddie magazine gutfeld getting so High and mighty. Or anything from access Hollywood being given any weight, they are one step ahead of extra, and one before ebtertainmwnt tonight, about tmz that’s a whole other level of hell.

    For 25 years you have had the rape of the Sabine women going on, abetted by the top legal political and media personality, yet no one said a word, this. Was packwood cubed.

    narciso (d1f714)

  61. Let me respond in general to the notion that I should focus only on Trump’s actions as President, rather than focusing also on what a moron he is, how immoral he is, and so forth.

    I addressed this to some degree in my post The Real Problem with Trump. To keep it brief, I think I could more easily deal with Trump’s inanities and immorality if there were universal condemnation of said inanities and immorality. The problem for me, and I believe many others, is that so many defend his hypocrisy, immorality, distractions, and other nonsense.

    Trumpers love to lose the phrase “virtue signaling” when those who believe in liberty, limited government, and the Constitution (Trumpers ridicule us as “TruCons”) talk about the importance of principles. But if everyone recognized and applied those principles, there wouldn’t be much need to talk about them, would there?

    For example, even in these days when the media tries to convince us that every third Republican is a Nazi, it doesn’t really take much courage to denounce Nazis or the use of Nazi salutes. As long as people aren’t defending Nazis, there’s no big need to denounce them. But if people do defend them, it would seem more important to denounce them — and the greater the defense, the greater the need to denounce. I made this for a post and I’m still proud of it:

    august-landmesser-cuck-2

    The more people hypocritically support Trump on matters of immorality, the more important it seems for those who disagree to set ourselves apart. If nobody is doing the Nazi salute, August Landmesser’s refusal to do it doesn’t seem as critical. If nobody is defending Trump’s bullshit, I would not find it anywhere near as critical to attack it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  62. OMIGOD THERE I GO COMPARING TRUMP TO HITLER YET AGAIN

    Patterico (115b1f)

  63. But those who can handle analogies can see I am actually doing no such thing.

    As an addendum to my long comments to SWC: I am so attuned to the idea of inoculating myself from obvious attacks that, any time I make an analogy that touches on Hitler or Stalin or Nazism or Communism in a post mentioning Trump, I always make it a point to say explicitly that I am not comparing him to Hitler or Stalin or whatever. In every case where I do this, this fact would already be apparent to any fair-minded reader, who would automatically conclude: “Oh, he’s just saying x, he’s obviously not comparing Trump to Hitler.” But I include it anyway, so that when a NON-fair-minded reader comes along and tries to make that BS accusation, I can show them that I *explicitly* disclaimed that.

    Now. If I ever did actually compare Trump to Hitler — if I said, for example, that I think we are seeing a very clear re-run of Germany in the 1930s; if I said that Trump is obviously just as authoritarian as Hitler ever was; if I say that Trump obviously has a desire to exterminate a minority group by the millions just as Hitler did; and went on in that exact vein for several hundred words . . . then it would obviously be a dishonest qualifier to toss “Hey but I am not comparing Trump to Hitler” into the post.

    But if instead, as I did in my The Real Problem with Trump post, I say: look. Obviously Trump is no Hitler. Nobody is saying he wants to kill millions of an ethnic minority or anything of the sort. But I will say that the Nazi experience reminds us that justifying bad behavior is a very human trait, that is replicated in human society again and again, and that demonstrates the importance of good leadership, and the dangers of even taking a single step down such a dangerous road — I should not have to say: “Of course I am not comparing Trump to Hitler.”

    And if someone ignores the explicit disclaimer, which I never should have had to include in the first place, but did include — that would be unfair of them.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  64. Immorality we saw that they did to w, the whole energy taskforce snipehunt was a a shadow of this whole Russia business, they don’t need a jeffords because nothing moves on capital, maybe that’s how the Pokemon intend it. Therein lies the dark comedy of this near year. The same people who ran the Iran deal, are the ones who speak to the times and the rest of the rizzotto press, they don’t even bother to actually leak complete documents just snippets.

    narciso (d1f714)

  65. Reading over my long comment to SWC I made a couple of minor edits. Nothing substantive. If you write something that long you will find aspects of it that are mistaken (writing “militant anti-Trumpers,” for example, when I meant “militant Trumpers”).

    Patterico (115b1f)

  66. It eats to be that the only party that has operated with a beria. Manner, has been Mueller’s own special unit, accountable to no one, with staff that is a total conflict of interest, whose practices violate basic criminal procedures, but then again that was the way Cox and jaworskis minions operate, same for local procurators like Ronnie earl and John chisholm, that monsttisity is still not dead

    narciso (d1f714)

  67. In every case where I do this, this fact would already be apparent to any fair-minded reader, who would automatically conclude: “Oh, he’s just saying x, he’s obviously not comparing Trump to Hitler.” But I include it anyway, so that when a NON-fair-minded reader comes along and tries to make that BS accusation, I can show them that I *explicitly* disclaimed that.

    This, sadly, illustrates where we are at now. That which was once so obvious to reasonable people is no longer. Because in this Trump era, people are looking for any little perceived slight, any generic comment, and even the painfully obvious to weaponize in this strange war we find ourselves in.

    Dana (023079)

  68. Well what does it mean, godwins law is there for a reason, homeland security is more this ramshackle enterprise associated with Brazil, the movie

    narciso (d1f714)

  69. Obama actually threatened the supreme court over citizens United and they complied on nd ib v sibelius, (even though he made use of siperpacs more readily)

    narciso (d1f714)

  70. Rather than delve into the personalities and aspersions in SWC’s post and Pat’s response, I’d rather focus on the gist of his attitude towards Trump:

    I have a general point of view that Trump is non-politician outsider who is a huge threat to the establishment arms of both political parties, and along with a hostile national press corps, both parties are working with maximum effort to render him a failure. The GOP is trying to do so in a manner which would result in as little blowback on them as possible, and the Dems see nothing they do or say about the man as being over the line given the fact that the socialists on the far left wing of their party have effectively seized control of their party.

    Trump is truly a man without a party, whether elected as a nominal Republican or not. He’s a party of one — but he’s not without a constituency. And his constituency is loyal more to themselves than to him. So long as he is giving voice to the things they find important, he’ll maintain his support because that constituency has been largely abandoned by the establishment ranks of both political parties. How else do you explain him so easily dispatching 15 GOP candidates, and then beating the Dem Party Standard Bearer for the past 30 years?

    I find a lot of truth in here. Trump came to the fore because he was willing to voice the feelings of the disenfranchised. The people that the two major parties had chosen to ignore, and pretty much count as expendable. We all know who they are. Blue-collar workers whose fathers’ jobs are in China or Mexico. Construction workers and other tradesmen. Tech workers who found themselves training their H1-B replacements. You cannot find a contractor in Soutnern California who has an English-speaking crew and everyone working retail is bilingual.

    Charles Murray explained it far better than I can:

    Work and marriage have been central to American civic culture since the founding, and this held true for the white working class into the 1960s. Almost all of the adult men were working or looking for work, and almost all of them were married.

    Then things started to change. For white working-class men in their 30s and 40s—what should be the prime decades for working and raising a family—participation in the labor force dropped from 96% in 1968 to 79% in 2015. Over that same period, the portion of these men who were married dropped from 86% to 52%. (The numbers for nonwhite working-class males show declines as well, though not as steep and not as continuous.)

    Middle-class America was coming apart at the seams. Trump promised to reverse that. Was he an idea candidate? No. But he was the only one saying those things. The Democrats’ idea was to offer more welfare, to institutionalize the hopelessness of millions of people, as they had succeeded in doing with many black Americans. The Republican idea was to ignore them, or at best offer them platitudes about opportunity when there was none.

    And so Trump won. And won. And won.

    It is really too bad he’s a forking moron. It’s really too bad that he’s got a thinner skin than Obama. It’s really too bad he can/will tweet the first forking thing that comes into his head. And it’s too bad that he can only react instead of plan. To the degree he has any success it will be through delegation and misdirection.

    And it’s really too bad that the Republican Party didn’t have a clue and apparently still doesn’t, because the alternative is the Democrats and they KNOW what they want to do.

    Because they ARE going to make Trump fail, and they are going to think that they’ve weathered the storm. When in fact the real storm will follow and they will yearn for the days of that gentleman Trump.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  71. Godwin himself said you can compare Hitler to Trump if you like. He even wrote an op-ed about it. Just understand the historical implications and don’t do it casually.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  72. Charles Murray did explain it well, Kevin M. He also, like me, despises Trump.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  73. Of course like Robert Paxton and timothy Snyder they have broken their own rules, what if hypothetically he were to go fujimori, the vocabulary has already been spent. I found it tiresome when Naomi wolf did it in the 00s

    narciso (d1f714)

  74. Charles Murray:

    While I am already on record with my sympathy for the grievances that energize many of Trump’s supporters, I am thinking about writing a book that is even more explicitly sympathetic with those grievances. I want to forestall any suspicion — especially if Trump is elected — that writing in sympathy with some of the content of Trumpism indicates any form of sucking up to Trump the man.

    Here goes: In my view, Donald Trump is unfit to be president in ways that apply to no other candidate of the two major political parties throughout American history.

    . . . .

    Trump’s indifference to facts is an example of why he is unfit for the presidency — not dispositive in itself, but part of a pattern. That pattern is why “Hillary is even worse” misses the point. P. J. O’Rourke recently announced that he is voting for Clinton. “She’s wrong about absolutely everything,” O’Rourke said. “But she’s wrong within normal parameters!” Similarly, I am saying that Clinton may be unfit to be president, but she’s unfit within normal parameters. Donald Trump is unfit outside normal parameters.

    . . . .

    When a man deliberately inflames the antagonism of one American ethnic group toward another, takes pleasure in labeling people “losers,” and openly promises to use the powers of the presidency to punish people who get in his way, there is nothing that person can do or say in private that should alter my opinion of whether he is fit to be the president of the United States.

    And it goes on like that.

    I bet he got a lot of hate mail for that piece.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  75. What makes you think they don’t have a clue, the leadership doesnt want to change anything that happened in the last ten years, the membership is something else again

    narciso (d1f714)

  76. The fundamental issue is whether trump does anything to alleviate the circumstances of those middle American radicals that Donald Warren noted back In the 70s, these are the folks who provoke recycled hofstadler.

    narciso (d1f714)

  77. To my mind, he has been too conventional innhis policies, so we have an incomplete on that score.

    narciso (d1f714)

  78. For if he fails where do these folk turn. This election was a Bronx cheer against their presumed better as was brexit, let’s not open that can of worms.

    narciso (d1f714)

  79. Yes Cordell hill could have said the samevthinhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/15/secretary-state-rex-tillerson-says-us-diplomacy-north-korea/

    narciso (d1f714)

  80. As said:

    It is really too bad he’s a forking moron. It’s really too bad that he’s got a thinner skin than Obama. It’s really too bad he can/will tweet the first forking thing that comes into his head. And it’s too bad that he can only react instead of plan. To the degree he has any success it will be through delegation and misdirection.

    And it is probably that he IS “unfit outside of normal parameters.” But one cannot rail against him ignoring facts and ignore the fact that he IS President. That has to be accepted. And having accepted it, one has to ask: “Do I want him to succeed in the areas where I agree with his objectives” even if those objectives are due to random whims, or God speaking to him in the shower?

    And this is where I part company with those who wish he fail utterly. Some things will not wait, and some things cannot suffer failure. Instead, I have to support this very imperfect vessel wherever it furthers the success of those things.

    As galling and distasteful as that may be. And if some think ill of me for that, so be it.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  81. Question: Does anyone think that Trump will run for re-election? If so, will he have a primary opponent? Who? There are consequences for failure.

    You come at the king, you best not miss
    -Omar Little, The Wire

    Kevin M (752a26)

  82. And, yes, I supported Obama in those things where I agreed with his objectives and if you give me time I will think of one. Oh, yeah, opening space up to private industry. That’s one.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  83. What makes you think they don’t have a clue, the leadership doesnt want to change anything that happened in the last ten years, the membership is something else again

    Yeah, maybe, but they have no forking idea what they want to change, or how. They are as incoherent as Trump.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  84. Off-topic:

    Twenty-nine years ago, I was sitting in the second deck above 1st base when Gibson ended Game 1 of the 1988 World Series. I think we cheered for half an hour. Something brought that memory back today.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  85. really? you think we care what JK says or does????? And as for “thinking better of someone who hosted the Man Show” — that was one of the most exploitative shows ever televised

    Get over yourself Patterico

    SD Harms (84960b)

  86. Jeezuz, Pat, you’re working at this overtime.

    Personally I can’t stand John McCain. Trump was wrong. All kinds of wrong. And the guy knew how to drive an A-4. I have to give him that.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  87. The problem is congress. Why do people not want to admit this? Trump hate amongst the elite or people who think they may be elite will never die. In 2018 when Bannon and the silent majority b-slap the Trump haters into the democrat party, justice will have prevailed.

    mg (31009b)

  88. Lisa Bloom is a true blue lawyer making her fellow lawyers proud.

    mg (31009b)

  89. The reason why Trump is the MOST FIT person for the Presidency is that he is the only man in politics today who confront the leftist rot in our culture. All the Pattericos and Charles Murray’s of the world do nothing to address cultural rot, in fact they enable it.

    And politics is downstream from culture.

    As with our morally flawed slave owning founders, the right man for the job is just not the right man for the preachers pulpit.

    And folks like Charles and Pat should accept their place as well as never Trumpers … and bless the mission while protesting the means quietly.

    KRS One (264783)

  90. Which part of the leftist rot in our culture has Trump confronted?

    nk (dbc370)

  91. Trump’s whole life is an example of cultural rot. Potted plants? He thought land mines were vaginas.

    Or is it only leftist cultural rot that’s bad? Rich jerkoff spoiled brat cultural rot is okay?

    nk (dbc370)

  92. Which part of the leftist rot in our culture has perverted harvardtrash snot-hole Mitt Romney confronted?

    Which part of the leftist rot in our culture has coward-ass torture-turd war hero John McCain confronted?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  93. Which part of the leftist rot in our culture has perverted harvardtrash snot-hole Mitt Romney confronted?

    Which part of the leftist rot in our culture has coward-ass torture-turd war hero John McCain confronted?

    3.1416

    nk (dbc370)

  94. “We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” – Benjamin Franklin

    Thank you to shipwreckedcrew for adding your perspective on the intricacies and inner workings of the Justice Department and major investigations. I will miss them and look forward to a day when every serious discussion doesn’t evolve into the same unwinnable fight.

    crazy (d99a88)

  95. mittens gave us Jonathon Gruber, culture rot to the core. mittens is a sick person thinking he could pull this off unscathed. mittens legacy lies in the kitty litter.

    mg (31009b)

  96. Is Kimmel’s show particularly “conversational”?

    It’s a bit rich to think that really going to tune in for a less stoic and amusing rendition of the ladies who lunch.

    JP (aa4555)

  97. And it is probably that he IS “unfit outside of normal parameters.” But one cannot rail against him ignoring facts and ignore the fact that he IS President. That has to be accepted. And having accepted it, one has to ask: “Do I want him to succeed in the areas where I agree with his objectives” even if those objectives are due to random whims, or God speaking to him in the shower?

    And this is where I part company with those who wish he fail utterly. Some things will not wait, and some things cannot suffer failure. Instead, I have to support this very imperfect vessel wherever it furthers the success of those things.

    As galling and distasteful as that may be. And if some think ill of me for that, so be it.

    I certainly don’t. But if the President is 90% idiot bluster and 10% good accomplishments, people think ill of me for writing about the 90% a good part of the time. Well, that’s not my fault. As I said: I actively look for things he has done that I agree with, because I don’t like constant negative feedback any more than the next guy. But I do think that the 90% idiot bluster is sometimes (not always) worth commentary. Especially to the extent that the general public is buying into it, voices need to be heard that take exception.

    I could ignore it all, but guess what? I think it’s worth writing about, and despite all the complaints, those are the posts you guys read and comment on. So you’re interested.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  98. Re: Hitler and Stalin analogies. It is hard to see what purpose there is in saying “I’m not comparing X to Hitler, but Hitler did Y” unless you are condemning Y, because these two people are responsible for so much evil. If you want to criticize X for doing Y, there are a lot of less reprehensible people who also did Y, because the things that make Hitler and Stalin so evil are things that very, very few people did. In terms of killing tens of millions of people, there’s only Mao who can join them, and in terms of aggressive conquest you can maybe add Napoleon, Alexander, and Genghis Khan. But infringing rights, authoritarianism, etc there’s no need to immediately reach for these two to get the point across.

    If you want to criticize someone for things other than aggressive conquest or killing tens of millions of people, it is not necessary to invoke Hitler or Stalin at all, there’s plenty of other bad guys. Consequently, some commenters may see, and surely have said, that saying “I’m not comparing him to Hitler but Hitler did Y” as an attempt to have it both ways. And if that’s not intended, it is made hard to see by all of the people in our culture right now who ARE comparing Trump to Hitler intentionally.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  99. I mean, hardly anyone starts an argument off by saying, “Like Hitler, Gandhi was a vegetarian” or “Like Hitler, C. Everett Koop disapproved of smoking” or “Like Hitler, I’m a big fan of Volkswagens.”

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  100. if you add just a pinch or two of flour it thickens nicely

    and what you have is a fine mess of pottage to trade for a passing traveler’s birthright

    at the end of the day the modern mold of the failmerican presidency produced warmongering filth like george bush, contemptible socialist harvardtrash like soros buttboy barack obama, CIA war hero trash like Pappy Bush, and pustulent herpes penis Bill Clinton

    moreover this system put the country in the most precarious position of quite possible electing filth like the cowardly ex-military twattle-poof John McCain, the obscenely perverted Mitt Romney, or the exceptional dirty and debased criminal pig-woman what was married to the one iwth the pustulent herpes penis

    and then along comes trump and everyone’s all oh but he’s not like the ones before what led a rapidly declining failmerica into ruinous wars and debt

    oh boo hoo

    a fine mess of pottage it is

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  101. oopers that should read the *exceptionally* dirty and debased criminal pig-woman

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  102. Somebody needs the Tim Scott treatment to be put in their place and I know enough people to get that done. /sarc

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  103. That’s so near beer Kevin, its not worth mentioning, like I say thsre add parallels to berlyscini, similar backgrounds. Implemented significant immigration like bossi fini returned significant offshore capital, was an ally of the west, but had complex personal relations and had a lawfard squad after him.

    Forza Italia, was more selective in its membership, though, if you want agita the Atlantic supplies it in spades, if from running the editorial shop, with goldsmith and Eliot Cohen.

    narciso (d1f714)

  104. Let’s all hope that one fine bright sunny day Patterico will get over the voter’s rejection of Cruz, allow his broken heart to mend, come to his senses, and accept that while we can’t always get what we want, but that sometimes we get what we need.

    Ditto for all the other sour grapes, heads in the sand, numbskull, NeverTrumpers.

    ropelight (bbe920)

  105. cruz isn’t even a thing anymore – he’s timid and nigh-mute and prone to floundering about in the most supremely useless fashion

    Mr. Gingrich seems to have stepped into the role cruz had fancied for himself – he makes many cogent observations and shows none of the witlessness what has possessed harvardtrash ted of late

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  106. Flour? Some people put in a little potato, but I find that my lentil soup with tomato, bay, onion and olive oil, thickens just fine without either. That’s how you know the lentils are cooked enough — when they break up and thicken the soup.

    nk (dbc370)

  107. Did whatsername ever get that appointment to the Vatican?

    nk (dbc370)

  108. 13. kishnevi (15a549) — 10/15/2017 @ 6:01 pm

    2) SWC, you seem to be unable to comprehend the simple fact that most of the opposition to Trump comes from the perception that he is not merely of abysmal moral character but totally incompetent and so far over his head that he threatens to be the worst President since Buchanan. </blockTrump causes more disrespect for the flag than the entirety of the NFL.

    Sammy Finkelman (9f1a19)

  109. Re: Hitler and Stalin analogies. It is hard to see what purpose there is in saying “I’m not comparing X to Hitler, but Hitler did Y” unless you are condemning Y, because these two people are responsible for so much evil. If you want to criticize X for doing Y, there are a lot of less reprehensible people who also did Y, because the things that make Hitler and Stalin so evil are things that very, very few people did. In terms of killing tens of millions of people, there’s only Mao who can join them, and in terms of aggressive conquest you can maybe add Napoleon, Alexander, and Genghis Khan. But infringing rights, authoritarianism, etc there’s no need to immediately reach for these two to get the point across.

    The reason is simple. I usually invoke the analogy, not to criticize Trump, but to criticize the mindset that goes with unthinking support of a leader. Nothing illustrates that concept like Stalin, Hitler, or Mao. I could use a less effective analogy to minimize the chance that Trumpers acting in good faith will twist my words into “you’re saying Trump is Hitler” or “You’re saying we are Nazis!” but I choose not to write less effectively to pander to people who aren’t acting in good faith anyway.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  110. Some of that opposition comes from the idea that he’s totally incompetent and so far over his head, but the really virulent opposition ultimately comes from opposition on the merits. Although a lot of the oppposition on the merits is only because their “side” opposes it.

    Now theer’s anotehr thing. Trump pretends to be more in over his head than he really is, because he thinks that saying stupid things makes him more popular. Not because they are stupid, but because they are “conservative” and not politically correct, and, if you believed them, would make others look stupid or venial.

    Sammy Finkelman (9f1a19)

  111. Gingrich just follows the scent of the biggest slop trough

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  112. i’m contemplating this recipe Mr. nk

    it looks just ghastly doesn’t it – and yeah flour would be a cheat and just a pinch too much would result in glop – this recipe just wants a handful or so of oatmeal

    urp

    and i’m not at all sure glop’s not what you get out of this recipe whatever way you go

    the mushrooms aren’t going in i can’t imagine they add anything either of texture or flavor

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  113. Even with red diaper Che-ist pope, there are probably forces in the Vatican that look askew at Callista’s role as homewrecker (to the second wife, who previously was the wrecker of the first cancer wife marriage).

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  114. Again holder canceled the guilty pleas of the gutmo half dozen and tried to put the interrogators in jail, trying to get at Cheney, part of the international lawfard that led to the Barcelona cell

    narciso (d1f714)

  115. I think Trump supporters get enough Hitler and Stalin comparisons without conservative sites doing it. Just my personal observation of the way the left frames it’s opponents, excuse me “enemies”. Those on the left are nothing if not the finest purveyors of *Projection* in the history of mankind. Yes, MANkind!) Since both Hitler and Stalin were socialists they were naturally leftists so it’s cute to hear leftists curse those of us who are conservative by invoking the sordid names of some of their greatest practitioners. It’s really quite amusing. Projection, they name is leftist.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  116. What part of my paisan do you not understand.

    Maybe I’m wrong. Citing my connection to the Corps.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  117. Patterico has jumped the Trump Hammerhead

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  118. Hoagie: The caution against analogy and metaphor is tailored for yall.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  119. He is everything the left said about Ken Starr:

    https://spectator.org/perils-of-prosecutorial-power-two-roberts/

    The latest ruduculousnrss concerns cambridge analytica.

    Why do i make my earlier statement about Obama, because a quarter century later, w still haven’t recovered from the damage bill Clinton wrought. Wee he within ‘normal parameters’

    narciso (d1f714)

  120. Karmic Ken..

    Sow the Wind. Reap the Whirlwind.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  121. And I can recall how said vicious went after independent journalism, starting with drudge, but setting upon his bete noire Michael ledeen, the sort of cannon figure in the Reagan administration, a decade earlier.

    narciso (d1f714)

  122. (Libby, thankfully, has since been pardoned.)

    Mr. Wohlstetter is confuzzled. Sleazy coward-ass punkboy George W. Bush showed no such courage.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  123. 103.Re: Hitler and Stalin analogies. It is hard to see what purpose there is in saying “I’m not comparing X to Hitler, but Hitler did Y” unless you are condemning Y, because these two people are responsible for so much evil. If you want to criticize X for doing Y, there are a lot of less reprehensible people who also did Y, because the things that make Hitler and Stalin so evil are things that very, very few people did.

    Exactly, the Hitler comparisons (“but I’m not!”) are ridiculous.

    You only have to go back to Obama to find a more ludicrous cult of personality (and one far more dangerous than Trump’s) but I guess black and white photos of genocidal salutes are a bigger bang for the buck.

    harkin (10a18c)

  124. Michael Ledeen…lol.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  125. Yes, he served no tine, despite itoite judge Walton allowing gross malpractice at perjury on the part one NBC news, quelle surprise.

    narciso (d1f714)

  126. Remember when it was believed Ashley Parker then at Carlos slims would correct the record:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-adult-day-care-center-how-aides-try-to-control-and-coerce-trump/2017/10/15/810b4296-b03d-11e7-99c6-46bdf7f6f8ba_story.html?utm_term=.a9d222b76af9

    Its like they handed Asher a script from scandal

    narciso (d1f714)

  127. @Patterico:I choose not to write less effectively to pander to people who aren’t acting in good faith anyway.

    Is it really the case, that anyone who objects to using Hitler as an illustration where (say) Obama might do, is a person not acting in good faith?

    I suppose “effective” depends on your purpose in writing. If you want to persuade people who are open to criticism of Trump, but object to Hitler being used to illustrate the criticism, then your writing might be less effective.

    If by “effective” you mean you want to use the hardest emotional punch you have, then Hitler is the way to go if you can’t find a pedophile maybe. But this is a currency that depreciates every time you trade in it. In 2017, everyone is Hitler for 15 minutes.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  128. @Patterico: the mindset that goes with unthinking support of a leader. Nothing illustrates that concept like Stalin, Hitler, or Mao.

    Except it doesn’t really, because lots of people have blindly followed lots of leaders, not just these three. Many of these situations have ended only in people looking very silly, instead of a hundred million dead.

    Leading with the Hitler card may, without your intending it, make people otherwise receptive to your message less so. It may be that with a lot of your readers you are fine with that. It’s up to you, of course, what you wish to achieve with this mode of argumentation, but you might ask, as Beldar did, whether it makes you more or less effective in achieving it.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  129. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/15/former-bush-aide-michael-gerson-time-to-panic-about-potus-wapo-explains-how-trumps-cabinet-can-remove-him/

    The real problem has always been Trump’s fundamental unfitness for high office. It is not Trump’s indiscipline and lack of leadership, which make carrying a legislative agenda forward nearly impossible. It is not his vulgarity and smallness, which have been the equivalent of spray-painting graffiti on the Washington Monument. It is not his nearly complete ignorance of policy and history, which condemns him to live in the eternal present of his own immediate desires.

    The time for whispered criticisms and quiet snickering is over. The time for panic and decision is upon us. The thin line of sane, responsible advisers at the White House — such as Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — could break at any moment. Already, Trump’s protests of eternal love for Kelly are a bad sign for the general’s future. The American government now has a dangerous fragility at its very center. Its welfare is as thin as an eggshell — perhaps as thin as Donald Trump’s skin.

    Any elected Republican who shares Corker’s concerns has a political and moral duty to state them in public. If Corker is correct, many of his colleagues do have such fears. Their silence is deafening and damning.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  130. Eh? How about kool-aid/Jonestown?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  131. A rare instance when the scream motif is not evident:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/the-coming-confrontation-between-israel-and-iran/542541/

    Now the betrayal of the Kurds, that matters to me, they are just in a long line of betrayed allies from Albanians to venezuelans

    narciso (d1f714)

  132. Patterico isn’t comparing Trump to Hitler, and IMO often his focus isn’t on Trump, Hitler, or any political leader. His focus is the people who enthusiastically support a political leader, even though the leader lacks character and even when the leader does/says questionable things.

    On the surface, Trump is a lot like Reagan. He has clearly studied Reagan. Trump copies the language Reagan used to connect with average Americans, Trump promotes the same populist themes and markets himself with just the right degree of Hollywood celebrity, even his slogan is the same. It’s superficial campaign style, not substance, but it’s still important and it has helped Trump successfully connect with people.

    What’s more important to people like Patterico and me is that, unlike Reagan, Trump has never understood conservative values and issues. Trump mimics conservative values, so he will only promote conservative policies by accident. It’s true that accidental conservative policies are better than no conservative policies, but Trump supporters aren’t the only people who think time is running out to fix things. Conservatives like me fear that, too, which is why it’s important to push Trump to do as many conservative things as possible.

    The only question for me is: How do we get Trump to do conservative things? Is it by constant flattery, or is it by approval only when he does conservative things? That’s easy for me. I don’t constantly flatter anyone if they don’t deserve it, let alone act like everyone deserves a participation trophy. It’s demeaning to them and to me and I certainly won’t do it for Trump. So I hope Patterico continues to blog about Trump, but not his supporters because they have made their choices.

    DRJ (15874d)

  133. Whatgrade should be accorded the so call professional class, drj the budget they brought forth is worse than crime, it is a mistake, it rewards the swamp with more bait.

    narciso (d1f714)

  134. @ DRJ, re #138: That is a nicely distilled summary that matches my own views as well. Re this in particular:

    The only question for me is: How do we get Trump to do conservative things? Is it by constant flattery, or is it by approval only when he does conservative things?

    This is indeed a challenging question, clearly laid out. I agree too with your prescription, which is for those of us in the public who are watching and commenting to avoid flattery, but to express approval when he does conservative — or even, in his case, simply appropriate — things (instead of the opposite).

    I’m intensely curious how this question gets answered on a daily basis, though, by the some of the senior advisors around him. In his magnificent egotistical self-absorption, there are surely strategies for influencing him that might work, at least sometimes, as intended, and others which those around him must already have concluded have no chance. “Mr. President, here’s a briefing book for you to read about the benefits of free-market economics” is going to have zero chance of working, and I’m guessing this was the Reince Priebus approach. But I’m guessing instead that coming from someone like Gen. Kelly in particular, “Mr. President, delivering this speech gives you a chance to show off how really big your hands are,” or something equivalent to that, might actually work.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  135. President Trump’s spent hours poring over old Ronald Reagan speeches – studying the language Reagan used and parsing his themes to discern how one might deploy them effectively in the current fractured political environment.

    “Please to bring me some more tea,” President Trump will mutter, “I’m clearly studying Ronald Reagan, you see.”

    And with that his goodly manservant Frederick Sapperstein repairs to the commodious butler’s pantry he’d long since staked out as something of a personal oval office, and commences to busy himself in the production of a strong tea that will surely fortify President Trump in his studious pursuits.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  136. It’s the…FR-E-E-E MARKET..

    What’s the problema?
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-dea-agent-opioid-crisis-fueled-by-drug-industry-and-congress/

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  137. @DRJ:Patterico isn’t comparing Trump to Hitler,

    Yes, he says so, and then uses Hitler to illustrate a point, and that is easily perceived as a desire to have it both ways, whether or not that is the intent. I’m not comparing Ghandi to Hitler, but like Hitler he was a vegetarian and like Hitler he inspired a mass movement that completely changed the society he belonged to, and like Hitler some of his followers were fanatics–do you see the problem? If I’m honestly not trying to tar Gandhi with Hitler, then why not use somebody less evil to make my point and avoid the misperception?

    How do we get Trump to do conservative things? Is it by constant flattery, or is it by approval only when he does conservative things?

    That is, as you put it, the fundamental question conservatives should address with respect to Trump–and more importantly, the electorate that turned to Trump because the established political class has completely failed to address the issues of most impotance to them.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  138. That’s why he so publicly signs his EOs. The pen makes his hand look bigger.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  139. Mike Godwin was my study group partner in Biology 302, the Plan II Honors freshman biology course that the honors program used to weed out weak pre-meds (instead of the traditional organic chemistry course that wasn’t taught until sophomore year). This was long before he became the editor of the Daily Texan and, even later, went to Texas Law School, and all of that was before he formulated “Godwin’s Law.”

    I will thus take our friendship as license to assert on his behalf: It’s perfectly okay to have discussions that include Hitler when one’s discussing the relative qualities and flaws of world leaders in history. His point was simply about the tendency of arguments (in usenet groups!) to gravitate toward a comparison to Hitler in particular.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  140. ^^^ Fall 1975. Seems like yesterday.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  141. Again what policy that he has implemented is not conservative, like I say giving anything to Ryan and Co, to do is like taxidermy in lieu of grooming, but they are the leadership. Dev’s seems to be making the right enemies, there have been some flourishes like Syria which resemble Reagan’s moves toward qadaffi who we realize now, was a lesser evil in the big scheme of thing

    narciso (d1f714)

  142. That “Trump is crazy like a fox” thing survives like the humble cockroach.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  143. How do we get Trump to do conservative things? Is it by constant flattery, or is it by approval only when he does conservative things?

    He’ll sign them as soon as Ryan/McConnell pass them. Until then we’re stuck in the middle of the proverbial circular firing squad.

    crazy (d99a88)

  144. I’m sorry you have problems dealing with Patterico’s analogies, Frederick. I think they are effective and that his points are fair and easy to understand. But I am interested in your assertion that “lots of people have blindly followed lots of leaders, not just [Stalin, Hitler and Mao].” Can you give me some examples? Here in Texas, I am familiar with other populists that inspired devotion like Texas Governors Ma and Pa Ferguson, but they aren’t widely known so using them to make a point wouldn’t be very effective.

    DRJ (15874d)

  145. Devos, automitake is viral, wall street types are not anathema per so, but Gary cohn brings nothing to the equation. Tillerson is somewhat like Schultz (bechtel very levant conscious) mnuchin is a creative financier, Otoh.

    narciso (d1f714)

  146. If Mr. President had had a normal adolescence; in which he dated normal girls, instead of escorts his father hired for him; and actually had to go through all the things normal teenage boys go through to get to third base, instead of just having the escorts put it on the bill; then maybe he’d be a different person and have a different outlook about life, the universe and everything; and he wouldn’t think that you have to be rich and famous for girls to let you grab their pussy; and he wouldn’t be so insecure about everything; is what I think.

    nk (dbc370)

  147. Threatening NBC’s license is not conservative, narciso, and you know he would implement it if he could.

    As for Congress, Trump isn’t the first President to face a difficult Congress. At least Trump’s Congress is his own Party, although my feeling is he would prefer a Democratic Congress. Easier to demonize and do deals with, given his policy preferences.

    DRJ (15874d)

  148. I have zero problem with Pat’s analogies.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  149. That’s not a policy, although you would grant me that the peacock is on double secret probation, from gm to plame to today, they literally make 3/4 of their stories.

    The. British left said the same things about Thatcher, rushdie a conspicuous exsnple till he belled the wrong cat

    narciso (d1f714)

  150. crazy,

    Presidents need Congress to pass laws but it’s not like the system has changed just to hamstring Trump. Trump’s Congress is from his own Party so he should figure out how to work with them to achieve his goals, but simply telling Congress to give him the “greatest laws” isn’t enough. How does Trump want Congress to replace critical parts of ObamaCare if it is repealed? He won’t say. Trump is President and the leader of the GOP. He needs to do more than hyperbole.

    DRJ (15874d)

  151. Betraying the Kurds is a tradition from halabja to safwan to today it seems.

    narciso (d1f714)

  152. @DRJ:Can you give me some examples?

    Gandhi. Wat Tyler. Mohammed. Simon de Montfort. The Gracchi. John Knox. Martin Luther. John Calvin. Jim Jones. Huey Long. FDR. Barack Obama. What have you got time for?

    Some of the followers of these men were no doubt unblinking rationalists derived their loyalty with geometric logic from their moral postulates, but the vast majority of people following them were doing so out of non-rational motives. These were literally populist movements, “of the people”. Some of them, like FDR and Obama and Martin Luther eventually got the endorsement of the establishment; some (like Jim Jones) had it and lost it; some like Mohammed and Gandhi and Knox and Calvin, replaced the establishment with one of their own.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  153. That is part of Trump’s policy regarding spoeech, narciso. He has embraced it for some time.

    DRJ (15874d)

  154. he didn’t threaten anyone’s license this is fake news

    what President Trump did was to initiate a discussion as to whether or nor broadcast licenses have been capriciously distributed, and perhaps have been bestowed on Bad Actors who eschew their responsibilities to the public interest on behalf of partisanship

    is NBC, a wholly-owned adjunct of the Democratic Party, not part of the swamp President Trump was sent to drain?

    for that matter, and not ABC and CBS likewise not wholly-owned adjuncts of the Democratic Party?

    I think upon sober reflection one can’t but see this as anything other than corruption

    if a broadcast license were to be so held by the Republican Party rest assured they would be relieved of said license in a lickety and a split

    i know it

    you know it

    and President Trump knows it as well

    this phony nevertrump virtue signaling twaddle about the first amendment blah blah blah wholly ignores the fact that NBC would still be carried on every cable satellite and fiber system in America – and they’d have the same exercise of free speech as CNN does today

    that a partisan enterprise should hold a broadcast license is a wholesale corruption of what was ever intended

    poor trashy nevertrump’s just butthurt nobody wants to slicker their dicker anymore

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  155. oopers for that matter, *are* not ABC and CBS likewise not wholly-owned adjuncts of the Democratic Party i mean

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  156. Hes more like the rough rider, some progressive musings a little bluster, but no big regulatory leviathans like the pure drug act,

    narciso (d1f714)

  157. @DRJ: Notice that my list includes people we regard as heroes, people we regard as villains, and people in between. There are all sorts of cautionary examples and illustrations to choose from.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  158. The pen makes his hand look bigger.

    oh dear

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  159. I think Huey Long is a great example, Frederick, but don’t most of the other leaders have actual policies they stood up for and implemented? How does that make them examples of leaders whose supporters were blindly following them?

    DRJ (15874d)

  160. There’s gonna be a lot of people suffering from Gazprom. Antacids anyone?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  161. I’m not sure how familiar some of them are. A few seem more like my Ma and Pa Ferguson example.

    DRJ (15874d)

  162. @DRJ:How does that make them examples of leaders whose supporters were blindly following them?

    Because their followers didn’t necessarily care what those were, and didn’t abandon the movement when those policies and principles changed.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  163. a villain was but a goodly and honest farmhand once upon a time

    the appellation of “villain” didn’t signify any particular moral failing on the part of these farmhands

    it was merely a way to designate that they were considered an inferior class of people

    (much the way snotty nevertrump looks upon the Republicans who elected President Trump)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  164. @DRJ: A few seem more like my Ma and Pa Ferguson example.

    Don’t know what to say to that… there’s people who haven’t heard of Gandhi, I know plenty of people under 30 who haven’t, but no these are not local figures but world-historical figures, whether or not you personally know of them.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  165. Would w be more like him in the narrative sense

    http://www.historyextra.com/article/feature/10-things-you-might-not-know-about-simon-de-montfort

    Tell me who has really dealt with china correctly in the last forty plus years they may not be a direct enemy. But certainly a strategic adversary.

    narciso (d1f714)

  166. Kardashians are famous because they turned their Dad’s wealth into an Empire of Narcissism without actually accomplishing anything of real worth….

    …just like the Donald.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  167. corgis hell yeah

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  168. @narcisco:Would w be more like him in the narrative sense

    No, Simon de Montfort might be the same kind of figure Washington might have been if the colonies had ended up reintegrating into the British Empire, but not 100% so because Washington led the armies in service to the Continental Congress, which was much bigger than Washington.

    The American Revolution was a populist movement without a single leader, and that might be why it didn’t devolve into tyranny after consuming its own.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  169. today it would appear that Rose McGowan is unhappy

    again

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  170. Frederick,

    It’s up to Patterico if he sees the parallels. Comparisons to FDR, Gandhi, etc., are fine but IMO are not that effective because not many people would agree their supporters were primarily inspired by blind allegiance. I’m not saying Trump’s supporters are, either, but if that is the point someone wants to make then comparisons to those leaders would not be effective.

    DRJ (15874d)

  171. Now some remora are decidedly hard to excise:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/10/two_obama_era_holdovers_are_stupidly_creating_conditions_for_another_housing_meltdown.html

    The metaphor does spark discussion.

    narciso (d1f714)

  172. Gandhi is certainly recognizable, as are FDR and Obama and others, but some aren’t as recognizable. But people like FDR, Obama and Gandhi are known for ideas and for implementing their ideas. Trump may be, too, but he hasn’t yet.

    DRJ (15874d)

  173. Even the blankest Banco .range sets doused with tabasco:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/919752380983496704

    narciso (d1f714)

  174. Now Carlos slims has to tell its readers who bob nmemendez is again.

    narciso (d1f714)

  175. @DRJ:It’s up to Patterico if he sees the parallels.

    Don’t know who said differently. Glad to agree with you on this. I point out merely that comparisons to Hitler, when another figure would do, are rightly or wrongly inherently polarizing, because Hitler’s example is rarely used for any other purpose but anathematization. Not mere condemnation. We are all to reject Hitler and all his works. If Patterico wants that effect, that’s his choice; I’m pointing out the effect he intends by it may not be what he gets.

    not many people would agree their supporters were primarily inspired by blind allegiance.

    They’d be wrong if they did. Mass movements are “mass” for precisely this reason.

    I’m not saying Trump’s supporters are, either…

    I think one of the reasons the comments section has got so unpleasant lately, is that people are attributing motives to one another.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  176. 138.Patterico isn’t comparing Trump to Hitler, and IMO often his focus isn’t on Trump, Hitler, or any political leader. His focus is the people who enthusiastically support a political leader

    lol – IOW: you rubes just don’t get it, P isn’t comparing Trump to Hitler, he’s comparing his followers to Nazis!

    I keep seeing C Kaepernick compared to Gandhi and MLK and wondering if anyone could find a more ridiculous analogy……voila!

    harkin (fcaff0)

  177. Jimmy K is down 30% since being tutored by chuck.
    ABC – Burnt Toast
    Sell…

    mg (31009b)

  178. Weinsteins enablers , that would be Tina brown are busy yelling squirrel.

    narciso (d1f714)

  179. The funniest thing with the Hitler/Nazi comparisons/in-no-way-is-this-a-comparison deal is how MSNBC it is.

    harkin (fcaff0)

  180. harkin, I don’t think you or anyone who voted for Trump is a rube. I voted for Trump. But what other examples can you give me of political leaders who inspired blind allegiance, no matter what they said or did? Frederick says FDR, Gandhi and Obama. Is that more fair?

    DRJ (15874d)

  181. How about Republican or conservative leaders? Can you think of any of them that inspired blind allegiance? I can’t offhand, but maybe that’s because I view conservatives as more likely to be cautious and reasoned, not emotional populists.

    DRJ (15874d)

  182. 186.”Weinsteins enablers , that would be Tina brown are busy yelling squirrel.”

    Yeah, her curious Why aren’t we bringing down Trump??!! tirade was funny.

    And then Hillary had her “oh yeah? hold my beer” moment with There’s a sexual assaulter in the White House!!!

    harkin (fcaff0)

  183. Fredetick,

    The last is for you, too. Any examples of Republicans/conservatives who inspired blind allegiance regardless of policies? Maybe Reagan, but that would great him solely as a charismatic leader and ignore every policy he articulated and achieved, so I say no. Gandhi might be considered a classical liberal but it’s a stretch to call him conservative.

    DRJ (15874d)

  184. Its not more vulgar that tom Perez’s stump speech, he is the Michael o’donoghue. With comparable results

    narciso (d1f714)

  185. @DRJ:But what other examples can you give me of political leaders who inspired blind allegiance, no matter what they said or did?

    Every one of these figures had followers who were following by blind allegiance, perhaps most of them. Probably there is none of them, not even Hitler, who could have had the same level of support “no matter what they said or did”. And of course that includes Trump. There are some followers who are following Trump the man, sure, as for the other leaders of populist movements that I named.

    If you don’t think FDR, for example, inspired blind allegiance ala Obama, then you don’t many people who were alive then. See Chapter 34 of Steinbeck’s East of Eden. FDR also inspired blind antipathy too, as did Obama, and as does Trump.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  186. Just another rant by Michael stipe trying to be relevant.

    narciso (d1f714)

  187. Whatever semi-all-the-way following Trump has, that’s because of the idea he’s the only person on the right side of things, something he cultivates by trying to stand alone.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatius_Cocles (I don’t think he really gets very far with this, but he does distinguish himself from other politicians. Still that only affects at most a third of all the voters.)

    He stands alone because people are unwilling or unable to argue on the merits. He can take a position that nobody wants to defend but they also don’t want to argue against on a deep level. They don’t endorse it but they don’t argue against it.

    Trump finds positions like that.

    A simple, relatively non-political example is, say, the issue of punishing football players who don’t stand for the National anthem, or, for the average person, booycotting the game.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  188. However, Frederick, where is it written that political blogs cast sometimes be polarizing. Trump has achieved the Presidency by being polarizing. If he and Obama have taught us anything, it’s that it takes that kind of “in your face” comparison to get some people’s attention. Why aren’t some die-hard Trump supporters demonstrating the same blind allegiance that we saw in other mass movements?

    DRJ (15874d)

  189. As for people justifying what trmp does more than they should, that’s a little bit because of the position he occupies, it maybe being a bit scary to think of him as incompetent, a little bit because the attacks are over the top, ann more because to those people it seems like that saying Trump is no good means saying the likeliest alternative that could have been, or that might be, is better, and they don’t think so, not overall.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  190. Ok, Frederick 193, but now we’re moving on to examples of Republican or conservative leaders. Can you think of any?

    DRJ (15874d)

  191. Why aren’t some die-hard Trump supporters demonstrating the same blind allegiance that we saw in other mass movements?

    DRJ (15874d) — 10/16/2017 @ 10:08 am

    Never mind, Frederick. We cross-posted. I see you acknowledged that in your comment 193.

    DRJ (15874d)

  192. @DRJ Any examples of Republicans/conservatives who inspired blind allegiance regardless of policies?

    No national figures in my lifetime. That includes now, which I see you agreed with:I’m not saying Trump’s supporters are, either. There’s been nothing like Obama or JFK or even Bill Clinton on the Right, in my lifetime.

    It’s important not to forget that the voters who put Trump over the top, perhaps not in the primary but definitely in the general election, were former Obama voters. A surprisingly large number of them voted for him, and an unsurprisingly large number refused to turn out for Hillary.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  193. Have you read the coverage netanyahu gets not only in haaretz but even the Jerusalem post, or urine who straightened out Colombia got a decade ago. No good deed goes unpunished. the same can be said for guiliani

    narciso (d1f714)


  194. But what other examples can you give me of political leaders who inspired blind allegiance, no matter what they said or did?

    How about Bernie Sanders? Or even Hillary for that matter. Her fanatical followers are still in the throws of a hissy fit.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  195. In Patterico’s defense, I think his Nazi salute Photoshop was effective and conveyed the point he wanted to make. Even one lone voice not supporting Trump is unacceptable to some Trump supporters.

    DRJ (15874d)

  196. @DRJ:I see you acknowledged that in your comment 193.

    Yes I did. It is not an either/or but a question of degree, and you have acknowledged that not all of Trump’s voters do so out of blind allegiance.

    As far as this comments section is concerned, only happyfeet and the occasional drive-by I think rise to that level, and it’s questionable how much of what HF says reflects his actual thinking.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  197. “Just another rant by Michael stipe trying to be relevant.”

    He’s just not as effective without the blue racing stripe.

    harkin (cc8f3a)

  198. The for president of Colombia, who was betrayed by his running mate.

    narciso (d1f714)

  199. looks like hapless idiot George W Bush’s pig dog soldier-thugs have seized kurdish oil fields

    that execrable little man’s truly the gift what keeps on giving

    The military maneuver by Iraqi forces comes as retaliation for the Kurdish independence vote staged a few weeks ago, a move condemned by Baghdad, as well as the governments of Turkey and Iran, both of which have their own Kurdish populations.

    is this a good time to send more of our tatters to be slaughtered senselessly for no strategic purpose?

    let’s ask a filthy war hero

    “The United States provided equipment and training to the Government of Iraq to fight ISIS and secure itself from external threats — not to attack elements of one of its own regional governments, which is a longstanding and valuable partner of the United States,” McCain said in a statement. “Make no mistake, there will be severe consequences if we continue to see American equipment misused in this way.”

    oh dear

    poor tatters

    once more into the breach et cetera

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  200. Hoagie,

    Do you really think the majority of people who vote for Sanders and Hillary don’t care about the policies they support? That they only vote based on charisma and emotion? Maybe young voters are enamored with the Democratic Party but not most.

    DRJ (15874d)

  201. 188 – harkin, I don’t think you or anyone who voted for Trump is a rube.

    I did not vote for Trump, I did (and do) not feel he is fit for office.

    Earth to political commenters….all leaders have blind followers, comparing Trump apologists to 30s era National Socialist German Party members IMO just shouts ignorance.

    harkin (fcaff0)

  202. Frederick, I don’t know one single Obama voter who voted for Trump and I know a sh!t load of people between Church, my Club, the Masons and the Asian business association. Not one. I’m not saying there aren’t any in America but from the dozens of Dems I know not one would be caught dead voting for God if there was an (R) after His name let alone Trump.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  203. harkin,

    Will you respond to my comment?

    DRJ (15874d)

  204. @DRJ: Even one lone voice not supporting Trump is unacceptable to some Trump supporters.

    But in the larger society which we all inhabit, the vast bulk of the social pressure is anti-Trump. What Patterico illustrated there was true of some elements of the right, but it is much more true of academia and the media, not to mention the Twitter mobs that try to get people fired.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  205. Thank you for responding, harkin. Yes, every leader has dedicated followers but even Trump proclaimed his supporters would follow him no matter what he did. Sometimes it seems like he is trying to prove it. Doesn’t that strike you as different?

    DRJ (15874d)

  206. Oh, for crying out loud! Any comparison of Trump to any of the persons above-mentioned is inapt (and inept), because Trump wouldn’t make a pimple on any of those guys’ behinds. He’s not a leader, he’s a monkey who out-scrambled the other monkeys to the top of the banana tree in an unusually fetid and fever-inducing season in the jungle.

    nk (dbc370)

  207. 157. DRJ (15874d) — 10/16/2017 @ 9:20 am

    simply telling Congress to give him the “greatest laws” isn’t enough. How does Trump want Congress to replace critical parts of ObamaCare if it is repealed? He won’t say.

    He doesn’t have any idea.

    Unfortunately, neither does anybody else important in Washington.

    If there were somebody in Washington with good ideas, ideas that, after hearing them, people said that sounds great, he or she would have a very good chance of getting their ideas enacted into law.

    One thing Trump is right about, or, more accurately, has discovered. He’s not completely stupid. You can only pass a good law with the co-operation of Democrats. There’s not enough consensus among Republicans to pass anything with Republican votes alone. Anything even bad.

    Trump is sort of like trying to force Democrats to negotiate. He’s doing this with a number of issues. But he has no idea what he wants to get, or what could be passed.

    He’s very visibly passing the buck, but there is nobody at the receiving end to take the ball. If there is anybody, it’s time for them to step up to the plate. Mixed metaphors are OK. The leadership is not capable. The committee chairmen are not capable.

    They need to find something that’s good and that can also get a majority of votes in Congress, even if it has to be cobbled together from members of both parties.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  208. Unfortunately, on some matters, Trump wants to stick close to his campaign statements when things bog down.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  209. But in the larger society which we all inhabit, the vast bulk of the social pressure is anti-Trump.

    I disagree. He was elected President and that did not make him humble, just the opposite.

    DRJ (15874d)

  210. @Hoagie: I’m not saying there aren’t any in America but from the dozens of Dems I know not one would be caught dead voting for God if there was an (R) after His name let alone Trump.

    And for people who, in a non-election year, self-identify as progressive of Democrat you are no doubt right. But that’s not who swings elections. In the 30% of voters who don’t identify consistently with one party or another, a lot of them voted for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016. Add to that the people who do identify as Dem and wouldn’t turn out for Hillary. That’s how the Blue Wall fell. That’s what Hillary Clinton still doesn’t get.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  211. President Trump is not Hitler Mr. Frederick he’s more like Caine

    (kung fu caine not bible one)

    he’s wandered into our village and, owing to a profound sense of shared humanity and social responsibility, he’s determined to remain here with us for a time to fight for justice against a sick elitist ruling class what’s grown accustomed to raping its perceived social inferiors with a weinstein-like zest

    he’s not to be scorned but honored

    for he’s the last best hope we shall have before the darkness closes in upon what was once such a shining and promising little place on this cold and benighted globe

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  212. The vast amount of media pressure is negative. The PC crowd, too. That enables Trump.

    DRJ (15874d)

  213. There are more likely in swing states, and some in the northeast:
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/hillary-clinton-accuses-wikileaks-of-blunting-impact-of-crude-trump-tape/

    The coverage cascade can’t be quantified in anything but fiction:

    Franklin mallry in Charles mccarrys better angels.

    narciso (d1f714)


  214. Do you really think the majority of people who vote for Sanders and Hillary don’t care about the policies they support?

    DRJ, do you think the majority of people who vote for Sanders and Hillary understand or give a rats a$$ about the policies they support? They just knew there was a (D) after their name.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  215. @DRJ:I disagree. He was elected President and that did not make him humble, just the opposite.

    I think you may have misunderstood. If you are in academia or in the mainstream media or in Silicon Valley and you get outed as a Trump supporter, what happens to you? Whereas lots of conservative media figures have come out against Trump and kept their jobs, though I allow they get lots of nasty emails–but then so do public Trump supporters.

    There’s little difference in behavior among the plains apes who comprise our civilization whether they’re red apes or blue apes.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  216. I did (and do) not feel he is fit for office.

    pro-tip: you are incorrect

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  217. I think many people who vote Democratic do that because they believe Democrats will protect their entitlements and beliefs, Hoagie.

    DRJ (15874d)

  218. Frederick,

    There are pressures in red states, too. Are they men or mice?

    DRJ (15874d)

  219. 220. Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7) — 10/16/2017 @ 10:20 am

    I don’t know one single Obama voter who voted for Trump and I know a sh!t load of people between Church, my Club, the Masons and the Asian business association. Not one.

    Not surprising since Hillary Clinton carried California and Trump lost California by a bigger margin (61.7% to 31.62%) than Obama vs Romney (60.24% to 37.12%)

    I’m not saying there aren’t any in America

    There logically have to be since Obama carried some states that Trump later won: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and the first district of Maine. It’s not all replacement of some voters by others, and defections to third party candidates.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  220. DRJ, do you think the majority of people who vote for Sanders and Hillary understand or give a rats a$$ about the policies they support?

    I think they did care about the policies. Bernie supporters were all about freebies: free college education, free health care, free retirement. Hillary supporters loved her ideas for open borders, among other things.

    Both sets of voters like Democrats because Democrats are pro-choice, pro-union, pro-gay marriage, and pro-free health care. We can argue that any or all of those things are misguided, but the core of Democrat voters are there because of the policies.

    Bernie had some voters enamored with his personality, just as Hillary had some voters enamored with her gender, but I don’t think that was the majority of either set of supporters. And neither of them fostered the personality cult that we saw with Obama.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  221. yes yes yes!

    whenever that happens you know it’s gonna be a good day Mr. Reverend

    strawberry fields forever

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  222. In 2008, Obama also won North Carolina and Indiana.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  223. Just another example at random

    http;//althouse.blogspot.com/2017/10/footage-shows-trump-squeezing-and.html

    narciso (d1f714)

  224. I hope people don’t use Trump as a surrogate for how impotent they feel in their real lives.

    DRJ (15874d)

  225. 224 – pro-tip: you are incorrect

    Hope you’re right but so far all I’ve seen is he’s an improvement over Obama (who I also felt was unfit in 2008 and an unmitigated disaster after he took office) and Madame Corruption.

    harkin (fcaff0)


  226. It’s not all replacement of some voters by others, and defections to third party candidates.

    Why not? And throw in some first timers and independents and bingo!

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  227. @DRJ:There are pressures in red states, too. Are they men or mice?

    I’ve lost who you mean by “they”.

    @nk:He’s not a leader, he’s a monkey who out-scrambled the other monkeys to the top of the banana tree in an unusually fetid and fever-inducing season in the jungle.

    As usual nk is on the nose. Trump does not lead his supporters. He follows them.

    They gave Republicans a nice long chance before deciding they were fed up with excuses. If they see Trump become part of the problem they’ll ditch him too. But they will give him a chance first. The Republicans had what, 30 years to live up to Reagan? They’re probably not going to ditch Trump after 30-ish weeks. But if he turns into Jeb Bush in the next 30-ish months, they will ditch him.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  228. who wouldst a beleaguered failmerican make common cause with

    the fascists what have suborned academia?

    the deceitful media?

    the dirty communist pope?

    the sleazy corrupt incompetent US Military?

    the trashy war hero filth what has infested our Congress?

    or with our bold dynamic and beneficent president, President Trump?

    eeny and meeny and miny and moe it’s a tuffy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  229. 211.harkin, Will you respond to my comment?

    If it’s about blind followers, I think I did.

    I do not really understand half the stuff you post however so if not, oh well.

    harkin (fcaff0)

  230. all I’ve seen is he’s an improvement over Obama

    he’s broken an entrenched trend line what spanned decades

    that’s everything my friend

    he’s forever changed the parameters of what we can think possible

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  231. 225. DRJ (15874d) — 10/16/2017 @ 10:34 am

    I think many people who vote Democratic do that because they believe Democrats will protect their entitlements and beliefs, Hoagie.

    If they do, it is by mistake, or because of campaign lies, because they are not in danger, or at any rate not close to being in jeopardy, except maybe for the deductibility of state and local income taxes. Neither the entitlements nor the beliefs.

    Now when it comes to union members that might be a different story, but that affects local elections mainly. People can be genuinely afraid of losing jobs or benefits. In New York taht;s afefcting the voting about holding a constitutional convention. Not that it woudl easy to to reduce future pensions, anyway.

    But there is an area where the Republican Party loudly proclaims that they intend to hurt people.

    What is in danger is that some people might be deported, or family members of some citizens might lose the right to legally immigrate, and that affects votes, particularly in California.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  232. Trump is very humble, just ask him:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-_mbZ63WCA

    Davethulhu (719fd1)

  233. On the other hand, people in cecertain states vote for Republicans because they are afraid Democrats might take away their guns, or (in West Virginia and Kentucky) shut down coal mining.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  234. @ crazy, who wrote (#149):

    He’ll sign them as soon as Ryan/McConnell pass them. Until then we’re stuck in the middle of the proverbial circular firing squad.

    I don’t doubt this at all, and the circularity of the firing squad is indeed problematic. I think the GOP congressional leadership has attempted to break out of the circle, but there’s no strong leader in the Senate who can enforce anything remotely resembling party discipline, there is no effective leadership from the WH to offer a hill upon which to rally, and — wait for it, because this is one of those very rare times you’ll hear me agree with Trump while bemoaning his ineffectiveness in preaching the message — the GOP senators genuinely are committed, foolishly, to preserving the filibuster.

    The same day the GOP membership of the Senate rewrote the rules to complete the abolition of the filibuster for presidential nominees — the minimum step necessary to actually fill Scalia’s vacancy — they should have ended the whole damned thing. How different would this past year have looked? Critics say that the GOP leadership can’t even reliably get 50 votes, and that’s true, but also has been from votes where, outside of reconciliation processes (like they were trying to do with the Obamacare repeat & replace bills), they’ve been looking at a sixty vote threshold. It’s easier to hold out when your side is 8 or 10 votes away anyway, and much more difficult when you’re the guy, as McCain’s thumbs-down vote was recently. Even there, on the healthcare fights, we don’t know that the Senate couldn’t have developed 50 votes for a genuinely effective repeal and rewriting of current law in ways not limited by reconciliation.

    Trump can’t explain in anything remotely approaching an articulate fashion why he’s right and the GOP senators (including even the likes of Cruz & Lee & Sasse) are wrong about the filibuster. All he can do is attack, crudely and inarticulately, universally relying on ad hominem (“Lil’ Marco”) or threats (being primaried). So yes, I do feel justified in blaming him for being so stupid and ineffectual in making the excellent argument for the abolition of the filibuster. That argument ultimately rests on a realistic assessment of the chances that the Dems won’t abolish it next chance they get, so if Trump could indeed put two coherent thoughts together, he could figure out that he could have the fun he wants in demonizing and using threats and ad hominem by confining it to Democrat senators.

    This whole subject falls under the category of “opportunity costs” that I and Patterico were stressing the other day. Yes, I’ll concede that even real leader like Reagan would have had a hard time overcoming the senatorial inertia/stupidity here. But Trump is doing the opposite of leading when it comes to his dealings with Congress in general and the Senate in particular.

    @ nk (#152): So stipulated, but you left out the unexplained assignment to military school, which in that era was what rich and even middle-class boys’ daddies agreed to send them to under provisions of sealed juvenile court records on misbehavior including sexual assaults.

    @ DRJ (#225): Bingo, although that’s a very charitable way of putting it that doesn’t use the phrase “gravy train.” As to some of those folks, that would be harsh. As to others, not.

    @ Frederick, who wrote (#236):

    Trump does not lead his supporters. He follows them.

    Yes, and that’s pretty much the opposite of leadership. It’s mobsmanship.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  235. Errata #243: “repeat & replace” [shudder] –> “repeal & replace.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  236. Beldar, I’m giving you a HoagieStar for the word *mobsmanship*. I love it.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  237. I don’t know why you would knock Jimmy for standing up for his morals Patterico. Isn’t that what you’re doing here on this blog rather than curtsying to Captain Chaos? I respect you and Jimmy more for it. He may not behaving in a politically correct manner, but at least he stands up for his beliefs.

    Tillman (a95660)

  238. According to PJ Media:


    He castigated a Republican senator for trying to get the government out of your healthcare decisions, and he keeps blasting gun owners. Speaking of this divide amongst his audience, and his ratings drop among right-wingers, he admitted that “as a talk show host, that’s not ideal.”

    But he wasn’t exactly apologetic, saying, “I would do it again in a heartbeat.” And, “I probably wouldn’t want to have a conversation with them anyway.”

    So Kimmel, unlike most leftists, admits he’s a closed minded a$s hole. Someone needs to explain to me what is to be gained by insulting half your customers. Would you consider that a good business model? Even worse, how can these so-called *progressive* people call themselves open minded? Basically he is a bigot who is so stupid he fails to realize he is bigoted against half his audience because they disagree with him politically. What a dope!

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  239. After raising Sen. Robert Menendez’s hopes last week, a federal judge crushed them on Monday morning. — U.S. District Court Judge William Walls refused to toss any of the 18 charges in the corruption case against Menendez…

    poor little war hero

    and just as the holidays get underway too

    :(

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  240. I don’t know why you would knock Jimmy for standing up for his morals Patterico.

    Except, that’s not what Patterico is doing. He’s knocking Kimmel for refusing to even converse with people who disagree with his views.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  241. The Environmental Protection Agency issued a memorandum Monday to officially end a practice called “sue-and-settle,” where the agency issues rules in response to lawsuits from environmental groups, per Bloomberg.

    The practice, which led to the Clean Power Plan during the Obama administration, was blasted by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt as “regulation through litigation” that bypassed federal rule making processes.

    this is good for america thank you President Trump

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  242. @Chuck B:He’s knocking Kimmel for refusing to even converse with people who disagree with his views.

    Tillman does not distinguish these. Tillman anathematizes, he does not engage.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  243. President Trump’s spent hours poring over old Ronald Reagan speeches – studying the language Reagan used

    What good would it do him? Reagan spoke at a 10th-grade level, Trump speaks at a 5th-grade level.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  244. ooh burn

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  245. I’m honored, Hoagie, thank you.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  246. Donald Trump, like Rush Limbaugh gives voice to the values and virtues of their supporters. Neither is an island, and neither sings a siren’s song. Their supporters are volunteers, dedicated to freely elected constitutional representative government.

    Both leaders share the overwhelming convictions of the vast majority of Americans. Both are in-sync and neither is way out in front. They mirror the American people’s opinions.

    No matter how often or how dishonestly the establishment media and their political and entertainment toddies in the Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Detroit, Philadelphia, and every other urban sewer in the country try to pretend otherwise, Donald Trump is the elected president for a reason: He represents the collective will of a free people who have chosen their own leader.

    ropelight (bbe920)

  247. I don’t know why you would knock Jimmy for standing up for his morals Patterico

    Because he has none? Among other things, Saint Jimmy won the governorship by portraying his primary opponent as, um, being too friendly to blacks.

    Carter’s campaign criticized Sanders for paying tribute to Martin Luther King Jr. and distributed grainy photographs of Sanders arm-in-arm with two black men.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sanders

    Kevin M (752a26)

  248. won’t be long and the antique road show will out perform Jimmy.

    mg (31009b)

  249. I don’t know why you would knock Jimmy for standing up for his morals Patterico. Isn’t that what you’re doing here on this blog rather than curtsying to Captain Chaos? I respect you and Jimmy more for it. He may not behaving in a politically correct manner, but at least he stands up for his beliefs.

    Tillman (a95660) — 10/16/2017 @ 11:15 am

    Patterico is not knocking Kimmel for standing on his morals and principles. He is knocking him because he is unwilling to engage with those who think differently than he does. If you read the post carefully, he uses Kimmel’s dismissal of those who think differently as an opportunity to clarify with whom he no longer wishes to engage with and the specific criteria he uses. It’s easy to see that the standards that must be met for Patterico and Kimmel to disengage from individuals (or in Kimmel’s case, whole groups) is decidedly different. It’s easy to see why Patterico would not want to engage with one who meets his personal criteria – which is his right – and it’s troubling to see Kimmel so easily dismiss any who do not agree with him. Apparently, Kimmel is not big on diversity of thought.

    If I can get serious for a second: this is a big part of the problem with our country. People don’t want to talk to other people just because of their opinions.

    Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to talk to people who are abusive or rude. I don’t want to talk to people who are giant hypocrites. I don’t want to talk to people whose principles appear or disappear depending on whether they’re defending Trump or Obama or some other worthless politician.

    And often, certain political opinions go hand in hand with abusive attitudes, rudeness, hypocrisy, or lack of principle. But not always.

    If you are consistent in the application of your principles, and if you can address the issue politely and respectfully, without using weapons like aggressive mischaracterization and/or irrationality, I’m happy to talk to you — no matter how wrong you might be. You might be my political opponent, but we can still talk about it. We’re both Americans, after all.

    If, by contrast, you’re a hypocrite who applies different standards to both sides, calls people names, and is otherwise abusive — now I’m tuning you out. I’m blocking you on Twitter and refusing to engage with you in comments sections. I don’t care whom you support.

    So: I will never decline to talk to anyone simply because they have a defensible but different opinion than I have.

    The other difference is this: If people of a differing view wanted to engage with Patterico and have a vigorous debate and dialogue about an issue, and do it politely, respectfully and consistently, he is more than happy to have the discussion. Kimmel, on the other hand, won’t talk with you, no matter how polite, kind or respectful you might be. You don’t *think* the way he does, therefore you are irrelevant.

    Dana (023079)

  250. Donald Trump is the elected president for a reason: He represents the collective will of a free people who have chosen their own leader.

    ropelight (bbe920) — 10/16/2017 @ 12:27 pm

    In a sense this is true, but something is fundamentally broken in our country. Our people do not really consent to be governed by this political class. Most Republicans didn’t want Trump to be nominated. Most voters didn’t want Trump to be president. And even the ones who voted for him were composed in part of people who were just voting against Hillary while saying they really dislike this choice.

    We need to recognize this problem and fix it, whether Trump is president or Hillary who won millions more votes or Obama who won a majority of votes.

    I recall the way democrats dismissed criticism of Obama because he’s President now, so anyone who rejects his leadership must be a racist. That’s not fair.

    Trump was definitely elected president for a reason. I think a big one is a rejection of our political system by a lot of Americans, with frustrations we should think about, partly because Trump represents some degree of desperation to be frank.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  251. before President Trump things were bad

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  252. Tillman does not distinguish these. Tillman anathematizes, he does not engage

    Oh, I know Tillman does not argue in good faith. He’s a bomb-thrower, and not a particularly good one at that. But when I see something really egregious, I will call him on it.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  253. @Dustin:I think a big one is a rejection of our political system by a lot of Americans, with frustrations we should think about, partly because Trump represents some degree of desperation to be frank.

    Like nk, on the nose. Trump is the symptom, not the disease.

    The disease is a political class that ceased to represent mainstream America. The Dems are lost in identity politics and the Republicans seem to have nothing in common but a desire to hold office.

    Trump drew from the disaffected in both parties.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  254. i’m still thinking about them yummy taco salads in Trump Tower

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  255. I hope you don’t mistake the fact I have a high regard for my opinion with the worth of my own life.

    http://www.military.com/video/forces/navy/pressure-point-old-school-navy-recruiting/662045755001

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  256. There is a certain irony in embracing the premise and antics of ‘The Man Show’ while generally condemning the coarsening of our culture and discourse. But it did draw an audience to do one thing: sell products. Ahhh, the sweet smell of free market capitalism.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  257. :He’s knocking Kimmel for refusing to even converse with people who disagree with his views.

    I’m not surprised that the awareness is dank. Refusing to read certain published ideas and script blocking certainly rings your Gong Show.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  258. One simple act could end all these frivolous disagreements.
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/16/trump-tax-returns-release-efforts-stall-243819

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  259. @Ben burn:Refusing to read certain published ideas

    It’s people that get blocked, not ideas, and they get blocked because of how they treat people, not because of their ideas. And the longer you delude yourself about why people block you, the more people will block you.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  260. uh oh look out goopy

    them sleazy NY Giants are just like harvey weinstein!

    so plan your day accordingly sweetie-pickles

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  261. “, I know Tillman does not argue in good faith. He’s a bomb-thrower, and not a particularly good one at that. But when I see something really egregious, I will call him on it.”

    Bulloney. You guys can’t call geese.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  262. More bulloney from Frederick . Y’all fear the counterpoint you can’t address.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  263. @Ben burn:More bulloney from Frederick . Y’all fear the counterpoint you can’t address.

    Have it your way.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  264. It’s not my way.

    But you’re welcome to prove you aren’t blocking ideas.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  265. @Ben burn: You know who doesn’t get blocked? Dustin, aphrael, kishnevi, Leviticus. They disagree with most of the commenters here most of the time, and they don’t get blocked. You disagree and do get blocked. It’s because of how you treat people, and how you crap up the thread with one-line comments that are either bare links, or calling people names, or bare links that when followed amount to calling people names.

    Figure it out and people will treat you differently. Lie to yourself and things will get worse.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  266. i’m blocking Dustin right now WITH MY MIND

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  267. I feel certain you’re trying to help Frederick but maybe you could preach to the Congregation if that’s your true aim. Whom did I call names? Am I the only one who posts bare links ? I think the complaints about ME have more to do with the content than personality

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  268. “Trump was definitely elected president for a reason. I think a big one is a rejection of our political system by a lot of Americans, with frustrations we should think about, partly because Trump represents some degree of desperation to be frank.”

    Never happen… https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2010%2F10%2F29%2Farticle-1324975-036B64A70000044D-700_468x565.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Ftvshowbiz%2Farticle-1324975%2FFrank-Sinatras-definitive-biography-tells-mother-ambition-drove-stardom.html&docid=Pau18c2K2EWclM&tbnid=kBT7jmPT97H–M%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjS5dGr-_XWAhUH4WMKHQWyCUYQMwifAShcMFw..i&w=468&h=565&hl=en-us&client=safari&bih=331&biw=667&q=frank%20sinatra%20photo&ved=0ahUKEwjS5dGr-_XWAhUH4WMKHQWyCUYQMwifAShcMFw&iact=mrc&uact=8

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  269. 128. 131. Scooter Libby was not pardoned – his sentence was commuted – in fact eliminated – by President Bush II.

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)

  270. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a13027068/trump-bannon-mercers/

    In court papers filed on Friday, Magerman argues that following a pair of phone conversations in which Mercer expressed arguably racist opinions, Magerman felt obliged to inform the press about his boss’s viewpoints—and that he received verbal assurance by Renaissance C.O.O. Mark Silber that the statements he intended to make were “permissible under company policy.” Those racist opinions, according to Magerman, included comments such as: a) The United States began to go in the wrong direction after the passage of the Civl Rights Act in the 1960s; b) African Americans were doing fine in the late-1950s and early-1960s before the Civil Rights Act; c) The Civil Rights Act “infantilized” African Americas by making them dependent on government and removing any incentive to work;d) The only racist people remaining in the United States are black; and e) White people have no racial animus toward African Americans anymore, and if there is any, is it not something that the government should be concerned with.
    The best part of the filing, at least to us, was that when Magerman “point[ed] out that society was segregated before the Civil Rights Act and African Americans were required to use separate and inferior schools, water fountains, and other everyday services and items,” Mercer allegedly responded that “those issues were not important.” In a subsequent phone conversation (the “white supremacist” one), Magerman claimed Mercer initially “disputed that he had said such things, although he did not actually deny saying them” and “in the course of rehashing the conversation . . . repeated many of these same views, and even cited research that allegedly supported his opinion that the Civil Rights Act harmed African Americans economically.” (A spokesman for Renaissance declined to comment.)

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  271. What good would it do him? Reagan spoke at a 10th-grade level, Trump speaks at a 5th-grade level.”

    What level is ‘medical corpse-man’?

    harkin (cc8f3a)

  272. https://philebersole.wordpress.com/2017/10/16/the-anti-democracy-movement-in-america/#more-77846

    In any capitalist democracy, there are two sources of power – money power and people power. Most politicians depend on corporate donors to finance their companies. Court decisions such as Citizens United have negated legal limits on campaign spending.

    The result, as Lappé and Eichen point out, is that:
    > Those without corporate support are screened out.
    > The debate is limited to issues acceptable to corporate donors.
    > Legislative focus is more on pleasing the donors than pleasing the public.
    > Since this is never discussed, the public is kept in the dark about the reality of politics.
    > Americans become increasingly disillusioned with democratic politics.

    Lobbying meanwhile has increased enormously. In 1971, the year of the Powell memo; there were 173 companies with lobbyists in Washington; there were 2,445 by 1982.

    Corporate spending on lobbyists increased from $! billion in 1998 to $2 billion in 2010, adjusted for inflation; in 2016, corporations spent more than $3 billion on lobbying.

    Side-by-side with the political parties are the corporatist political organizations. The Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity is a bigger operation than the Republican National Committee. Staff members more back and forth between jobs in the two organizations.

    In the 1990s, Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay formed what he called the K-Street Project. The deal was that congressional Republicans would work with business lobbyists to craft legislation, and the congressional representatives and their staff would be given jobs with the lobbyists after they left office.

    Lappé and Eichen report that about half of members of Congress who retired in 2012 joined lobbying firms. The figure in the 1970s was 3 percent.

    Staff members of regulatory agencies also commonly wind up working for the industries they once regulated.

    It is easy to see understand why the concerns of the average person with average income do not register

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  273. 243. Beldar (fa637a) — 10/16/2017 @ 11:01 am

    Critics say that the GOP leadership can’t even reliably get 50 votes, and that’s true, but also has been from votes where, outside of reconciliation processes (like they were trying to do with the Obamacare repeat & replace bills), they’ve been looking at a sixty vote threshold.

    The reconciliation process is a way around the filibuster, but that, as you said, limited them in the kinds of bills they could write.

    Every provision had to primarily have primarily a budgetary impact, and they could not increase the deficit, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office. The last ditch effort (Graham Cassidy) threw the responsibility for reforming health insurance to the states. It kind of ignored the fact that people could not suddenly be thrown out of nursing homes, or longstanding practices to run up bills, which exist in some states, wished away.

    So yes, I do feel justified in blaming him for being so stupid and ineffectual in making the excellent argument for the abolition of the filibuster.

    They could do something else. Make an exception to the filibuster rule for health care insurance legislation, like exists in the reconciliation process and also in fast-track trade legislation. Maybe even try to get Schumer to agree to it.

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)

  274. @Ben burn: I think the complaints about ME have more to do with the content than personality

    You walked right up to it, and then averted your eyes. It’s the personality you express here, not the content.

    Patterico, for example, almost all the people he blocks are people who are 90% in agreement with him on issues. The people who argue with you, the only people almost who engage you? Most of them are being blocked by Patterico at this point.

    Has nothing to do with your opinions, it’s how you treat people.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  275. Has nothing to do with your opinions, it’s how you treat people.

    someone should explain this to Rex Tillerson

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  276. i’m blocking Dustin right now WITH MY MIND

    happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/16/2017 @ 1:10 pm

    Well I wouldn’t call you the most open minded, but I’m not really great about that either.

    I think Trump happened because democrats and republicans both as institutions are extremely frustrating and closed minded too, so I guess we’re united in that way.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  277. some degree of desperation to be frank.”

    LOL Haiku you stupid bastard.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  278. nonono i unblocked you i was just playin

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  279. 84. narciso (d1f714) — 10/15/2017 @ 10:47 pm

    Yes Cordell hill could have said the same thing

    No, not Cordell Hull, because the United States was not threatening to drop any bombs on Japan, or in China; but Colin Powell could have said that in 2002/3- but he didn’t.

    What he did say, was:

    https://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm

    My colleagues, we have an obligation to our citizens. We have an obligation to this body to see that our resolutions are complied with. We wrote 1441 not in order to go to war. We wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give Iraq one last chance.

    Iraq is not, so far, taking that one last chance.

    We must not shrink from whatever is ahead of us

    Actually the contrast is more this:

    President Bush didn’t say that he had told his Secretary of State that he was wasting his time trying to negotiate with Saddam Hussein. He just didn’t say I’m waiting but I don’t expect anything to happen. He just didn’t.

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)

  280. Ha!!!

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  281. Frederick: You keep invoking perception as though your own is crystal clear. All perception is selective and you are no exception. Patterico attacks because although we see eye-to-eye on Trump but little else. I’ve noticed the same with others you’ve mentioned as co-blockees.

    I frequently conjoin the Republican Party and Trump because that was the trout farm where he was spawned. The New Whigs, as I call Republicans , are in their twilight, and for never trumpets, this is not a welcome message. I’m rude and insolent for putting their noses in it..ergo…blocked.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  282. Greek figs and greek honey with a few cashews in yogurt is the best

    mg (31009b)

  283. Joey Bishop? Maybe… Frank? Nevah!

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  284. I don’t know why you would knock Jimmy for standing up for his morals Patterico. Isn’t that what you’re doing here on this blog rather than curtsying to Captain Chaos? I respect you and Jimmy more for it. He may not behaving in a politically correct manner, but at least he stands up for his beliefs.

    Tillman (a95660) — 10/16/2017 @ 11:15 am

    I would add to my comment at 258, that Tillman’s mischaracterization of Patterico’s post illustrates exactly what Patterico has already elaborated on in his lengthy comment at 54. Tillman asserts that Patterico is knocking Kimmel for standing up for his morals, when he said no such thing, nor inferred it. Not speaking to people because they think differently that you do, is to what he was referring. Here’s the relevant portion at 54:

    I never said that. You made it up. You made it up to make your criticisms seem more valid — at the expense of honesty or respect for me — simply as a lazy way to land a blow a little more easily.

    So, in one way, I guess we should thank Tillman for further illustrating, and validating Patterico’s point.

    Dana (023079)

  285. It’s a pattern you see with hard- core ideologues whose very lives, apparently, depend upon their fragile world.

    Left and Right…same smell

    John Cole and Tom Maguire are hard-core and both took such exception to my themes. They could not defend their positions so they had to permanently ban me. (Balloon Juice and Just One Minute)

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  286. that sounds super good Mr. mg i had this the other day and it was pretty special and it’s super simple to make – and you don’t need tri-effing-color carrots or to make ribbons or any of that tedious nonsense

    i’d do it where you roast the carrots after tossing in olive oil and the spices at link below – cut the carrot in half and then just cut the halves into bite size pieces and roast them but not forever and a day just to sorta get them out of the crudite zone and to where they’re amenable to picking up flavours

    here’s this recipe for seasonings and such

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  287. nonono i unblocked you i was just playin

    happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/16/2017 @ 1:52 pm

    I don’t block anybody but that’s just because my computer has all these effing buttons and I don’t know what any of them do. Amazon keeps bringing me anything I try to google and it’s causing a lot of problems on the home front.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  288. amazon’s so weird

    i used it last night to get the second zombie book from Michael Totten cause of I feel like there’s still a lot about zombies I don’t understand

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  289. @Ben burns:They could not defend their positions so they had to permanently ban me.

    If you have the same problem everywhere you go, the common denominator is you.

    As I said, you keep walking right up to it, and then averting your eyes.

    Up to you what you want to do about it. I’m guessing nothing. But if your behavior changed, more people would engage you.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  290. I have sufficient engagement, but thanks.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  291. Amazon keeps bringing me anything I try to google and it’s causing a lot of problems on the home front.

    Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/16/2017 @ 2:15 pm

    I’m sorry that is happening to you, but the idea of it is hilarious.

    DRJ (15874d)

  292. Good grief, you ticked off John Cole as well, you might be a jackass.

    Yes Dana ward, despite all the misrepresentations you made, and the disrespect you showed to the late Susan Donovan and peter bocking. The proprietor gave you a lot of leeway. And you still haven’t learned a lesson.

    narciso (d1f714)

  293. Or speaking Austrian, or the intercontinental railroad, or not knowing the difference between auto and life insurance. Or any of a hundred malaprop statements

    narciso (d1f714)

  294. You mussed the reference sammeh, Cornell hull was at the negotiating even as the attack was going in pearl harbor.

    narciso (d1f714)

  295. Oh, that surprised you narco?

    Progressives are as venal as right-wing Nun murderers and JOMers.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  296. and so if you can’t see that there’s a whirl of difference between challenging NBC to demonstrate that they’re fulfilling the public interest expectations what are attendant to the possession of a broadcast license and attempting to silence a cable network like Fox News then i can’t help you aside from offering tasty carrot recipes

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  297. Ok..my skeptameter asks what he really wants.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/16/trump-attacks-high-drug-prices-243836

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  298. Oh yeah. Michael Totten banned me…well not a ban so much as deletions. He only wants soul mates.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  299. I think that’s all of the Mussolinis.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  300. Operation clean hands which came after the end of the cold war. Shattered the christian democrats, and fractured the socialists, out of that power vacuum berlusconi arose.

    narciso (d1f714)

  301. Bulloney. You guys can’t call geese.

    Ben Burn, you have not interacted with me that I can remember, so you don’t know the first thing about me. And I’m just one guy, despite what my bathroom scale says when I step on it.

    But if I engage you, I’ll give you a good-faith argument and expect the same from you. If you don’t argue in good faith, I will call you out.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  302. Narco:

    How long were you in the El Salvador National Guard from 1980?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  303. Chuck B.

    I look forward to a good metaphorical scrum.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  304. here goosey goosey

    come here gooses got tasty

    millet

    got tasty millet for you yum

    and suet

    come here babies daddy got you some goose treats

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  305. President Bush didn’t say that he had told his Secretary of State that he was wasting his time trying to negotiate with Saddam Hussein. He just didn’t say I’m waiting but I don’t expect anything to happen. He just didn’t.

    And he ended up going to war, so I’m not sure what your point is. Maybe he SHOULD have played “bad cop” because all the post-mortems I’ve seen say that Saddam was convinced that Bush would never do it, and that conviction led him to dismiss the negotiators.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  306. Amazon keeps bringing me anything I try to google and it’s causing a lot of problems on the home front.

    Don’t get an Echo.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  307. Bow callista is the ambassador to the see, in case you were wondering ulb

    https://mobile.twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/919970900157616129?p=v

    narciso (d1f714)

  308. @277.=Haiku!= Gesundheit!

    Desperation? Nyet.
    Frustration? Da.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  309. Pooh-poohing cyber warfare is just more dumbtrumpism

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  310. foie gras or down pillows

    mg (31009b)

  311. Some are determined to tie their wagons to the Meteorite as it digs a hole to China. ‘Go home with the one that brung ya

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  312. @ 258 —

    The other difference is this: If people of a differing view wanted to engage with Patterico and have a vigorous debate and dialogue about an issue, and do it politely, respectfully and consistently, he is more than happy to have the discussion. Kimmel, on the other hand, won’t talk with you, no matter how polite, kind or respectful you might be. You don’t *think* the way he does, therefore you are irrelevant.

    That’s just not true Dana.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  313. They always come back.. ;>)

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  314. What is not true about Dana’s statement, swc? The part about Patterico or the part about Kimmel, and which parts specifically?

    DRJ (15874d)

  315. How badly has this latest production drifted into the neutral zone:
    http://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/star-trek-discovery/268251/star-trek-discovery-episode-5-review-choose-your-pain

    narciso (d1f714)

  316. The work boot calloused hand silent majority.

    mg (31009b) — 10/16/2017 @ 4:38 pm

    I have it on good authority that, at least in Alaska, you can’t sneak the Pruno back from the work shop in your boots.

    Th guards are on to you.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  317. @Ben burn:They always come back.. ;>)

    They sure do:

    This time I’ll be the one to depart the field in the first quarter, declaring victory. Good night.

    When it was demanded you knuckle under or leave, you chose not to leave.

    Frederick (910b21)

  318. Frederick,

    I make a comparison to Hitler when talking about mass psychology because it removes any argument about whether it is right or wrong to support the person. If I chose Obama, someone who liked Obama would be offended by my claim that many of his followers were cultists (although I do believe many were).

    If you’re faulting me for not analogizing to Wat Tyler, Simon de Montfort, The Gracchi, or John Knox, keep in mind that this is a blog, not a college course. Too many people (including me, although I have heard of The Gracchi) would have to Google those names for them to be used in an analogy effectively. Now you can laugh at my ignorance, but you’ll be laughing at a few other people too, I suspect.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  319. The other difference is this: If people of a differing view wanted to engage with Patterico and have a vigorous debate and dialogue about an issue, and do it politely, respectfully and consistently, he is more than happy to have the discussion.

    Quite so, Dana, and it’s a big part of the point I tried to make in the post. Yes, rudeness does seem to hand in hand with certain positions. But if someone can overcome the stereotype and argue those positions politely, intelligently, and respectfully, I would love to have discussions with such a person. I have made it a particular mission on this blog to try to shield such people from the mob treatment that usually ensues when people have a position that contravenes that of the majority. That’s because I value the aphraels of the world far more than I do the nasty-toned Trumpers with whom I may share more political views.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  320. In the 60s there were some tendentious comparisons with the kennedys, particularly among the kgb’s dezinforma recepients.

    https://www.ancient.eu/article/95/the-brothers-gracchi-the-tribunates-of-tiberius–g/

    narciso (d1f714)

  321. Here is a slightly different spin on the subject:

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-chase/the-ancient-roman-donald_b_9595948.html

    narciso (d1f714)

  322. Patterico,

    Analogy which ignores the existence of the Sturmabteilung, NKVD, and Red Guard when referencing the behavior of the slaves of murderous socialist dictators fails for me. The bloody trail to power followed by the socialist sociopaths was paved with corpses and though the corpses were never shown in the propaganda films depicting rapt and fervent allegiance there is absolutely no reason to believe they were ever far from the minds of the slaves of the socialist states any more than they are far from minds of the slaves performing for Kim Jong-Il in North Korea today.

    Rick Ballard (ada478)

  323. [Kevin] Spacey is a Democrat and a friend of Bill Clinton [citation needed].

    that’s from wikipedia right now but wonder how long before this gets edited

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  324. @Patterico:I make a comparison to Hitler when talking about mass psychology because it removes any argument about whether it is right or wrong to support the person.

    Yes, and I think that is exactly why you get the reaction you do. By illustrating a problem with Trump’s support by using Hitler, you’re pretty much guaranteeing that reaction, whether or not you intend to.

    If I chose Obama, someone who liked Obama would be offended by my claim that many of his followers were cultists

    I think the people who liked Obama, in general, need little persuading about how bad Trump is.

    John Knox

    No Presbyterian readers?

    this is a blog, not a college course.

    You left out some names, like Gandhi and FDR, which I’m sure most people don’t need to Google, so I don’t think that is a very fair criticism. Gandhi’s followers participated in mass slaughter and ethnic cleansing, and weren’t the only ones. FDR’s mass movement didn’t kill anyone, but a lot of people’s rights got infringed.

    Frederick (910b21)

  325. Analogy which ignores the existence of the Sturmabteilung, NKVD, and Red Guard when referencing the behavior of the slaves of murderous socialist dictators fails for me. The bloody trail to power followed by the socialist sociopaths was paved with corpses and though the corpses were never shown in the propaganda films depicting rapt and fervent allegiance there is absolutely no reason to believe they were ever far from the minds of the slaves of the socialist states any more than they are far from minds of the slaves performing for Kim Jong-Il in North Korea today.

    You have a good point about the slaves. What about the enthusiastic supporters? Or do you contend there were none?

    I will reinforce my sincere view that it’s a good point you make, though, to be sure.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  326. By illustrating a problem with Trump’s support by using Hitler

    I am illustrating a problem with a portion of Trump’s support. The portion that is nasty, intolerant, and hypocritical.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  327. Interesting the latest of this series is just published:
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1616958219/ref=x_gr_w_bb_sout?ie=UTF8&tag=x_gr_w_bb_sout-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1616958219&SubscriptionId=1MGPYB6YW3HWK55XCGG2

    Pericles was an iconic figure somewhat like fdr and he had many partisans like thucydudes whomwhitewashed his foibles, as the senior kagan noted in a recent story.

    narciso (d1f714)

  328. “What about the enthusiastic supporters?”

    Madison covered that aspect in Federalist 10. Hamilton used Shays as an illustration in Federalist 6 and came back to demagoguery in Federalist 85. I take Kimmel’s remarks as an admission of failure by a propagandist serving in the entertainment wing of the progressive party. He may have been an entertainer at one point but he’s just another progressive shill today and he knows there is a solid section of the electorate that just won’t buy what he’s shoveling anymore.

    May his audience become ever more selective.

    Rick Ballard (ada478)

  329. I think a big one is a rejection of our political system by a lot of Americans, with frustrations we should think about, partly because Trump represents some degree of desperation to be frank.

    I think it gives too much credit to the segment I hold in contempt. I think they just LIKE A GUY WHO’S TOUGH, DAMN RIGHT! and it doesn’t go a heck of a lot deeper than that.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  330. Some time ago, in the form of teaching examples I noted frank millers book length diatribe give me liberty, back in his angry anarchist days and the term of president rexall.

    narciso (d1f714)

  331. What isn’t true, SWC?

    Dana (023079)

  332. I think it gives too much credit to the segment I hold in contempt. I think they just LIKE A GUY WHO’S TOUGH, DAMN RIGHT! and it doesn’t go a heck of a lot deeper than that.

    The segment you hold in contempt did not elect him any more than they’ve elected Howard Philips. The masses that voted for Trump indeed held Washington (and its avatar, Hillary) in contempt and wanted to send El Destructo to smash and destroy. Kicking over the board IS a sign of desperation. It is a problem that the GOP needs to figure out, since the Democrats never will.

    What can the Republicans do to address these grievances in a way that’s constructive. What should they be dismantling or replacing. There is some danger that they’ll conclude the People want them to continue on with their normal course (e.g. tax cuts), but this isn’t a fiscal issue near as I can tell. It’s about governing as if the people in this country mattered. Which neither party has really done for quite some time.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  333. give me liberty

    Martha Washington. There’s a lot of truth there.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  334. harkin:

    211.harkin, [By DRJ:] Will you respond to my comment?

    If it’s about blind followers, I think I did.

    I do not really understand half the stuff you post however so if not, oh well.

    harkin (fcaff0) — 10/16/2017 @ 10:48 am

    You did respond, as I said in comment 213 and I also thanked you for your response. We had cross-posted.

    I’m sorry you don’t understand my comments. Frederick has the same problem so it probably is better for you both to speak to others instead of me.

    DRJ (15874d)

  335. Trumps is a heterogeneous coalition, repub?icons independents and democrats, they want certain things, trump has promised some, delivered on ssome.Thr congress has done little, what they have in common, is they don’t want their concerns about immigration, law enforcement social values dismuased or worse demonized

    I guess I refer to the Forza Italia/ national alliance/ northern league pole that arose from the clean hands scandal, the first were free market figures the second law and order and theirs mostly convernrd with immigration, hence the bossi fini law, montalbano disparages in one of his tales.
    D

    narciso (d1f714)

  336. I think I helped out.

    Also, I am Navy blue through and through. But still, every once in while I’m tempted to paint my house Air Force blue.

    https://strategypage.com/gallery/images/b-52-10-11-2017.png

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  337. Give it a rethink… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNhEGbziysQ

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  338. You didn’t he would allow a legitimate vote would ya:
    http://babalublog.com/2017/10/16/venezuelas-latest-election-fraud-democracy-is-dead

    narciso (d1f714)

  339. 295. I was not trying to mis-characterize this post.
    Most people are not soul searching about politics, such as many of us here. Kimmel is not really in the business of politics. While he did open himself up to political dialogue by taking positions on some issues, it doesn’t follow that he’s trying to be a political leader or pundit, he just says what he feels and that’s it. If he doesn’t want to engage in other people’s opinions, since the arguments about politics often get rough quick, especially with Trump defenders, I don’t hold that against him. He is entitled to his opinions and has no obligation to put up with all the abuse. If Kimmel was a politician, then it would be different. By the way, many politicians claim they listen, but they don’t really hear you anyway. So, to an extent, it’s a moot point out of the gate anyway.

    Tillman (a95660)

  340. Maybe that was aimed at me, coronello. But that’s one h2kk of flag. And that is one h5ll of crew. Both the BUFF and the tanker.

    I rarely use profanity, but that’s some f****ng precision.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  341. Trump is a reaction to the kind of thing you see everywhere. Elephants in the public living rooms.

    Example: Los Angeles has a TERRIBLE traffic problem. It can take an hour to go 5 miles down any of 10 alternate routes. People literally cannot get to work. The response from the city and state? Issue 1 million drivers licenses to illegals and close traffic lanes for bicycles.

    Now, folks object to the bike thing pretty quickly, but ignore the million extra drives while kvetching about “all the traffic” some new apartment building will bring. Why don’t they talk about the illegals? Because that would be racist in a city that is actively drawing them in.

    So, people vote for someone like Trump. Yes it is California, and yes, Hillary won handily, but the state with the largest raw vote for Trump was California.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  342. President Bush didn’t say that he had told his Secretary of State that he was wasting his time trying to negotiate with Saddam Hussein. He just didn’t say I’m waiting but I don’t expect anything to happen. He just didn’t.

    316. Kevin M (752a26) — 10/16/2017 @ 3:49 pm

    And he ended up going to war, so I’m not sure what your point is.

    Not really anything. My point is that, while that was true, Bush didn’t SAY anything about Saddam Hussein not going to agree to telling the truth and allowing inspectors to interview scientists. It would sound like he didn’t want it to happen, and wouldn’t credit anything Saddam did, reducing the very minimal chances Saddam would attempt to satisfy the United States. At least creating the appearance among allies that the United States didn’t want an agreement. The situation is different here. There are no coalition allies that are that distant from the United States. And here no agreement is necessary to hold off military action (for the time being) – just doing nothing more to increase his nuclear arms, and otherwise, theer is considerable deterrence against a U.S. military strike.

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)

  343. Maybe he SHOULD have played “bad cop” because all the post-mortems I’ve seen say that Saddam was convinced that Bush would never do it, and that conviction led him to dismiss the negotiators.

    I think what Saddam was convinced of was that Bush’s reasons were not the REAL reasons he wanted to invade (but that he wanted to do because he had attempted to kill his father, or because he felt his father had not completed the job in 1991, or because of human rights) and that the situation was EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the way Bush portrayed it:

    If he disarmed he would be invaded, and if he didn’t…

    There was a twist or two here, in my opinion.

    Bush seemed to need coalition support. To Saddam that would be more for military than diplomatic reasons.

    Saddam attempted to convince the allies that he did NOT have weapons of mass destruction (which really meant chemical weapons, because the nuclear weapons program was clearly in mothballs, and the biological weapons programs was clearly nothing more than a research program – which turned out to be by the way, even less) so that they wouldn’t support going ahead

    Saddam attempted to convince the allies that he did NOT have chemical weapons, while he attempted to convince Bush and Rumsfeld that he DID

    That was because he saw that American soldiers were being equipped with chemical weapons protection gear.

    It was understood, and almost openly said by Bush, that because of that, the invasion could not take place later than the beginning of April, because of the heat, which it was assumed would make it impossible to operate wearing chemical weapons protection gear, and if Bush waited past April he’d have to wait till maybe October to try again.

    So if Saddam could postpone an invasion past April, he’d buy himself at least another six months, and maybe Bush would give up, because, Saddam thought, Bush’s stated reason was not the REAL reason – but it was the kind of reason that Bush could give up on. And he might because of the expense.

    Of course Bush didn’t intend to wait past the beginning of April or late March, but he clearly seemed to want to wait until then – until the last minute.

    Now here’s the second twist:

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)

  344. Bush’s military plan called for invading Iraq both from the south and from the north, from Turkey. And Bush would wait till the last minute to launch the invasion.

    So, I think, what happened is, Saddam Hussein bribed members of the Turkish parliament to withdraw their support at the last minute, thus upending Bush’s military plans, at a time when it ws too late to devise another.

    Voila! No invasion!

    But Bush went ahead anyway, because the involvement of Turkey was really for diplomatic and political reasons (America is stupid like that – it works very hard to achieve an unnecessary objective) and not military reasons.

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)

  345. Kevin M (752a26) — 10/16/2017 @ 11:27 pm

    Example: Los Angeles has a TERRIBLE traffic problem. It can take an hour to go 5 miles down any of 10 alternate routes. People literally cannot get to work. The response from the city and state? Issue 1 million drivers licenses to illegals and close traffic lanes for bicycles.

    Now, folks object to the bike thing pretty quickly, but ignore the million extra drives while kvetching about “all the traffic” some new apartment building will bring. Why don’t they talk about the illegals? Because that would be racist in a city that is actively drawing them in.

    You know, you don’t actually need a driver’s license to drive a car. You might want to limit car registrations if that’s the problem.

    They never do anything against people as individuals, (they use the word racist because that’s the only way they know how to argue) but by restricting apartment buildings, and other development, they’re increasing traffic.

    They don’t want more roads, though, on the grounds that that increases traffic, and the roads will be just as crowded one way or the other because road traffic always increases till it reaches the point where drivers are discouraged, and the only result will be more air pollution, or if not that, an infinitesimal increase in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    California’s policies cause people to live further and further away from work.

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)

  346. No sammeh, interestingly it Wes erdogan party the akp who was in favor, but the Turkish army was nit because Kurds, now there was another plan, to invade from the west, but it was leaks to sander at the times.

    The Iraq invasion came upon at this time, because one of the assets the rockstars told them, saddam would be at a designated site somewhat like the Russians in chechnya and dudayev.

    narciso (d1f714)

  347. Saddam it turns out was a t a different section of Dora farms and the head of the dulaimi tribes was hit instead:
    thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration

    narciso (d1f714)

  348. 363. narciso (d1f714) — 10/17/2017 @ 5:18 am

    No sammeh, interestingly it Wes erdogan party the akp who was in favor, but the Turkish army was not because Kurds, now there was another plan, to invade from the west, but it was leaks to sander at the times.

    I am not sure who was maybe bribed, but bribery explains the double cross, and the Turkish Parliament did pull the rug out from under the American war plans at the last moment. The U.S. had not expected this vote.

    Leaked to whom?

    The Iraq invasion came upon at this time, because one of the assets the rockstars told them, saddam would be at a designated site somewhat like the Russians in chechnya and dudayev.

    Therw was of course the false reported location of Saddam, but that wouldn’t have caused Bush to give the go-ahead decision. Anyway it had become clear that the Trkish Parliament hadn’t forestalled the invasion.

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)

  349. “When it was demanded you knuckle under or leave, you chose not to leave.”

    Lol! I’ve been duly called out

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  350. I still like Kimmel, and he’s funnier than any other late-night host. But then, I’m no longer a Republican.

    WarrenPeese (580d5b)

  351. I’m very certain I’ve never watched an entire late-night network comedy show during this century, and Jimmy Kimmel has never been someone with whom I’ve had the slightest interest in having any conversation or interaction.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  352. I’d certainly have bought Carson as many dinners and rounds of drinks as he’d permit in order to sit at table with him; ditto Lenno. Not these mutts.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  353. Mr. Finkelman, if you’re curious about why Turkey did what it did and didn’t do what it didn’t do in the 2003 Iraq invasion, read either Gen. Tommy Franks’ “An American Soldier” or Col. Bing West’s “The March Up.” It was very complicated, but not because of Saddam bribing Turks with money; mostly it had to do with Turkish concerns, persisting to today, about the prospect that might produce an independent Kurdistan on its border.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  354. And yes, it was a big damned deal when the Turks upset original plans to operate from there.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  355. “California’s policies cause people to live further and further away from work.”

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080) — 10/17/2017 @ 3:12 am

    Not for me. Except for a couple of days a month, I work where I live… my office is just up the stairs and around the corner from my bedroom.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8789 secs.