Patterico's Pontifications

6/28/2018

All We Have Is Conversation

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:01 am

As I recently listened to an older Sam Harris podcast, I heard him make the point that “all we have is conversation.” In other words, to change things, we either have force or we have conversation. (He made the point in the context of decrying the left’s tendency to reject conversation by using threats and violence to shut people up.)

It’s a simple but profound observation.

He also makes the point elsewhere that Donald Trump, together with any followers of his who excuse his rampant lying, is also helping to destroy civil conversation by removing the concept of truth from the tools of meaningful discourse. (Truth is important to Harris, and to me. He once tried to speak with Jordan Peterson, and a two-hour conversation was completely hijacked by Harris’s inability to get past Peterson’s odd concept of truth as a malleable concept whose meaning somehow depends on its evolutionary value. But that’s another discussion.) So Harris believes that the left and Trump are both destroying civil conversation. I agree wholeheartedly. It’s another reason I like listening to Harris.

I’m going to again recommit to trying to have civil conversations without engaging in the type of behavior that derails it. I am not perfect and my adherence to this commitment will not be perfect. But a commitment to try ensures that I’ll try harder. So here you go.

P.S. Like the last time I announced a similar commitment, this announcement can easily be misunderstood as a declaration that I will no longer criticize Donald Trump or something. If that’s what you’re taking from this, you’re not getting it. I hope to be civil in the way Sam Harris is civil. He decries Donald Trump in the fiercest terms possible, but he is willing to have a polite conversation with anyone about that or any other topic.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

1,197 Responses to “All We Have Is Conversation”

  1. Also: you don’t get to lie about me and think I won’t respond because I am making an effort to be civil. That’s another mistake people made last time.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. Well said. I have told my circle of people that I won’t argue about politics in forums like the dinner table or the office water cooler. We are but human, so these types of conversations often turn into verbal brawls, what Jordan Peterson terms a quest for dominance in the social hierarchy.

    So I say, let’s have oral argument, with rules and a referee, chosen by both. So far nobody has taken me up on it.

    Patricia (3363ec)

  3. Patterico: This is very, very laudable. I don’t agree with Sam Harris a great deal of the time, but I have come to respect his commitment to his principles. Thank you for recommending his podcasts.

    Patricia: I think Peterson is right about that. I see it every day on campus. And there is usually an attempt to determine “which side” you are on by aggressive questions. Ugh.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  4. I agree that discussion and reason are all we have when it comes to trying to work together. But what do you do when one side refuses to negotiate and says you will do it my way or I will hurt you?

    For the sake of the argument I will include the left and the alt-right in the conversation.

    NJRob (b00189)

  5. People get hung up on Donald Trump a lot but I think he’s been really good and he hasn’t deceived me one time my whole life that I can think of.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  6. John McCain on the other hand, I really believed him when he said he was opposed to obamacare.

    Turns out he’s a dirty cowardly liar.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  7. I think one of the ways we get in trouble is when we have a little fun and add a flourish. Its your post so I’m going to take a slice for illustration purposes only. “rampant lies” Its my opinion that arguments get started over words like rampant, not over the word lies. We all know politicians lie, you feel Trump lies more than even that low bar standard, so you use the word rampant.
    Sometimes to have a reasoned, measured civil conversation we have to be a little boring.
    I know that I can’t do it… can’t take my own advice. I’ve been writing like I speak for over half a century and unless I really tighten the screws of discipline it creeps out.
    Maybe the better thing for me to do is to be measured in my writing, but probably more importantly, mentally strike words by re-reading a post and dropping all the nonsense. Its kind of like listening to my wife deliver a 10 minute flood of emotion and distill it down to “she’d like me to walk the dog more often” rather than arguing point by point over all the “you nevers” and “always”

    steveg (a9dcab)

  8. Trump! Trumpity trump trump, TRUMP!

    Of course there was/is about 20-30 years of political correctness disguised as “diversity” shoved down our throats at work and via the news and entertainment media such that we’ve reached a point where asking for a straw for your ice water at a restaurant makes you Hitler. And after putting up with such one-way idiocy, to question it and why it is so one-sided in any real-world conversation, or to push back on it by so much as questioning why you’ve been dragged away from your job to be preached to, made YOU the political asshole. And hey, who cares what that guy has to say? But yes, TRUMP!

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  9. I get it, but I punch back on personal attacks which, fortunately, hasn’t happened to me here. To me, it’s more civil to confront smears than let ’em ride, but that may just be a character flaw.

    Paul Montagu (e71320)

  10. ““For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind’s greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn’t have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.”

    – Steven Hawking

    Leviticus (efada1)

  11. I have written about this topic before, with a remarkably similar title.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  12. “So I say, let’s have oral argument, with rules and a referee, chosen by both.”

    – Patricia

    I think this is a very important point. Freedom of speech is an important right vis a vis government interference, but amongst private groups seeking to discuss and solve problems, true *discourse* is best advanced by agreed-upon rules of engagement, explicitly stated and strictly enforced.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  13. 7 — Steveg has it exactly right IMO. It’s the gratuitous slaps — where none is really necessary to the point being made — that gives rise to the incivility in response.

    You say those who support Trump’s actions in office “excuse his rampant lying”.

    Or do you not equate “followers” with those — like me — who support his actions in office?

    That’s a distinction that’s not obvious in the language you have chosen to employ.

    So, when I read your post, and consider myself included in the “followers”, I’m therefore stand accused of “excusing his rampant lying.” But I’ve done no such thing.

    Like your view that you acknowledge Trump when he deserves it, I condemn Trump when I think he deserves it.

    But at the same time I have a bit of a different view of who Trump is, and how he came to be the way he is. And I factor that into my expectations with regard to his conduct. I don’t feel the need to announce my criticism every time he says or does something I disagree with. My failure to do so doesn’t constitute “excusing” his behavior.

    And, when I take on you or Beldar or Justin, etc., where I see factual errors in the rationale or reasoning of your criticisms, that too should not be called “excusing” Trump’s behavior. If your wrong — and I wouldn’t write such a criticism if I didn’t believe it — my pointing out that you’re wrong isn’t an “endorsement” of anything Trump has said or done.

    So, I think that’s where the breakdown here occurs. You want the debate to be about the subject of your post(s) — but when the post itself has disputable aspects, you call it an attack on you when those aspects undergo scrutiny.

    You seek out the “conversation”, so long as it’s not critical of you — not categorically, but as a general matter.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  14. it’s more civil to confront smears than let ’em ride, but that may just be a character flaw.

    While I would consider jumping on every single smear and/or blowing them out of proportion to the damage done a character flaw, confronting certain numbers of smears or certain degree of smears is actually a social obligation. It can actually prevent things from escalating into a state of hysteria and even violence, or worse violence than if not confronted. Or so I was taught. Sigh…but maybe they were wrong…

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  15. So Harris believes that the left and Trump are both destroying civil conversation.

    Conversation has become an infant crying on the cover of a national news magazine with a pasted in president looking down.

    A President Harris would calmly explain that the photo is fake, the mother is a kidnapper, felon, child abuser and an asylum fraud, deftly quelling the outrage. The mob would thereupon put down their pitchforks and saunter away.

    The political world is about narrative and talking points, not conversation. This did not start with Trump. And a Harris approach will not end it.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  16. “Like your view that you acknowledge Trump when he deserves it, I condemn Trump when I think he deserves it.”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    1. Do you think Trump lies?
    2. Do you think lies by a head of state deserve condemnation?
    3. Do you condemn Trump’s lies when he lies?

    The answers to these questions will go a long way towards determining whether it is fair to say that you “excuse [Trump’s] rampant lying.”

    Leviticus (efada1)

  17. Also, what swc said.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  18. He also makes the point elsewhere that Donald Trump, together with any followers of his who excuse his rampant lying, is also helping to destroy civil conversation by removing the concept of truth from the tools of meaningful discourse.

    I agree. Truth cannot be removed. I tried very hard to get to the truth of this statement from Bored Lawyer:

    Then Trump brags to his base that he enacted a “Muslim ban” when he did no such thing.Bored Lawyer (998177) — 6/26/2018 @ 10:42 am

    I posed a simple question:

    Then Trump brags to his base that he enacted a “Muslim ban” when he did no such thing.

    Where do I find quotes of him doing this?

    BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/26/2018 @ 10:46 am

    http://patterico.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-upholds-travel-ban-5-4/#comment-2130407

    The responses were both insult laden and unrelated to the question.

    In a world where Trump lies so much, I don’t see the benefit of lying about him. Maybe we can have a civil conversation on this thread about Bored Lawyer’s assertion. I welcome it.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  19. “The political world is about narrative and talking points, not conversation… And a Harris approach will not end it.”

    – random viking

    It could easily end it in this space. What do you think of that?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  20. Here’s an example of where the conversation ended and turned to violence. These neighbors really don’t like each other.

    Paul Montagu (e71320)

  21. I guess he needs to clear the Supreme Court nomination with Vlad, and coordinate “the Russian vote” in the upcoming midterms…

    Trump casts doubt on Russian election meddling ahead of Putin summit

    President Donald Trump continues to cast doubt on US intelligence assessments that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential contest, just as his aides announced details of his upcoming summit talks with President Vladimir Putin.

    “Russia continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election!” Trump wrote on Twitter Thursday morning. He went on to question why US law enforcement agencies weren’t investigating other perceived influences on the election, which he has repeatedly said was rigged for his opponent Hillary Clinton.

    This is like FDR, in mid 1943, going on the radio to insist “Japan continues to say they had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor!” and blaming it on Churchill, MacArthur and Eisenhower as he announced a summit meeting with Tojo.

    There’s no other word for it than “treason”.

    Dave (445e97)

  22. “Sometimes to have a reasoned, measured civil conversation we have to be a little boring.”

    This is true; the problem is that half the time, in order to earn any kind of response and start the conversation off in the first place, you have to be at least a little provocative as well. (There’s a reason they came up with that old gag that the most boring headline imaginable was “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative”.)

    Finding the balance point has become a harder and harder task.

    Stephen J. (308ea7)

  23. It could easily end it in this space. What do you think of that?

    Leviticus (efada1) — 6/28/2018 @ 9:45 am

    I totally agree and, even though I fail at times, I try to adher to that — as I think you do as well.

    Politicians live in a different world. That was my point. I wish that world were much different.

    There seems to be an expectation that a president should pretend that world isn’t what it is.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  24. There’s no other word for it than “treason”.

    the hot and horny men and women of the sleazy corrupt FBI never even examined the hacked server

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  25. The conduct of our politicians is a reflection of our cultural values. If American’s valued substantive discourse, politicians would have incentive to engage in it.

    If we want our politicians to value substantive discourse and engage in it, then we have to begin to value it and engage in it ourselves. That culture needs to spread in America, and in order to spread it needs to start putting down roots in public forums. Like this one.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  26. “Treason” is a counterproductive word 99.999(…) percent of the time.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  27. Via M-W:

    Definition of treason
    1 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family
    2 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery

    There seems to be a lot of that going around these days.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  28. professor butler is very reductive, is that really her argument, America is a propositional nation, more than most, there have definitely been bad, but much good came because of it,

    narciso (d1f714)

  29. That culture needs to spread in America, and in order to spread it needs to start putting down roots in public forums. Like this one.

    Agreed. Flippant usage of “treason” is indicative of how hard that is, even in this forum.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  30. she takes a much too charitable view of the matter,

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/28/6-quick-takeaways-paul-manaforts-latest-setback-court/

    narciso (d1f714)

  31. The conduct of our politicians is a reflection of our cultural values.

    That’s a bit heavy. The conduct of our society in general is a reflection of our values. Any one specific person does not represent the entirety of the entirety of a society. We don’t judge the entire nation of the UK or France or Germany or wherever based on whatever genius or fool stumbled their way into office. Our nation’s cultural values did not shift Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Trump. They may have gotten bumped/bruised/polished/mended but they didn’t change as a whole.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  32. Patterico: “Also: you don’t get to lie about me …”.

    Out of curiosity, who lied, where and how? I fear I often don’t bother to read all the “he said”, “she said” about what wassname the other guy said, back and forth arguments, often non-responsive to the issue, so I missed it.

    I’m curious because you seem rather more thin skinned about things Trumpish than before the Trump monster arose from his sea-bed ooze.

    BuDuh: I remember reading and being irritated by the thread where you tried to get some of the local commentariat to quote Trump’s allegedly offensive words with proper sourcing, and you failed utterly. I’m guessing that BoredLawyer, Beldar and DRJ suddenly realized they had committed the great legal folly of relying on third party hearsay, even more foolish than relying on immediate hearsay such as quoting what the liars who write for the New York Times say Trump said. Good fun, all good fun.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  33. “Treason” is a counterproductive word 99.999(…) percent of the time.

    I’m open to suggestions.

    What else would you call trying to cover-up an overt foreign attack on our country?

    Dave (445e97)

  34. Again, M-W:

    Definition of overt
    : open to view : manifest overt hostility overt symptoms of the disease overt discrimination both overt and covert military action

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  35. This is like FDR, in mid 1943, going on the radio to insist “Japan continues to say they had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor!” and blaming it on Churchill, MacArthur and Eisenhower as he announced a summit meeting with Tojo.

    There’s no other word for it than “treason”.

    Dave (445e97) — 6/28/2018 @ 9:49 am

    Severely conservative Dave drops a bomb in a discussion about civility. Par for the course for this “severe conservative.”

    NJRob (af6cf9)

  36. I’d call it lots of other things before I called it “treason.” “Treason” is punishable by life imprisonment.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  37. in other words if Hillary who enabled putin to take half of Ukraine, who allowed the bmi interceptors to be removed from eastern Europe, who was silent while the polish cabinet was decapitated in Smolensk, who sought Russia’s cooperation in order to carry out the iran deal, if she lost that is treason,

    narciso (d1f714)

  38. “The conduct of our society in general is a reflection of our values. Any one specific person does not represent the entirety of the entirety of a society.”

    – Skorcher

    I didn’t mean to say that “the conduct of *each* of our politicians is a reflection of our values,” but that “the conduct of our politicians *collectively* is a reflection of our values.” But I stand by this clarified point: our politicians, collectively, do not value discourse, and I think that indicates that our culture, collectively, does not values discourse.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  39. There’s no other word for it than “treason”.
    I would go with un-American or anti-American, for believing the dictator who is consistently hostile to our interests and not believing the very intelligence community that he is in charge of. Constitutionally, “treason” is a heavy word.

    Paul Montagu (e71320)

  40. 8… dude, you’re living up to your “name”.

    Colonel Haiku (59ae41)

  41. Fred Z, do you have a link?

    So far your approach to me doesn’t suggest that you are interested in a civil conversation, but maybe I am mistaken.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  42. 21… if teh Tums haven’t worked, try Zantac, ConDave.

    Colonel Haiku (59ae41)

  43. You’re misunderstanding him, BuDuh. Fred Z is complementing you.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  44. direct question, earn evasions, what is the point of this,

    https://twitter.com/bhweingarten/status/1012377352226172933

    narciso (d1f714)

  45. “Treason” is punishable by life imprisonment.

    Actually, it can be punishable by death, and it has a specific meaning in law, which is why it’s a heavy word. Because we’re not in open or declared war against PutinLand, there is no treason no matter how much Trump fluffs the Russian dictator.

    Paul Montagu (e71320)

  46. Ahh, thank you Leviticus. My apologies, Fred. I misunderstood “failed utterly” and didn’t read it in context with the rest of your comment.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  47. our politicians, collectively, do not value discourse, and I think that indicates that our culture, collectively, does not values discourse.

    Yes, I’m inclined to agree with you. Yes, things have changed to some degree and brought things to a head. See my #8 (and some might say my modest incivility). The world at large is not a courtroom where facts can be analyzed and ad hominem and other fallacies exposed. Yet even in a court room, justice is not anything close to guaranteed. And sometimes pounding the table is a last ditch effort and quite justifiable if certain facts or laws have been discarded for trivial reasons. Either way, for good or bad it is used. Or so I’ve heard. But after 20-30 years of our elites telling half the country to 5TFU, many people finally had enough and were willing to put aside some values in order to advance others. History is replete with such instances. See Lincoln or even the Founders but much more broad than even that. And in some defense of incivility, sometimes it is good to clear the air.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  48. 29… indeed… I recall being a young father at home with our firstborn son, babysitting while his mother was out grocery shopping and picking up some much needed supplies for our son, e.g., diapers.

    Wife had been gone for 45 minutes and son was working on his last diaper. Realizing this and hearing a wet, gurgling sound, I grabbed my son, sat him up, looked him in the eye and told him… “son… we’re down to your last diaper. Please hold your mud at least… anything less will be considered tantamount to treason.”

    The little 8 month old rascal gazed into my eyes and gave me a smile bordering on a smirk. I soon discovered my admonition had been to no avail.

    Colonel Haiku (59ae41)

  49. “The Criminal Justice Act 1990 abolished the death penalty, setting the punishment for treason at life imprisonment, with parole in not less than forty years. No person has been charged under the Treason Act.”

    Leviticus (efada1)

  50. putin take treason how seriously, you can ask skripal, however so did Pinochet, you can’t ask Orlando letelier or Ronnie moffitt, Aldrich ames, got some jail time, as did Robert hanson, but that’s not proper accountability for the lives he gave up,

    narciso (d1f714)

  51. the mother is a kidnapper, felon, child abuser and an asylum fraud,

    President Harris would not do so, unless he had evidence not available to the public, since
    1) the evidence for such assertions is an article in an English tabloid quoting the woman’s husband and no other sources
    2) even if you accept the article as presenting the truth, the only thing it proves is that she entered illegally for economic purposes.

    Of course, President Harris would probably have made sure that before he decreed zero tolerance he had the facilities and staffing available to actually handle the results….something that acclaimed business man Trump apparently did not think of doing.

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  52. in other words if Hillary who enabled putin to take half of Ukraine, who allowed the bmi interceptors to be removed from eastern Europe, who was silent while the polish cabinet was decapitated in Smolensk, who sought Russia’s cooperation in order to carry out the iran deal, if she lost that is treason,

    Narciso, you’re a witness against yourself. Putin meddled in the election and his meddling was meant to help Trump. He obviously did that in his own interest, not ours. So he must have felt that Trump as POTUS was even better for Russia than Hillary as POTUS.

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  53. facts not in evidence, the us military decimated a company from putins condottieri, the wagner corps, has provided javelin missiles and trainers to the Ukraine, and furthermore has launched strikes against an avowed ally in Syria,

    narciso (d1f714)

  54. the evidence that Putin interfered in the election to help Trump, such as it is, comes entirely from 3 of america’s most corrupt intelligence agencies – the gaywad brennan cia (communist), integrity-challenged james clapper’s dni, and of course the sleazy fbi

    these people are scum and cannot be trusted

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  55. Is it hearsay to rely on Trump’s website, fred?

    DRJ (15874d)

  56. The Criminal Justice Act 1990 abolished the death penalty, setting the punishment for treason at life imprisonment, with parole in not less than forty years. No person has been charged under the Treason Act.

    There’s an Irish law of that name and year. Do you have a link?

    Paul Montagu (e71320)

  57. Whoops – my mistake. Paul Montagu is right. I was looking up “treason in the U.S.” and that came up, but I did not check the source. Treason in the U.S. is still technically punishable by death, or by lesser sentences.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  58. @52:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-photo/father-says-little-honduran-girl-on-time-cover-was-not-taken-from-mother-idUSKBN1JI07W

    2) even if you accept the article as presenting the truth, the only thing it proves is that she entered illegally for economic purposes.

    No, it proves everything I asserted.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  59. Links for the now deleted Trump website, along with the history of its deletions.

    DRJ (15874d)

  60. It takes a special person to go into a thread about embracing good conversation rather than derail it, and then start attacking people who aren’t in that thread, about a topic that wasn’t in the thread, and without actually offering any arguments. It takes a special person to ‘announce the victor’ in a disagreement without actually engaging in the disagreement, and in a different thread.

    But Fred Z is a special person.

    Bonus points for Cruz Supporter 2.0 completely misunderstanding his layers of passive aggressive whatever. Would it have been that hard to just add a comment to the actual thread you are concerned about?

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  61. ugh

    sleazy corrupt rod rosytwat lied under oath today

    he lied a LOT

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  62. No, it proves everything I asserted.

    How does it prove she was a kidnapper and a child abuser?
    And as you answer your question, please explain how the mother of Elian Gonzalez was not a kidnapper and a child abuser for taking her son on an extremely dangerous trip from Cuba to the US?
    (Unless you think Elian’s mother was also a kidnapper and child abuser, in which case you deserve a salute for consistency.)

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  63. Links for the now deleted Trump website, along with the history of its deletions.

    DRJ (15874d) — 6/28/2018 @ 10:55 am

    The original URL that DRJ has linked was “https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration”

    It’s titled “Trump Statement On Preventing Muslim Immigration.”

    Says so right in the URL.

    Cruz Supporter 2.0 and referee of all debates, Fred Z, claim it’s hearsay to talk about this now, because Trump deleted the original statement. But we all remember this. It was very recent that Trump was proud of his Muslim ban.

    “Donald J Trump is calling for a complete shutdown on Muslims entering the United States.”

    Those words came out of his mouth (he is refering to himself in the third person because he’s that kind of guy). There are still videos of it.

    Every single one of these stalwart Trump loyalists clearly remembers Trump saying it, and they cheered him saying it, and they voted for him because they wanted him to do it. And now they pretend it never happened like we have to change reality for Dear Leader.

    They seek to troll every thread they can for the same reason. If they can’t control the narrative, they can at least destroy it with personal attacks.

    That’s what Fred Z is doing.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  64. Dustin,

    I know you are focusing on those you consider Trump supporters, but no mention of Dave’s bombast and attempt to derail the conversation with his treason remarks?

    NJRob (b00189)

  65. OK, I yield to the arguments of Leviticus and Paul Montagu.

    Let’s compromise and call Trump’s betrayal of our country in the face of foreign attack a “high crime and misdemeanor” then.

    Russia’s attempt to sabotage our election was an act of war (and they were told as much over the “red phone” by the US government on October 31, 2016):

    “International law, including the law for armed conflict, applies to actions in cyberspace. We will hold Russia to those standards.”

    The fact that the current administration has decided to pretend the attack did not take place does not change the fact that it did (hence my Pearl Harbor analogy). Also note that in the case of Pearl Harbor, the real FDR believed the attack itself created a state of war:

    I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack […] a state of war has existed

    Dave (445e97)

  66. If any American mother had done what the Honduran mother did “for economic purposes” (your words) she would be in jail separated from her child.

    Elian’s mother died.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  67. I know you are focusing on those you consider Trump supporters, but no mention of Dave’s bombast and attempt to derail the conversation with his treason remarks?

    NJRob

    I was talking about something else. Trump did indeed call for a Muslim ban. After many hours of debate in another thread, you guys brought it here. DRJ again pointed out that Trump simply deleted the Muslim Ban statement, and his own statement is not hearsay. I quoted Trump and provided a link to a video about it. I explained how remarkable I find it that Trump’s supporters pretend this statement never happened, when I’m sure they remember it clearly.

    These days, a lot of fringe guys will simply refuse to admit they were wrong, even when faced with piles of evidence. They will instead demand that’s no longer what the real issue is. No.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  68. Because there is no such thing as parents rights in Cuba, this wee born out when he was indoctrinated as a young pioneer and shown if as a trophy for mandela, using the same mind arson employed in us schools, you wonder what’s wrong with kids today.

    So with some reasonble adjustments the immigration pause fit statutory language (notably pg 34 of the decision, the protocols on the border were even more diligent than those employed 4 years ago

    narciso (d1f714)

  69. Some random observations formed in 15 years of internet discourse:

    1. Use of the word Treason trashes any blog conversation, unless your are talking about Benedict Arnold on a history blog;

    2. It’s always fun to own somebody or shred them, when they have said something particularly absurd. But they will return the favor with interest, so maybe just don’t. But, sometimes, if they are just poisonous, go ahead make fun, because they just might go away, or be so insane, they just get themselves banned.

    3. There are always trolls, and there are others you will not ever be able to have a productive conversation with (even if they aren’t trolls by definition). Recognize it, and let it go.

    4. This moderator does use his ban button. I think it keeps things under control, so be glad.

    5. We are all real people here, and even have feelings. If you are about to say something that would get you punched in the face in real life, don’t say it.

    Appalled (c9622b)

  70. The hacker syndicate which transliterates to ‘Humpty Dumpty’searfished the data of a private party, which had sequestered info subpoenaed and wanted by various anticorruption organizations.

    narciso (d1f714)

  71. I brought up Trump’s latest attempt to whitewash Putin here because it is a breaking news event, and it fits here more than in any other thread from the past day or so.

    Patrick’s original post says:

    [Harris] also makes the point elsewhere that Donald Trump, together with any followers of his who excuse his rampant lying, is also helping to destroy civil conversation by removing the concept of truth from the tools of meaningful discourse.

    Quod erat demonstrandum. Trump’s on-going attempts to replace the truth about Russia and the election with self-serving fiction, and the immediate, ludicrous attempts to defend his indefensible statements that we see here, seem to me entirely on-topic.

    Dave (445e97)

  72. Quod erat demonstrandum. Trump’s on-going attempts to replace the truth about Russia and the election with self-serving fiction, and the immediate, ludicrous attempts to defend his indefensible statements that we see here, seem to me entirely on-topic.

    Dave

    This part seems fair to me.

    I also think what Russia has done to our democratic process is indeed a serious attack. It’s fair to call them our enemies. We should be outraged at any effort to deceptively manipulate us with weird bots and paid trolls in our social media. We should make that a line no one wants to cross again.

    But the real issue is that we have reached a point of polarization that Trump’s opponents can’t be alienated further and his supporters can’t be reached with facts. He will term out or be replaced in the next election, but the long term damage to our country is difficult to comprehend. I really do think the inability of our nation to have a reasoned discussion about anything is a more important problem than even Supreme Court nominations.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  73. Quod erat demonstrandum

    Eh? That’s quite the jump. You’re not a mathematician. Please don’t use that phrase. You’ll hurt yourself. However if you simply must, please reference the more concise QED. Pretentiousness adds zero value to a proof.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  74. When did congress become the argument clinic

    https://mobile.twitter.com/alimhaider/status/1012365660117037056?p=v

    narciso (d1f714)

  75. But the real issue is that we have reached a point of polarization that Trump’s opponents can’t be alienated further and his supporters can’t be reached with facts.

    When opponents are neatly relegated to fact deniers, “reasoned discussion” becomes a fool’s errand, doesn’t it?

    random viking (6a54c2)

  76. He will term out or be replaced in the next election, but the long term damage to our country is difficult to comprehend. I really do think the inability of our nation to have a reasoned discussion about anything is a more important problem than even Supreme Court nominations.

    Yes.

    Jonah Goldberg and others predicted this outcome during primary season – that Trump’s dishonesty and degeneracy would attaint a lot of good people by seducing them into rationalizing and defending it. And so it has proven.

    Dave (445e97)

  77. Eh? That’s quite the jump. You’re not a mathematician. Please don’t use that phrase. You’ll hurt yourself. However if you simply must, please reference the more concise QED. Pretentiousness adds zero value to a proof.

    But telling others what words they can and can’t use isn’t pretentious at all, right?

    Oh, and I teach graduate-level mathematics courses, so there’s that, too.. :)

    Dave (445e97)

  78. this helps you understand how to make sliders at white castle

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  79. 7 — Steveg has it exactly right IMO. It’s the gratuitous slaps — where none is really necessary to the point being made — that gives rise to the incivility in response.

    You say those who support Trump’s actions in office “excuse his rampant lying”.

    No I do not.

    Or do you not equate “followers” with those — like me — who support his actions in office?

    That’s a distinction that’s not obvious in the language you have chosen to employ.

    Fortunately, the language I have chosen to employ exists in the post above, and it bears no resemblance to your characterization. Let’s read it together. I’ll bold the relevant part.

    He also makes the point elsewhere that Donald Trump, together with any followers of his who excuse his rampant lying, is also helping to destroy civil conversation by removing the concept of truth from the tools of meaningful discourse.

    The import is clear from the words chosen and the punctuation: I am limiting my comment to apply only to followers who excuse his rampant lying. Any followers who do not excuse his rampant lying are not included in the group I am criticizing here.

    I chose my language carefully, for the specific purpose of excluding the incorrect interpretation that you have unfairly and unreasonably foisted on me.

    How any fair-minded person could possibly take the language I actually employed, and transmogrify it into an accusation that I leveled this accusation at all Trump supporters, is truly beyond me.

    I don’t know if your bad and unfair misreading is deliberate or merely sloppy and careless. But even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and call it merely careless, this is only the latest in what I believe is a pattern of your taking what I actually say, and twisting it into something unrecognizable. And even a careless and non-deliberate pattern like this, if consistent enough, makes civil conversation prohibitively difficult. Nobody wants to spend their limited time on this earth explaining again and again to the same person a variation of the phrase “that’s not what I said.”

    This is why I have concluded that civil conversation with you, shipwreckedcrew, is not really worth the effort any more. You have valid points from time to time, but the volume of unfair recharacterization of my points is simply too overwhelming to make it worth the time, effort, and annoyance involved in constantly correcting you.

    I want civil conversation badly. That’s what my post is about. But I simply can’t waste great chunks of my time correcting misstatements of things I said.

    Patterico (31088f)

  80. I think one of the ways we get in trouble is when we have a little fun and add a flourish. Its your post so I’m going to take a slice for illustration purposes only. “rampant lies” Its my opinion that arguments get started over words like rampant, not over the word lies. We all know politicians lie, you feel Trump lies more than even that low bar standard, so you use the word rampant.

    It’s not just that I “feel Trump lies” more than other politicians, which I think he objectively does. As Sam Harris says in the same podcast (and others), what distinguishes Trump is not just the depth and breadth of his lies (which is admittedly singular) but the brazen way in which he says things that are demonstrably untrue and doesn’t seem to care.

    I am paraphrasing Harris here from memory, but even if we concede that all politicians lie to some degree, they usually at least try to appear truthful, and seem to treat the concept of truth as a meaningful one. Trump just seems to say literally whatever he likes, and the actual truth be damned.

    But the fact that someone Iike this exists is not what is truly distressing. What is truly distressing is to see large groups of people refuse to condemn this disregard for truth, or worse, to applaud it.

    Patterico (31088f)

  81. I expected Dustin to get it completely wrong. I didn’t expect him to take so long to do so.

    Why is it so tough to figure out what Bored Laywer asserted? You guys are a smart group. There is no need to keep debating an answer to a different question. Unless it is on purpose. Is it on purpose?

    In this civilized conversation thread can we do everyone the service of staying focused on exactly what Bored Lawyer asserted and proving it true or false? It seems simple enough.

    BuDuh (d8c408)

  82. When opponents are neatly relegated to fact deniers, “reasoned discussion” becomes a fool’s errand, doesn’t it?

    random viking

    It is one thing to argue that you don’t agree.

    It’s another to simply shout over and over that an actual quote of Trump is ‘hearsay’ and the quotes of Trump saying what he said are “failures”, peppering those lies with personal attacks intended to trigger ugliness, all 100% to deflect from a conversation that makes your president look bad.

    But let me meet you halfway.

    Suppose you’re trying to make the point that Trump has been successful with his judicial appointments, by the very standards of his conservative critics. And all you get in response is insults about Trump’s poor personal character and his supporters as fans of poor character. All factions, all groups, can become dominated by these sorts of deflections. Because they are ‘louder’ than boring facts, it takes an active effort to avoid responding in kind. It’s an ugly cycle and obviously it’s not just Trump fans who are guilty. I do think President Trump in particular is very obnoxious in his personal attacks, and I think this has led the way as far as this problem goes.

    But yes, it’s a fool’s errand to respond to people who do not want a reasoned discussion with you. We all, no blame intended here, need to stop that fool’s errand and focus on the conversations that aren’t fool’s errands.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  83. Oh, and I teach graduate-level mathematics courses, so there’s that, too

    My apologies for an assumption. Assuming you’re not Hoagieing me. Curios what courses? We’re looking for a good doctorate level person for a machine learning application. Any advice on how to interview one? Also curious what one should expect to cost us.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  84. If any American mother had done what the Honduran mother did “for economic purposes” (your words) she would be in jail separated from her child.

    Actually, no. Taking your kid across a desert is not ipso facto child abuse.
    Elian’s mother died.

    Which proves the trip was dangerous. But does not answer whether she was also a kidnapper and child abuser.

    Narciso’s belief that a Cuban not wanting to leave Cuba should be stripped of all their rights as a parent is noted.

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  85. Out of curiosity, who lied, where and how? I fear I often don’t bother to read all the “he said”, “she said” about what wassname the other guy said, back and forth arguments, often non-responsive to the issue, so I missed it.

    It would have been better to say people “said false things about me.”

    If you really need chapter and verse on that, you’re not paying attention, but three recent examples spring to mind off the top of my head: “Hi” just today saying I said “people voting for trump have no principles”; random viking claiming I was “hunky dory” with Bush’s hypocrisy on nation building; and swc mischaracterizing my post in this very thread. This happens a lot.

    I’m curious because you seem rather more thin skinned about things Trumpish than before the Trump monster arose from his sea-bed ooze.

    Another thing Sam Harris has said is that defending yourself against unfair attacks is somehow always a bad look to a significant portion of the audience.

    To the extent that the audience does this for you, it eases the burden. Had someone else said to swc above, for example: “Wait a second, bub! That’s not what Patterico says at all!” I would have been relieved of the burden of doing it myself. That would be nice because (again) it’s a bad look to do it myself even when I am 100% right, it takes time, and it is frustrating.

    Patterico (31088f)

  86. @83: I agree. I acknowledge there are those on Trump’s side who foster ugliness. We should also acknowledge there is ugliness on the other side. If we both want reasoned discussion, perhaps a good place to start is to call out that ugliness when our side is doing it, and when individual commenters on our side are doing it.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  87. Its the vekakte Cuban constitution, now I know couric and brokaw were too self absorbed to find that out, the same way with the soviet’s the east germans

    narciso (d1f714)

  88. Yes and we had an uncle to died fleeing that workers paradise and another who was betrayed by dulles and Kennedy, on giron beach trying to liberate it.

    narciso (d1f714)

  89. Now it wee nick miroffs stepfather, who trained terrorists like William Ayres, and it was mark felts attempts to atop them that got him in trouble.

    narciso (d1f714)

  90. I agree that some person on my side, use unnecessary invective,

    narciso (d1f714)

  91. “all we have is conversation.”

    Said Edgar to Charlie…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epf71yQQAvs

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  92. Bu Duh,

    I have no idea what you’re rambling about, except that I apparently occupy a very very large part of your mind. I think you’re trying to say that everyone discussing Trump’s Muslim Ban must do it on your terms. No.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  93. . I acknowledge there are those on Trump’s side who foster ugliness. We should also acknowledge there is ugliness on the other side. If we both want reasoned discussion, perhaps a good place to start is to call out that ugliness when our side is doing it, and when individual commenters on our side are doing it.

    random viking (6a54c2) — 6/28/2018 @ 12:24 pm

    Good points!

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  94. I think you’re trying to say that everyone discussing Trump’s Muslim Ban must do it on your terms.

    Wrong.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  95. @77. Given his job, his diet, increasingly televised bulk and his age, won’t be surprised to awaken some morning to learn he is found face down in warm, gooey slice of chocolate cream pie w/two scoops of vanilla melting by each ear.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  96. Actually, no. Taking your kid across a desert is not ipso facto child abuse.

    Not being a lawyer, I can’t comment on whether it’s a slam dunk abuse case if you take your child on that long a journey in those conditions without the father’s permission. Being a father, I know where I would fall on that. The kidnap charge would be slam dunk for an American, and separation would be immediate.

    If I were Elian’s father, my view would be no different. Though, the political scenario (Cuba vs. Honduras) is not the same, as noted.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  97. No, but they should have the actual facts on their side.

    Narciso (0072e1)

  98. My apologies for an assumption. Assuming you’re not Hoagieing me. Curios what courses? We’re looking for a good doctorate level person for a machine learning application. Any advice on how to interview one? Also curious what one should expect to cost us.

    “Mathematical Physics” is the course I was referring to. It’s kind of a melange of math required in the (real) physics courses: complex analysis, residue theorem, Sturm-Liouville theory, Greens functions, boundary value problems, calculus of variations, etc. The math department courses are too narrow (you’d need to take several to hit all those topics) and too formal (it’s good to understand why something works but we are mainly interested in using the math to physics).

    Machine-learning I know more from my research than from the classroom. An experimental physics post-doc would probably start at around $50-55k these days. I imagine someone going into the private sector might expect considerably more.

    The way we “interview” is to have the candidate give a 1 hour seminar on their recent work, with questions at the end ( and often throughout…) Then there would be informal one-on-ones where the candidate can be questioned about the future work. If the job involves significant organization or management, we would also ask them to do a chalk-talk explaining their vision for setting up the project, milestones, etc

    Hope this helps…

    Dave (59a371)

  99. @77. Given his job, his diet, increasingly televised bulk and his age, won’t be surprised to awaken some morning to learn he is found face down in warm, gooey slice of chocolate cream pie w/two scoops of vanilla melting by each ear.

    summer bummer womp womp

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  100. I wonder if strzok was deployed in Iraq or Somalia, any of the other hotspots where we abandoned the Kurds and other people’s in the early 90s

    Narciso (0072e1)

  101. Up until april 19 1775 we had civil discourse with great britian. at lexington green it was decided differently. Up until the firing on fort sumter we had civil discourse on the supreme courts deed scott decision. Up untl dec. 7 1941 we had civil discourse oil embargo of japan. Some times civil discourse fails and as the rolling stones sing the time is right for fighting in the streets! with reasonable people be reasonable ;but with unreasonable people you have to be unreasonable. The democrats just nominated a communist in n.y. d.14 their tired of being reasonable.

    wendell (82bec0)

  102. holy butt-wrinkles batman wtf is wrong with the goddamn catholic church

    “It is disappointing that today’s Supreme Court ruling renders the long-held view of so many bishops constitutionally out-of-bounds, and threatens to ‘limit the freedom or negotiating capacity of labor unions,'” said Bishop Frank J. Dewane of Venice, Florida, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, in a June 27 statement. Bishop Dewane quoted from Pope Benedict XVI’s 2009 encyclical “Caritas in Veritate” (“Charity in Truth”).

    “By reading the First Amendment to invalidate agency-fee provisions in public-sector collective bargaining agreements, the court has determined — nationwide, and almost irrevocably — that all government workplaces shall be ‘right-to-work,'” Bishop Dewane noted.

    this is so over-the-top obnoxious i can’t even process this

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  103. @77. Given his job, his diet, increasingly televised bulk and his age, won’t be surprised to awaken some morning to learn he is found face down in warm, gooey slice of chocolate cream pie w/two scoops of vanilla melting by each ear.

    summer bummer womp womp

    happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/28/2018 @ 1:30 pm

    Note to Patterico: when that day comes, put me on moderation…

    :)

    Dave (59a371)

  104. Patrick at #81 – you are correct. Your words were more carefully selected that I appreciated when I first read the post, as your clarification makes obvious. So I apologize for the mid-chacterization I applied to it. I’ll rejoin the debate later when I’m not limited to my phone l, but I wanted to get this acknowledgement in here without waiting.

    Shipwreckedcrew (3f0cd2)

  105. wtf is wrong with the goddamn catholic church this Bishop

    Fify

    felipe (023cc9)

  106. “The decision also primes the pump to further exacerbate income and wealth disparity in our nation. Income and wealth inequality is at the very heart of anguish and division in our society,” Sister Campbell added. “This is not what our democracy should be about. ‘We the People’ are better than this.”

    that is one dumbass nun

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  107. Note to Patterico: when that day comes, put me on moderation…

    :)

    Dave

    Only time I ever got moderated at this blog was when Ted Kennedy died, and DRJ was a major contributor. She justifiably needed to shut down my ugly comments about some of Ted’s mistakes. To think that was ten years ago.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  108. Mr. felipe they Pope Benedict all up in it

    they need to focus on church business like putting out cookbooks and doing pancake suppers for parishioners what lost everything in a fire and stuff like that

    i can’t even handle that there’s a “Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development”

    this is messed up and it’s very anti-America

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  109. that is one dumbass [lefty] nun
    happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/28/2018 @ 1:48 pm

    fify again.

    felipe (023cc9)

  110. @ Dave 99, Thx. Sounds like a different domain of math than what we need. FWIU AI is more Linear Algebra, Multivariate Calculus, etc., probably more statistics oriented than what most physics requires. I studied some of this stuff 30 years ago but never had a need for…until now. Not that I need it completely. Just be able to follow it/tweek it, which I think I still can. Man I used to be able to transform Laplace’s like nobody’s bidness. Now…meh. I think I can still do the linear stuff though. If/when need be.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  111. R.I.P. Harlan Ellison

    Icy (c88d27)

  112. happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/28/2018 @ 1:51 pm

    Well, just as you have a right/left spectrum in politics, there is a right/left spectrum in religion. You are falling victim to the bias in reporting, once again. Not that they are misrepresenting what that Bishop/nun said, but in picking those liberal persons voices to amplify, and by effect, mute the conservative religious voices.

    felipe (023cc9)

  113. The Vatican has rebuked Simone Campbell for her “radical feminist views” including her support for abortion rights

    this is not even

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  114. You are falling victim to the bias in reporting, once again.

    you’re right the article is completely one-sided

    i wondered about that

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  115. ‘A little less conversation; a little more action…’

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWVMXLSS1cA

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  116. happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/28/2018 @ 1:57 pm

    Yes, she is a piece of work. Still, Jesus loves her in spite of her willful errors, just as He loves me in spite of my willful errors.

    felipe (023cc9)

  117. Breaking- Maryland mass shooting: five dead, multiple injuries at Annapolis newspaper…

    Trumpbo: First Blood?!?!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  118. That is a pretty ugly comment, DCSCA.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  119. @119. ‘Rally,’ Buduh? Chanting doesn’t fall on deaf ears. Ugly times.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  120. Mr. Feet, have you heard about this one? Fried Rice Syndrome.

    Bacillus cereus is a bacteria often found in food that has sat at room temperature for an extended period of time. It is often found in fried rice, hence the nickname “Fried Rice Syndrome.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/28/texas-woman-sues-restaurant-for-1-million-after-contracting-fried-rice-syndrome/

    It does sound like the woman is exaggerating her claims, but still, doesn’t seem like a good situation.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  121. I think Hannity is way jumping the gun on this. We don’t even know the shooter’s name.

    Paul Montagu (00b59c)

  122. He also makes the point elsewhere that Donald Trump, together with any followers of his who excuse his rampant lying, is also helping to destroy civil conversation by removing the concept of truth from the tools of meaningful discourse.

    Is it only followers of Trump who engage in this destruction of civil discourse with their support of dishonesty? Could it be, might it be, is it even possible, that some of the detractors of our wonderful President are less than 100% virtuous when it comes to civil discourse?

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  123. @122. Meh. See #118. He’s carrying water for our Captain to put out a fire in the ammo locker fast; Trump’s Gunga Din.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  124. It just seemed pretty heartless, DCSCA. Maybe I find the shooting to be a little more tragic than you do.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  125. R.I.P. Harlan Ellison

    Like the Eternal Man of Babylonian legend, like Gilgamesh, one thousand plus two hundred years stretches before Trent. Without love. Without friendship. Alone; neither man nor machine, Waiting. Waiting for the day he will be called to free the humans who gave him mobility. Movement, but not life.”

    https://youtu.be/QXQ0KhTM3Ps

    harkin (b63958)

  126. @125. Doubt it. If you’ve ever worked in a newsroom- and I have- they’re open areas w/waist-high wall cubicles for fast and free exchange. Those journalists and support staffers were sitting ducks.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  127. FWIU AI is more Linear Algebra, Multivariate Calculus, etc., probably more statistics oriented than what most physics requires.

    Experimental physics relies very heavily on statistics. The experiment I work on generates data at a rate that would fill 100,000 CDs per second. Of that, we “only” record enough to fill 27 CDs per minute (3200 Terabytes per year). Big Data R Us!

    We (meaning my colleagues in general) use boosted decision trees, neural nets, support vector machines, you name it – basically whatever works. But in the department, we haven’t created a physics course on those subjects specifically (arguably we should). As I say, people tend to learn it in lab, rather than the classroom.

    I studied some of this stuff 30 years ago but never had a need for…until now. Not that I need it completely. Just be able to follow it/tweek it, which I think I still can.

    While ML is often incredibly powerful, to adapt an old joke that people used to tell about object-oriented programming:

    Machine-learning is like sex in high-school:

    1) Almost everyone is talking about it
    2) Almost no one is actually doing it
    3) Most of those who *are* doing it are doing it badly

    There is a very good and easy to use python library called scikit-learn that has an implementation of just about every major mainstream machine-learning technique. The documentation is pretty thorough, and even if you’ve never used python before, it’s very easy to pick up.

    O’Reilly has a lot of books on the subject too (Patterico-friendly Amazon link!)

    Introduction to Machine Learning with Python: A Guide for Data Scientists (at that link) is one that I have, and can recommend.

    Dave (445e97)

  128. We should severly limit Muslim immigration to the US. The unchecked Muslim inundation of Europe has resulted in everuday open violence directed mostly at against Jews but also at indigenous infidels, rape and gang rape, murder, and the mass murder characteristic of bloodthirsty Islamic terrorism, along with calls for Sharia law, the enforcement of nogo zones, and the steady erosion of the most fundamental values and institutions supporting Western Civilization.

    You want to discuss differences with opponents? Talk to a jihadi with a knife in his hand while you kneel in an orange jumpsuit waiting for him to demonstrate his commitment to substantive discourse.

    ropelight (7bb9e5)

  129. I love fried rice, but not the stuff at the buffet. The poor and the cheap are better off making fried rice at home.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  130. I’m not sure what cubicle height has to do with “Trumpbo: First blood,” but if that helps you live with such a comment while the bodies are still warm then run with it.

    I find it to be in really poor taste.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  131. @131. I find it to be in really poor taste.

    Most Trump rallies full of chanting droids are. Waterboy Hannity certainly figured it out PDQ and tossed out a diversion, coast-to-coast.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  132. yes yes i know you need to get the rice to the fridge really quick but i limit rice cooking to one cup at a time anyway so that helps a lot i think

    hey look is this a news?

    Mediaite Welcomes Former Red State Managing Editor Caleb Howe

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  133. I see. Trump couldn’t restrain you from making an insensitive remark. His fault.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  134. We should severly limit Muslim immigration to the US. The unchecked Muslim inundation of Europe has resulted in everuday open violence directed mostly at against Jews but also at indigenous infidels, rape and gang rape, murder, and the mass murder characteristic of bloodthirsty Islamic terrorism, along with calls for Sharia law, the enforcement of nogo zones, and the steady erosion of the most fundamental values and institutions supporting Western Civilization.

    You want to discuss differences with opponents? Talk to a jihadi with a knife in his hand while you kneel in an orange jumpsuit waiting for him to demonstrate his commitment to substantive discourse.

    ropelight (7bb9e5) — 6/28/2018 @ 2:38 pm

    Maybe you could ease up a bit?

    Nothing wrong with having a conversation about Islamic terrorism and its impact on immigration policies. Our constitution does not permit infringing on religion, but you are really trying to talk about values and violence. I think common sense can prevail here.

    But those denying such a Muslim ban was called for by President Trump, and crying ‘hearsay’ when people can’t site his website (because Trump deleted that) is counterproductive. We all recall an argument much like yours being part of the presidential election.

    Buduh apparently had some kind of denial campaign about this issue (hard to pay attention to that one), but DRJ’s right: the Muslim Ban was part of Trump’s agenda and platform.

    Talk to a jihadi with a knife in his hand while you kneel in an orange jumpsuit

    There is a middle ground, a more reasonable point, in between eradicating a religious view from immigration entirely, and surrendering to beheading from ISIS. It’s a strawman for me to say all Trump fans want a Muslim ban. It’s a strawman for you to say discussing differences amounts to ‘talking to a jihadi with a knife.’ We’re on an internet discussion forum and there’s no harm in talking about the issues.

    Efforts to shut that down and announce a victory for the best smack talk are boring.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  135. Machine-learning is like sex in high-school:

    1) Almost everyone is talking about it
    2) Almost no one is actually doing it
    3) Most of those who *are* doing it are doing it badly

    ML is being used in just about everything you do on your smartphone. Unfortunately, it is being done quite well.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  136. 134.Trump couldn’t restrain Hannity from making an insensitive remark. His fault. Now you see.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  137. I think Obama was the most lying President since Clinton. Look no further than the Obama care lies.
    Plus in a departure from common sense, his administration went on the road and bragged about the lies.
    (Some say Bush lied to get us into Iraq, but I think its been proven that multiple intel agencies around the world were wrong, plus Saddam was an idiot who coyly pretended to maybe have WMD’s.)

    Presidents are politicians and ALL politicians lie, so I might bristle if you call me a liar on a given subject, but when people honk the horn on Trump as a “liar” its a *yawn*. Water’s wet too.
    I’m willing to hear you out, but calling Trump a liar for his saying he will make a donation to so and so but lied because some Trump enterprise that needed a tax write off donated instead is weak sauce. Also it is boring to read about campaign promises yet unfulfilled after 18 months on the job as lies… I want Obamacare level lies to get exercised over, I want to know where my $5000 savings is and what the hell happened to my doctor. The bar was been set pretty high by the outgoing President.
    (Please don’t flood me right now with 90 times Trump lied worse than Obama.. there will be plenty of time in coming years)

    steveg (a9dcab)

  138. Buduh apparently had some kind of denial campaign about this issue (hard to pay attention to that one), but DRJ’s right: the Muslim Ban was part of Trump’s agenda and platform.

    She is right about the wrong question. My question remains unanswered. Here it is again.

    [Bored Lawyer]Then Trump brags to his base that he enacted a “Muslim ban” when he did no such thing.

    Where do I find quotes of him doing this?

    BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/26/2018 @ 10:46 am

    There has not been one shred of anything, hearsay included, that validates exactly what Bored Lawyer asserted. There has been a lot of people answering their own questions, but nobody answering mine.

    Bored Lawyer cites a specific event and includes a parameter to base a time line off of. What Bored Lawyer said happened he says it happened after Trump “enactment” of it. So we know it was post inauguration because Trump couldn’t have enacted anything prior to that moment in time.

    Did Bored Lawyer accurately represent an actual event?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  139. “Maybe you could ease up a bit?

    Maybe Muslims could ease up a bit.

    List Of Islamic Terror Attack’s – Last 30 Days

    https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=Last30

    harkin (b63958)

  140. I saw your comment get posted before any comment regarding Hannity, DCSCA.

    If you want to blame him after the fact, go ahead. You said what you said.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  141. ropelight

    I don’t look good in orange, once my head is severed my complexion won’t wash out so bad.

    If I travel to the Middle East, I will pack my own jumpsuit. Maybe a fabulous british racing green with periwinkle lapels.

    steveg (a9dcab)

  142. @141. Wise up:

    NBC’s Katy Tur Had to be Protected by Secret Service after Donald Trump Attacked Her

    NBC News’ Katy Tur had to be protected by the Secret Service after Donald Trump called her out, pointing his finger at her and “launching a personal attack as millions of Americans watched at home.” “What a lie it was,” Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said, referring to her claim that he had left the stage abruptly at another rally. “What a lie. Katy Tur. What a lie it was. Third. Rate. Reporter. Remember that.”

    http://www.politicsusa.com/2016/08/11/nbc.html

    Acosta heckled; journalists routinely ridiculed, harassed, threatened– simly for doing their jobs. Putin cuts out the middle man and just murders them. Per the CPJ, 29 journalists have been killed in 2018 – so far.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  143. I see. I need to wise up because your poor taste rhetoric over recently murdered individuals that is induced by your reactions to other events. How about I take the time to pray for the individuals affected by this tragedy. That will be more beneficial than getting wise to your moral compass.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  144. 144.I see. I need to wise up…

    Yep.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  145. I think I will take a break from this odd compassionless reaction I’m seeing here.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  146. Maybe Muslims could ease up a bit.

    Well, unfortunately the world is full of bad guys. You could just dismiss all discussion with Americans about what America should do about by citing that the world is full of bad guys, but this would just come across as a deflection.

    I’m still waiting for Trump’s fans to admit that Trump did indeed call for a Muslim Ban and then delete that platform from his website while his fans insisted that never happened. I have seen you guys try really really hard to change the subject for some reason. Perhaps it would be easier to admit Trump did indeed make yet another promise he simply cannot deliver, so we can talk about why a “Muslim Ban” is a ridiculous promise, unlawful, and then we can talk about what kind of immigration effort might be lawful and also help us with your fear of being beheaded or whatever.

    Just sayin’

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  147. The fact that the current administration has decided to pretend the attack did not take place does not change the fact that it did (hence my Pearl Harbor analogy). Also note that in the case of Pearl Harbor, the real FDR believed the attack itself created a state of war:

    I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack […] a state of war has existed

    Dave (445e97) — 6/28/2018 @ 11:17 am

    The previous administration did that. The DNC refused to allow their servers to be analyzed. The FBI destroyed all Hillary’s equipment, and the Russians spent pennies on the dollar on Facebook junk.

    Still waiting for Obama’s espionage trial for trying to overthrow Israel’s election.

    NJRob (af6cf9)

  148. I was talking about something else. Trump did indeed call for a Muslim ban. After many hours of debate in another thread, you guys brought it here. DRJ again pointed out that Trump simply deleted the Muslim Ban statement, and his own statement is not hearsay. I quoted Trump and provided a link to a video about it. I explained how remarkable I find it that Trump’s supporters pretend this statement never happened, when I’m sure they remember it clearly.

    These days, a lot of fringe guys will simply refuse to admit they were wrong, even when faced with piles of evidence. They will instead demand that’s no longer what the real issue is. No.

    Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/28/2018 @ 11:24 am

    I did no such thing.

    NJRob (af6cf9)

  149. 82.I expected Dustin to get it completely wrong. I didn’t expect him to take so long to do so.

    Why is it so tough to figure out what Bored Laywer asserted? You guys are a smart group. There is no need to keep debating an answer to a different question. Unless it is on purpose. Is it on purpose?

    In this civilized conversation thread can we do everyone the service of staying focused on exactly what Bored Lawyer asserted and proving it true or false? It seems simple enough.
    BuDuh (d8c408) — 6/28/2018 @ 12:14 pm

    It would be helpful if you would point out, specifically, what it is that you think people are getting wrong.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  150. See 139, DRJ.

    BuDuh (525904)

  151. so the policy, which I thought was quite modest, worked off the 2016 omnibus bill, Indonesia which is the largest muslim majority country, was discounted, as was Nigeria, of all of the north African belt, only Libya was included, Syria because of the long standing civil war, yemen, for preexisting
    strife as well as the Houthi conflict, Iraq, for similar reasons to Syria, Somalia for al Shabab, I’m sure I’m leaving some out, yet it was considered outrage eleventy, even from the same staffers that had established the classifications,

    narciso (d1f714)

  152. I just saw it.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  153. I did no such thing.

    NJRob (af6cf9) — 6/28/2018 @ 3:36 pm

    OK, I’ll take you at your word. But I was not talking about Dave’s use of the word “treason,” which I believe he’s moderated anyway. I was talking about a very specific issue regarding Trump’s hiding his previous promises on a Muslim Ban. Your response seemed like changing the subject to me.

    I used to play along with that stuff, answering everyone’s questions and repeating mine, only to get a new set. Over time I’ve observed that the people making these ever-changing demands will never respond to a point they don’t like. They will continue changing the subject forever, as a form of internet filibuster or something. It’s tiresome.

    Do you agree that Trump offered a Muslim Ban and deleted it from his website? If this isn’t what you wanted to talk about, might I ask why you quoted my comment about it and asked about something unrelated?

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  154. “Well, unfortunately the world is full of bad guys. You could just dismiss all discussion with Americans about what America should do about by citing that the world is full of bad guys, but this would just come across as a deflection.

    Feel free to link to a similar list of current and constant terror attacks in the world full of bad guys committed by adherents to faiths other than Islam.

    Or just keep talking about bad guys and ignore specific pathologies.

    harkin (b63958)

  155. so artan, in colombus was somali, Mateen in Orlando was afghan, yemen gave us awlaki, among others, sudan has among them a fmr gitmo detainee in aqap, Syria has provided it’s fair share of insurgents as has Iraq, it’s of course not a comprehensive list by any means,

    narciso (d1f714)

  156. A Dozen Times Trump Equated his Travel Ban with a Muslim Ban

    https://www.cato.org/blog/dozen-times-trump-equated-travel-ban-muslim-ban

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  157. so the policy, which I thought was quite modest, worked off the 2016 omnibus bill, Indonesia which is the largest muslim majority country, was discounted, as was Nigeria, of all of the north African belt, only Libya was included, Syria because of the long standing civil war, yemen, for preexisting
    strife as well as the Houthi conflict, Iraq, for similar reasons to Syria, Somalia for al Shabab, I’m sure I’m leaving some out, yet it was considered outrage eleventy, even from the same staffers that had established the classifications,

    narciso

    Words matter. If Trump wanted to enact a policy where we restricted immigration from nations that have exported violence and terrorism, that would seem sensible and justifiable. Calling for a ban on a religion is not sensible or lawful, but it got Trump a lot of cheers because the other politicians didn’t seem to make the same sorts of promises.

    Turns out the difference wasn’t the policy, but rather was the bluster and honesty of the promise. Trump was not restrained by making a promise he could keep. He never actually banned Muslims. And now, the defense were seeing about his conduct on this policy is all over the map. Politicians taking notes will make less honest promises in the future, with less respect for the constitution.

    Sure, to someone who hates Muslims, that doesn’t seem so bad today when we’re talking about a Muslim ban. But the problem is obvious.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  158. “Acosta heckled”

    He truly deserves a medal.

    Turn on any late night show and watch the moonbats give 5,000% more laced with profanity and with numerous Nazi references.

    harkin (b63958)

  159. I think the strategy in coordination with the uae Jordan and the kingdom under prince salman, against Qatar which has become the sanctuary for the Taliban, and Hamas, funder for Ansar al sharia, whose Libyan branch was captured last week,

    narciso (d1f714)

  160. Then Trump brags to his base that he enacted a “Muslim ban” when he did no such thing.

    I think Trump’s first travel ban was announced January 27, 2017:

    One week after taking office, president Donald Trump signs the executive order forbidding citizens from seven Muslim countries including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen from entering the country for 90 days. Syrian refugees were suspended from entering indefinitely and refugees were also prohibited from entering the country for 120 days.

    And this is what Trump said about the travel ban that day, and Guiliani said the following day:

    Jan. 27, 2017

    Trump before signing the first travel ban during a ceremony at the Pentagon:

    “This is the ‘Protection of the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.’ We all know what that means.

    Jan. 28, 2017

    Trump adviser and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani speaking on Fox News, when asked how Trump selected the seven countries targeted in the first ban:

    “So when he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, “Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’ What we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”

    DRJ (46c88f)

  161. Feel free to link to a similar list of current and constant terror attacks in the world full of bad guys committed by adherents to faiths other than Islam.

    There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?

    *

    Dave (445e97)

  162. 5. 6.

    People get hung up on Donald Trump a lot but I think he’s been really good and he hasn’t deceived me one time my whole life that I can think of.

    Is tghat because you know when he’s lying?

    Unlike,you say, John McCain:

    6.John McCain on the other hand, I really believed him when he said he was opposed to obamacare.

    He never voted for it!

    I remember, in the 2008 election, Barack Obama had him rattled during a Presidential debate, because McCain didn’t understand his own health care plan.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  163. so artan, in colombus was somali, Mateen in Orlando was afghan, yemen gave us awlaki

    It’s not that simple. Yes, Artan was a Somali-born refugee, but Mateen was born on Long Island, was an American citizen. Al Awlaki was born in New Mexico, was an American citizen. One-half of the San Bernardino shooters, Farook, was born in Chicago and was an American citizen. Nidal Hasan was born in Arlington, VA, was an American. None of those emigrated from someplace else, and they were all radicalized on American soil as natural born Americans. Yes, let’s properly vet individuals from Muslim-majority countries but a wholesale Muslim ban is not the way to go. We’re fighting an ideology, militant Islamism (which can be home-brewed as easily as imported), not a religion.

    Paul Montagu (00b59c)

  164. Dustin, at 73 — I agree, and unfortunately both sides are reacting to each other in ways that make the situation worse.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  165. The killer in Annapolis is refusing to even give his name (the Supreme Court I think has ruled that the 5th amendment does not apply to that question, so they keep on asking him) and he even cut off his fingerprints.

    They have tentatively identified him through facial recoognition software, but the name has not been leaked or released. It;s 2018,after all, and those tactics for concealing identity are more like 2011.

    Other than that they know he is a white male in his 20s with long hair.

    They are also hoping to find some kind of computer or phone or other electronic record if they can identify him.

    At first they said 4 people were killed later 4.The number of wounded has gone down from maybe 20 to 4 but the number 4 may be a subset of people not hurt by gunfire.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  166. MilitantN Islam is imported, although its adherents may not be,

    This new killer doesn’t seem to want anyone to know why he did it.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  167. Feel free to link to a similar list of current and constant terror attacks in the world full of bad guys committed by adherents to faiths other than Islam.

    Or just keep talking about bad guys and ignore specific pathologies.

    harkin

    You continue down this path of pretending we’re arguing about how dangerous Islam is. We aren’t. Perhaps you are saying the people talking about Trump’s dishonest portrayal of his Muslim ban are just soft on Muslims? I don’t think that’s the case at all. In reality you are simply trying really hard to change the subject, over and over and over and over.

    But no, we aren’t even in disagreement on this particular issue. I just don’t feel like playing along with the change of subject. Can you admit that Trump did indeed call for a Muslim Ban, and then he did delete this from his campaign platform? If so, we can then talk about how dangerous and scary the Muslims are.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  168. Do you like your pianists in Hercules Cosplay Regalia?

    If not, shut your eyes Croatian Rhapsody

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  169. I dunno, I suppose a political motive is possible, but if you want to make a statement, why would you go for a small local newspaper when target-rich Washington, full of high-profile, Trump-approved “enemies of the people”, is only a half-hour drive away?

    I guess psychopathic mass murderers don’t always think things through…

    Dave (445e97)

  170. Trump did call for a Muslim ban as a candidate but he left himself a big wide opening when he conditioned the ban on “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on”. So, the moment Trump would say “I got it figured out”, ban lifted, and he could be as arbitrary as he pleased. As they say, watch what they do, not what they say. None of the EO’s were Muslim bans because there were 40-plus Muslim-majority countries not covered under the EO’s.

    Paul Montagu (00b59c)

  171. I hope there’s no backlash against long haired white boys in their 20’s. Who will play our Creed covers?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  172. We are generously opening our borders to 49 Muslim countries. You’re welcome.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  173. @160. Turn on any late night show and watch the moonbats give 5,000% more laced with profanity and with numerous Nazi references.

    Entertainers aren’t journalists; as Limbaugh and Hannity will tell you.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  174. There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?

    *

    Dave (445e97) — 6/28/2018 @ 4:23 pm

    You eliminate one population from the statistics and we have a murder rate near Switzerland’s.

    Children of single mothers.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  175. Fatherhood is truly important, PinandPuller.

    None of the EO’s were Muslim bans because there were 40-plus Muslim-majority countries not covered under the EO’s.

    Well also because Trump’s promise was utterly unconstitutional and crazy, intended to get him into office like his many other promises like eliminating ISIS and obamacare in 30 days and balancing the budget while offering a bazillion new services due to ‘such great deals’ bla bla bla.

    It’s not much of a defense that Trump gave us the Jeb Bush immigration approach, far more moderate than he claimed it would be. Had Trump run on this stuff he wouldn’t have been nominated.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  176. Do you agree that Trump offered a Muslim Ban and deleted it from his website? If this isn’t what you wanted to talk about, might I ask why you quoted my comment about it and asked about something unrelated?

    Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/28/2018 @ 3:59 pm

    Sure I do. But he was told he couldn’t do it and he never promised it after he was elected.

    Easy answer.

    NJRob (af6cf9)

  177. Unlike eo1066, which was finally repudiated this week, there were some similarities with the palmer raids that young hoover directed in and around 1920,

    narciso (d1f714)

  178. Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/28/2018 @ 5:10 pm

    I don’t know that it’s going too far to say that Mass Immigration and Mass Shootings are Big Government programs that need to be eliminated.

    But some people need to decide once and for all if they want America interfering in their countries.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  179. There have been three major waves of expeditionary activity, Latin America in the early part of the last century, south Asia in the 60, and the middle east in the 00s

    narciso (d1f714)

  180. Suppose instead of invading Kuwait and kicking out SH we drill baby drilled and drove oil prices down?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  181. But he was told he couldn’t do it and he never promised it after he was elected.

    He learned to talk about it in a different way but he also said We all know what that means. And we do.

    DRJ (15874d)

  182. Dog whistles DRJ?

    NJRob (af6cf9)

  183. @182. Depends on if you see the Glaspie as half empty or half full of it, PP.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  184. Well my pet theory, was just like the Esso spill, encouraged kadaffis move, the Exxon valdez spill almost 20 years later prompted saddams move.

    narciso (d1f714)

  185. Dog whistles DRJ?

    NJRob (af6cf9) — 6/28/2018 @ 5:26 pm

    I don’t understand your comment.

    DRJ (15874d)

  186. yes yes it’s better to drill the oils

    George W. Bush is a stupid violent person who spent money like a drunk and ruined everything

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  187. I don’t know that it’s going too far to say that Mass Immigration and Mass Shootings are Big Government programs that need to be eliminated.

    But some people need to decide once and for all if they want America interfering in their countries.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 6/28/2018 @ 5:18 pm

    I truly do not have a problem with a lot of lawful immigration. I think America is an awesome place and it’s not a matter of smaller slices of awesome if we add people. It’s a matter of enforcing some common sense laws so that we keep America a great place for hard working, law abiding people.

    One of the things we really need is a national language, and that speaking this national language is a requirement to become a citizen. We need to ensure our immigrants follow our laws (including but not just immigration laws) and that they are gainfully employed. I would really prefer some kind of system where those who benefit from our education system remain here (I envision a substantial tax on tuition for non-citizens in our universities that is forgiven or reimbursed after they remain here in professional employment for ten years… if you stay here you wind up paying what our citizens pay).

    I’m not clear on what you mean about mass shootings. I don’t think we’re importing most of that problem, but it sure is a problem. Everything about our schools is so different from when I grew up.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  188. He learned to talk about it in a different way but he also said We all know what that means. And we do.

    Do we?

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4653208/president-trump-signs-travel-ban-executive-order

    You are hearing things.

    That aside, you still haven’t produced anything that backs up what Bored Lawyer said happened.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  189. George W. Bush is a stupid violent person who spent money like a drunk and ruined everything

    happyfeet

    Total expenditures in 2007: $2.729 trillion
    Total expenditures in 2018: $4.094 trillion

    My household expenses did not increase that much since 2007. Yes, Bush 43 did spend far too much money, and Trump made it very clear he would spend so much less than Bush did. And yet the reality is that he spends much more. It’s almost as though Trump lies about everything.

    I do not find Bush to be stupid. I am grateful Bush was president on 9/11 because despite the ensuing wars, a lesser man would have resorted to truly awful reprisals. A lot of the guys cheering a Muslim ban would have loved to see Trump nuke Mecca on 9/12.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  190. Do we?

    Yes, we do. You know and I know and DRJ knows. You just think it’s worthwhile to play dumb for a while, because you do not care about your long term reputation on this website. After a while, you will resort to creating a new handle because you are again ashamed of your dishonest commentary.

    How long have you gone without changing your handle while commenting here? What are your previous names? Is one of them Cruz Supporter? I guess we know the answers to those questions too, generally.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  191. Since you will probably get more specific with my link that you choose to get with Bored Lawyer’s quote I probably should point out that Trump does say what you quoted him saying. Your skewed context is what I don’t hear. I hope that is clear.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  192. Well the alternative was gore, who probably would have surrendered to Al queda after a few more waves. realistically thugh, could we have done much more.

    narciso (d1f714)

  193. Don’t faint on me Dustin. Take some deep breaths.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  194. One of the things we really need is a national language, and that speaking this national language is a requirement to become a citizen.

    Nyet.

    As long as businesses offer the lazy-azzed money making options of -press 1 for English; -press 2 for Spanish; -press 3 for Pig Latin the motivation to assimilate and use the prevalent common language is stifled. ATC’s worldwide all speak English for a reason; they don’t push 1 to land in Japanese, 2 to takeoff in French or 3 to serve lunch in French.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  195. Clinton had significantly reduced our military outlays while committing them to boondoggles like Bosnia and Haiti, while doing the grueling no fly patrols over iraq

    narciso (d1f714)

  196. John Deutsch, because Torricelli was trying to impress bianca jigger, ordered a whole sale purge of intelligence assets. Some that fell through the cracks were the trodpoint and jawbreaker teams

    narciso (d1f714)

  197. Thought and prayers…

    Newspaper shooting survivor tells CNN’s Coop on air: ‘Thanks for your prayers but… I couldn’t give a f–k about ’em.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  198. Oh dear, now I have to work.

    This starts with BuDuh quoting BoredLawyer claiming “Then Trump brags to his base that he enacted a “Muslim ban” when he did no such thing.”

    That’s the issue. Something Trump said after his election. The only time he could have bragged that he “enacted” a Muslim ban was after January 2017. The issue of what he said he wanted to do is not relevant to evidence on whether or not he bragged about a pre-election wish after the election.

    BoredLawyer said he bragged. That had to be after January 2017. BuDuh seeks evidence of that and nobody, not DRJ, not Beldar, not BoredLawyer provide anything but links to statements in 2015 allegedly made by Trump. I don’t know whether he did or didn’t say those things in 2015 because I don’t care. It’s not germane to the issue of whether he bragged about an enactment later.

    DRJ at #56 suggests I look at Trumps web-site and posts a link to something that is not Trump’s website, but rather a website that claims in May 2017 that the Trump website is still saying that Trump wants “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Double hearsay and still no direct or even one stop hearsay that Trump bragged that he enacted a Muslim ban.

    I repeat: I think all of BoredLawyer, Beldar and DRJ figured out they have no evidence of any post election bragging by Trump that he imposed a Muslim ban. If I’m wrong, I repeat BuDuh’s multiple requests to give a direct link, or something with some substance.

    As for Dustin at #61, I have no idea what he’s on about there. I quit reading when I got to the ad hominem that I am a “special person”. Indeed I am, because I understand an ad hominem argument is an admission of both bad temper and bad logic.

    Dustin at #64 goes on to call me a “Cruz Supporter 2.0 and referee of all debates” which is just weird – how did Cruz get in here. He then repeats the error everyone else makes by referring to the “bragging” but to possible earlier statements of intent. He cites an article from December 2015 in the UK Guardian. I am an obsessive Guardian reader because it is the most dishonest and stupid left wing publication on the planet. They are even worse than the NYT. Once again this is evidence of pre-election intent and promises but not post election bragging. The guardian writes:”Republican frontrunner wants ‘total and complete shutdown’ of borders to Muslims after San Bernardino shooting in latest boundary-pushing proposal.”

    Actually, as this is from the Guardian, I really should take it as evidence that this did not happen.

    Trump wants to do something, he is not bragging about having done it.

    Knowing Trump to be a bit of a Trumpalo I expect he did shout out from the roof tops that he would ban all Muslims, and put two virgins in every pot etc. etc etc. Still not dealing with post election “bragging”.

    This is exactly the stuff that irritated me, and no doubt BuDuh, the first time around. People writing stuff that they cannot support. People who do not accept that the precise details of words spoken or written matter.

    Still and all, nearly everyone here is on more or less the same side, so no harm done. Have I bored you as much as me? Probably, so I shall have a large adult beverage and I invite you all to do the same.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  199. As long as businesses offer the lazy-azzed money making options of -press 1 for English; -press 2 for Spanish; -press 3 for Pig Latin the motivation to assimilate and use the prevalent common language is stifled. ATC’s worldwide all speak English for a reason; they don’t push 1 to land in Japanese, 2 to takeoff in French or 3 to serve lunch in French.

    DCSCA

    Sure, you can manage to make it in America without speaking English. Plenty of people do. However those who do not speak English can’t assimilate into our great melting pot. We wind up with a subservient, cheap class of employees for labor. I don’t think we need a lot of that. I think for America to be great, we need to import every hard working scholar and professional who wants to work hard and innovate. In a few years Mitt Romney can use a robot to mow his lawn and a touch screen to order his hot dogs, and he won’t need to pay illegal immigrants to do it.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  200. My skewed context? I take it that you are sure about your interpretation and you are sure that anyone who disagrees with you is skewed. There is no room for discussion there.

    DRJ (15874d)

  201. Dog whistles and skewed discussion.

    DRJ (15874d)

  202. Fred Z, You misunderstood the “cruz supporter” reference. That’s regarding your friend Buduh, a troll who changes his name and got so upset when I asked him about it he went through years and years of my comments. Upon reading my comment again I can see how I was unclear on this.

    No ad hom intended, but you are indeed holding yourself above the rest of us, which explains why you’re not listening to the great evidence DRJ presented about Trump’s Muslim ban. It is hilarious that you guys are complaining about hearsay when Trump deleted his remarks from his website. I guess when you saturate your fans with the fake news concept, and scrub your own contradictions, some of your fans will actually use that as evidence in your favor instead of seeing like I do: as bad faith.

    Buduh/Cruz Supporter: You’re the one who spent several days researching years of my commenting history because you were outraged that I asked what your previous names were. Trolls feel the need to change their names here a lot so I understand why you’re so sensitive about it. I’m breathing fine, thanks for your concern. BTW how many names have you commented here with, and why do you feel the need to change your name so much?

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  203. Shooter, jarrod ramos 38, had said the paper for defamation in 2012, both the original decision in 2015 and a subsequent one upheld the dismissal.

    narciso (d1f714)

  204. Maryland shooter apparently has been feuding with the paper since 2011.

    NBC News: The shooting suspect’s name is JARROD RAMOS. 38 years old. He was identified by multiple law enforcement officials to NBC News. He had sued the paper in 2012 for defamation. Case was tossed by a judge.”

    Even so, I’m pretty sure it’s still OK with some in here to blame Trump.

    harkin (b63958)

  205. There never was room for discussion when you decided early on to discuss something other than what I was seeking clarification.

    I was and still am willing to have a discussion about Bored Lawyer’s claim. There is no bragging about a Muslim ban at the signing ceremony. None.

    Do you have any other sources to offer?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  206. the great evidence DRJ presented about Trump’s Muslim ban.

    LOL

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  207. Dustin, are you ok?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  208. ^ Cringe

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  209. Cringe

    Try fiber. Get well soon!

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  210. “Trumpbo: First Blood?!?!”

    The Will Teasle of the board speaks.

    harkin (b63958)

  211. RedStaters will be disappointed that Mr. Ramos was not dispatched by Maxine Waters. He’s just an idiot with a grudge.

    Paul Montagu (00b59c)

  212. However those who do not speak English can’t assimilate into our great melting pot.

    Nonsense. They’re not motivated to do so. My great grandfather spoke no English, only German; my great aunt and uncle, only Welch. They didn’t have the ‘push 1 for German, push 2 for Welsh’ options; they had to learn the common language and obtain their citizenship to survive and thrive. The bonus was they brought their second languages into our society. To his dying day, my late father spoke the Welsh phrase for ‘going to sleep’ when he headed to bed.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  213. The harassment charge that the paper reported seem to have something to do with the real estate business, as the way back machine link suggests

    narciso (d1f714)

  214. Terrible, Paul. Thanks for the link. Why someone would respond to a newspaper with murder is pretty hard to understand. I hope people do not repeat the name of the killers of these mass shootings. I really feel strongly about that.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  215. I guess he lost his business went bankrupt,

    So the path has chosen with the alliance with the gulf states sans qatar and Israel, which Mueller seems intent on disrupting for reasons I’ve laid out before, seems promising

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  216. It’s an open question as to whether the Capital Gazette Shooter (I’m going to stop calling him by his name now) has some kind of mental illness. It’s pretty odd to get so fixated on a minor innocuous news article from seven years ago that it would push him to mass murder in 2018. Around 70% of the mass shootings in the last quarter-century were done by folks with some degree of mental illness.

    Paul Montagu (00b59c)

  217. We don’t want to acknowledge we are fighting against ‘powers and pricipalities’ not merely men, so we call him crazy, instead of evil, because that is such a subjective term.

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  218. Oh God, please stop, it’s gone too far into “I said”, “you said”, “he said they said”, “no, no I didn’t and that damn Trumpalo”…

    Have an adult refreshment. Have two. Reflect that even Trolls, most of them, are still American, or at least human.

    Can anyone tell this foreigner how to pick out a good California wine? Too many of the ones I try are way too sweet. Even when the label claims it’s dry, it’s all too often purple Kool Aid. I just had a glass of a 2012 “Chasing Lions” from “Nine North Wine” and it was not good. I’m back with a glass of a mellow, full, dry Spanish Tempranillo, so all is well, but I’d rather give my money to Americans than Euro-weenies. Suggestions?

    Fred Z (05d938)

  219. Fred Z (05d938) — 6/28/2018 @ 6:19 pm
    Fred z, try a Washington state wine: Columbia Crest Merlot.

    felipe (023cc9)

  220. Fred z, more info.

    felipe (023cc9)

  221. Probably his name will go down the memory hole because he doesnt serve a greater narrative.

    Just like when fmr mi 6 operative airmen dean revealed he was the source of the laptop bomber plots, a Pakistani born for mechanic that story dissapeared

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  222. Ardiri Winery, Willamette Valley, excellent Pinot Noirs.

    Paul Montagu (00b59c)

  223. However those who do not speak English can’t assimilate into our great melting pot.

    Nonsense. They’re not motivated to do so. My great grandfather spoke no English, only German; my great aunt and uncle, only Welch. They didn’t have the ‘push 1 for German, push 2 for Welsh’ options; they had to learn the common language and obtain their citizenship to survive and thrive. The bonus was they brought their second languages into our society. To his dying day, my late father spoke the Welsh phrase for ‘going to sleep’ when he headed to bed.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/28/2018 @ 6:10 pm

    I don’t see how we disagree. By speaking English, these immigrants actually expanded english with foreign phrases. My dad does the same thing. I seem to recall you were a journalist or something like that, and I’m sure your parents would say you were a successful example of a well assimilated family.

    I realize English is kinda a requirement, but it’s not emphasized nearly enough for new Americans, and particularly illegal aliens (hard to emphasize anything to people who are outside the laws and regulations of our society). I want everyone coming to our country to be equal. It’s the primary principle of classic liberalism (and not to be confused with egalitarianism, where we are treated differently to get equal results). We can’t be equal without equal access to our communities and language. We’re not the country we were in 1800. We’re a very interconnected one today, and a common language is very important.

    Oh God, please stop, it’s gone too far into “I said”, “you said”, “he said they said”, “no, no I didn’t and that damn Trumpalo”…

    Remember, you’re the one who brought this up in order to announce that DRJ failed. It was an out of the blue thing. Now that your assertion was responded to and actually completely mistaken, you do not wish to talk about it? Why is it so bad if we talk about it? You were complaining that Patterico has thin skin. I thought you were suggesting thick skin was good? Let’s try that. Admit it: DRJ had Trump nailed on his Muslim ban remarks. Admitting she had a point would show thick skin.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  224. It isn’t really, even less so from when I was going to school in the late 70s, in two then predominantly Hispanic enclaves, the one in New Jersey is much more multicultural.

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  225. How multicultural, imam rauf had an office there in recent memory.

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  226. DRJ had Trump nailed on his Muslim ban remarks.

    To bad she did nothing regarding Bored Lawyer’s remarks.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  227. “You continue down this path of pretending we’re arguing about how dangerous Islam is, we aren’t”

    My initial comment to you was in direct response to you saying “maybe you could ease up a bit” to a commenter listing the dangers of Islam.

    Then you said there were bad guys everywhere, as if the horrendous record of violence I linked to could happen anywhere with anybody. You also tossed in a ridiculous comment about my fear of being beheaded.

    I’ll leave it there, but if you didn’t want to talk about it you should just say so instead of talking nonsense.

    harkin (b63958)

  228. @225. Right. Agree. But a ‘national language’ really isn’t necessary. What would be more useful in the greater sense is to cease making it too easy for new immigrants or recent citizens to remain in the ‘comfort zone’ of using their native tongues to conduct commerce and operate in day to day life. But that’s a business decision many companies have made to enhance their bottom lines. But it is counterproductive to the broader nat’l interest.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  229. The Schumer Rule crashes and burns.

    Paul Montagu (00b59c)

  230. How are you going to that disco, now of coursr bilingual education was part of a Ford foundation project, back in the 60s and 70s. And we know they have ultimately not had our best interests to be charitable.

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  231. Oh God.

    I wrote extensively about a statement from Bored Lawyer and BuDuhs efforts to find some direct evidence that BoredLawyer had quoted Trump accurately. BuDuh failed to convince anyone to do provide such evidence.

    DRJ may have been absolutely accurate in quoting Trump as saying he “would ban” all Muslims. I’ll accept for the point of argument that she is 100% right. Please try and distinguish between the phrases “would ban” and “did ban”. Nothing that DRJ cited was related to the phrase under discussion, namely “did ban”.

    Once again, give me evidence that Trump said, to excite or incite his base, or whatever, that he “did ban” all Muslims by an enactment. Either that or give more wine – a whole bottle at this point, I need it.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  232. BuDuh, what point are you trying to make with regard to Bored Lawyer’s comment? What is it that you think you’re proving/have proved?

    Beldar (169151)

  233. Example of the kind of point I’m inquiring about:

    “I’ve proved that Trump critics are trying to promote a lie about him.”

    Or:

    “I’ve proved that Trump isn’t bigoted against Muslims.”

    Beldar (169151)

  234. Harkin, my point with the ‘ease up’ was not ‘ease up on terrorism’ though that’s an interesting and worthwhile topic. It’s ‘ease up on assuming the people who are talking about the Muslim ban are totally unaware that terrorism is a thing’.

    When we talk about whether Trump hid his Muslim ban proposal, or how silly it is for one of his supporters to deny he offered one, or to call it hearsay that we have to quote his proposal with secondary sources… because he deleted the primary source… well it’s a little annoying to be interrupted with WELL MUSLIMS DID THIS TERRORISM!. Ease up on that so we can stop changing the subject over and over. At minimum, admit the point is made and then change the subject, so it doesn’t come across as a HEY SQUIRRELS.

    You also tossed in a ridiculous comment about my fear of being beheaded.

    No, that’s not really what happened. I responded to this comment:

    You want to discuss differences with opponents? Talk to a jihadi with a knife in his hand while you kneel in an orange jumpsuit waiting for him to demonstrate his commitment to substantive discourse.

    ropelight (7bb9e5) — 6/28/2018 @ 2:38 pm

    I do not agree that discussing differences on the Muslim ban = succumbing to the beheading scenario here. It’s dishonest to claim I just randomly tossed that in like a crazy person.

    Ease up, man.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  235. “In a few years Mitt Romney can use a robot to mow his lawn and a touch screen to order his hot dogs, and he won’t need to pay illegal immigrants to do it.“

    I would imagine that would apply to Rick Perry and a good many Texas politicians, as well. I’m looking forward to robots performing law enforcement.

    Colonel Haiku (8c2b3a)

  236. See 139, Beldar.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  237. How about “I’ve proved that Trump critics waste precious pixels when the question is simple and the honest answer is revealing?”

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  238. Yes ed 209 comes to mind, what could possibly go wrong (yes I know it was a military robot,) the reinvisioned film was horrible.

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  239. Fred,

    Nothing that DRJ cited was related to the phrase under discussion, namely “did ban”.

    hahaha, DRJ has never asserted that all Muslims were actually banned from our country. Trump hasn’t kept many of his other promises either. He’s not a doer.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  240. From the list I provided of over 300 people killed by Islamists just in the last 30 days.

    “2018.06.16 Nigeria Damboa 43 dead, 18 injured.

    Two suicide bombers target a World Cup screening, after which other Islamists lob grenades at those rushing to help.

    I certainly hope none of the victims had an irrational fear of Muslims.

    harkin (b63958)

  241. One of the things we really need is a national language, and that speaking this national language is a requirement to become a citizen. We need to ensure our immigrants follow our laws (including but not just immigration laws) and that they are gainfully employed. I would really prefer some kind of system where those who benefit from our education system remain here (I envision a substantial tax on tuition for non-citizens in our universities that is forgiven or reimbursed after they remain here in professional employment for ten years… if you stay here you wind up paying what our citizens pay).

    You can’t really have Mass Immigration and a Welfare State indefinitely. But I’m hardly the first to say that.

    I’m not clear on what you mean about mass shootings. I don’t think we’re importing most of that problem, but it sure is a problem. Everything about our schools is so different from when I grew up.

    Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/28/2018 @ 5:30 pm

    Perhaps a bit conflated. But if you look at stats the predominance of murders take place in like five zip codes. Big Government replaced fathers and gave perverse incentives for people to not be responsible for their actions. That’s all I’m saying.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  242. Here’s an interesting angle,

    https://newsrescue.com/boko-haram-link

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  243. @225. Right. Agree. But a ‘national language’ really isn’t necessary. What would be more useful in the greater sense is to cease making it too easy for new immigrants or recent citizens to remain in the ‘comfort zone’ of using their native tongues to conduct commerce and operate in day to day life. But that’s a business decision many companies have made to enhance their bottom lines. But it is counterproductive to the broader nat’l interest.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/28/2018 @ 6:36 pm

    We could just do like China and the UK and start blocking certain websites.

    I was just trying to talk to some Chinese people for fun, but they must have been from Hong Kong. I really don’t know Cantonese dialect. Or they just refuse to believe a gwai lo is trying to talk to them in The Language of the Middle Kingdom.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  244. Many thanks to-

    felipe, for reminding me of Columbia Crest. I’ve had their “Grand Estates” and “Two Vines” both great quality for the price, but that was long enough ago that I forgot about them. I’ll hunt down some more available locally.

    Paul Montagu, for the tip on Ardiri Winery. Never heard of them but I’ll give them a try.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  245. “I’d probably prefer the jurisprudence of Trump’s pick to that of Kennedy. But given that the debate—or should I say the war?—over his successor is going to intensify an overheated political culture and hyper-partisan political system, I’m inclined to wish Kennedy hadn’t retired.”

    —- Never Trump Grand Poobah Bill Kristol, June 27, 2018

    Colonel Haiku (8c2b3a)

  246. Perhaps a bit conflated. But if you look at stats the predominance of murders take place in like five zip codes. Big Government replaced fathers and gave perverse incentives for people to not be responsible for their actions. That’s all I’m saying.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 6/28/2018 @ 6:51 pm

    ah, gotcha. I think I should have understood you in context. You have a good point actually.

    We could just do like China and the UK and start blocking certain websites.

    I was just trying to talk to some Chinese people for fun, but they must have been from Hong Kong. I really don’t know Cantonese dialect. Or they just refuse to believe a gwai lo is trying to talk to them in The Language of the Middle Kingdom.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 6/28/2018 @ 6:56 pm

    It’s not PC to say this, but I do feel like English is becoming the language of the more superior and successful, and Spanish is a language for an underclass. An imported group of tax paying laborers who can be reliable dependency voters if all goes to plan.

    Many look back at our nation’s history of people maintaining their home tongue in enclaves and think it’s the same thing today, but it’s not. America is far more interconnected today and not speaking English is a disadvantage. I want a lot of legal immigrants and I want them to be winners, prosperous, and fully incorporated and invested in my nation’s future. I don’t want people who mail checks home after slaving away. I don’t want too many of the people enjoying our great education system to just go home after either. English.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  247. A couple of weeks ago when the Inspector General’s report came out on the handling of the Hillary e-mail case, FOX was out on the White House lawn and Trump came out to talk to them and for the next several days they played a clip of the “interview”. (Really Trump just talking about whatever he wanted to, like he did in the early days on CNN when they thought his candidacy was just a joke and wanted to give him as much airtime as he wanted to show what a buffoon he was.) Specifically, the clip where Trump said in reference to the IG report “maybe more importantly than anything, it totally exonerates me.” (Link) And then FOX ran a chyron something like “Trump: IG Report ‘Totally Exonerates Me'” over and over and over with no commentary beyond one anchor I saw who kind of rolled her eyes at the camera and said “No it didn’t” and said nothing else.

    Sunday night, there’s Chris Wallace interviewing Trey Gowdy and asking him whether or not it’s true that the IG report totally exonerated Trump, and Gowdy dodged the question. Couldn’t even bring himself to admit that “well, no, not technically but there were a lot of things in there that supported Trump’s position” or something similar. Could Not Say Trump Was Wrong.

    And there’s the Big Lie. Trump’s not just telling a whopper in the hopes you’ll believe the whopper, he’s telling a whopper just because he gets off on knowing there are people who are going to insist against all facts and logic that it’s not a whopper. The emperor is wearing no clothes but he’s cool with that, he knows and he knows everybody else knows he’s naked but he also knows nobody has the guts to tell him he’s naked. “Craven toadies” and “lickspittles” are some of the terms that come to mind. It’s not just a matter of gas-lighting as the suddenly-popular term has it, it’s not a matter of getting you to doubt whether or not a particular statement is true, it’s getting you conditioned to the idea that it just doesn’t matter if the statement is true or not.

    Jerryskids (cfad51)

  248. BuDuh, re your #240: Why do you come to this blog in particular to leave the comments that you believe make those points?

    Beldar (169151)

  249. @ Jerryskids (#250): That is an extremely perceptive comment, well-expressed. Thank you for sharing it. Bravo.

    Beldar (169151)

  250. Well California is following the humorous gdpr template of data management, because reasons

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  251. Fred Z, I recommend you pick up an issue of Wine Spectator magazine. I have an old classmate who’s been an editor there since 1980. Excellent recommendations, headquartered in Napa, CA.

    Colonel Haiku (8c2b3a)

  252. Patrick

    I wrote that you feel Trump lies more often than other politicians.
    I think you said that it was a fact, not a feeling, but that determination is impossible unless you’ve been keeping running counts and statistical analysis of all politicians lying past and present.
    Trump lies in an overt manner particularly when he exaggerates, its so obvious I just write it off immediately “OK, biggest ever… just like last time”

    steveg (a9dcab)

  253. interesting

    nanny bloomberg has to bite the weenie in california of all places

    The law, signed by Governor Jerry Brown as a compromise in the face of a soda industry-backed ballot initiative, prevents any local government from imposing future taxes on groceries including carbonated and noncarbonated nonalcoholic beverages through 2030. So-called soda taxes gained traction in the San Francisco area in 2014 and 2016.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  254. It seems the shooter was harassing his ex girlfriend anyways that was the allegation.

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  255. Oh how quickly you forget how you treated me on this subject, Beldar. I came to this blog to ask a somewhat simple question. Instead you pelted me with anything but an honest answer. Now you reenter the debate with special requests. What would you have me do?

    If you would like to have a reasonable conversation about #139, I welcome it and will let bygones be bygones.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  256. The institute for fiscal studies whoever they are, tells us that the UK should look forward to 20 years of tax raises to fix the nhs

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  257. Paul Montagu, for the tip on Ardiri Winery.

    Thanks, since I live in the Seattle area and my daughter is in San Diego, my wife and I have been road-tripping home every year for the last three years, hitting wineries on the way. One of our favorites is D’Artagnan in Folsom CA (best Malbec I ever tasted, and they had a good alberino) and Cass Winery near Paso Robles has really good wine but their burgers were the very best.

    Paul Montagu (00b59c)

  258. Can you please try to answer my question, sir? It was asked civilly.

    Why do you come to this blog in particular to leave the comments that you believe make those points?

    Beldar (169151)

  259. From the list I provided of over 300 people killed by Islamists just in the last 30 days.

    “2018.06.16 Nigeria Damboa 43 dead, 18 injured.

    Two suicide bombers target a World Cup screening, after which other Islamists lob grenades at those rushing to help.“

    I certainly hope none of the victims had an irrational fear of Muslims.

    harkin (b63958) — 6/28/2018 @ 6:49 pm

    Just to be clear, yes, I agree this is terrible. Terrorists murdering innocent people is bad. It’s a shame Trump failed to eliminate ISIS in 30 days, but I didn’t expect him to succeed at much.

    I think you should consider the full scope of how many people were killed in the 20th century. As horrible as Muslim terrorists are today, it’s staggering to compare that to, say, the regimes Trump praises. That regime that committed the Tienanmen Square massacre killed many tens of millions. So did his Russian friends. It’s very unclear how deadly the North Koreans are, but if you include starvation it’s a great tragedy that eclipses hundreds of 9/11s.

    I wonder what impact Trump’s ‘muslim ban’ will have on terrorism, which is really a more complicated problem than ‘kill them all’. We did not stop the massive communist consumption of life by killing all communists, after all. We found a better way.

    Still feels like you’re deflecting a bit. Do you agree that Trump promised a Muslim ban? I’d really appreciate a yes or no answer.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  260. I have a theory, but I want to ask first, rather than run the risk of projecting intentions onto you unfairly.

    Beldar (169151)

  261. What a Boston college education gets you now:

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/ocasio-cortez-co

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  262. The reporter who was the target was the one given a prize for his coverage of Sheldon adelsin public enemy #1, in the Obama era

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  263. Why do you come to this blog in particular to leave the comments that you believe make those points?

    It an eventuality that you will waste pixels to not answer a simple question. This latest foray of yours is a perfect example. So far “this blog” is mostly unaffected. Only a small handful of people seemed to be preoccupied with my asking a question that they feel to uncomfortable to answer. It is really bizarre.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  264. This is sad. Carl Hiaasen, author of Hoot and other books about goings-on in Florida, lost his brother Rob in today’s shooting.

    Paul Montagu (00b59c)

  265. Bastard made two pointed references,to Charlie Hebdo he was telegraphing his intention

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  266. @246. Golly gee, PP, don’t you bleep tone??? It is the universal language:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4PYI6TzqYk

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  267. 266… oh, it’s noticed BuDuh. The faux sincerity, concern and bonhomie.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  268. I support Trump’s efforts to severly restrict the immigation of Muslims into the US, the tenets of Islam are absolutely incompatible with the Judeo/Christian traditions of Western Civilization. In fact, Islam is more accurately identified as a death cult than a religion.

    Islam represents a malignant cancer on the nation. The more Muslims allowed into our country, the quicker and more numerous will be their terrorist attacks.

    Deny it if you must, but look at what’s happened in Europe.

    ropelight (7bb9e5)

  269. Hot takes fresh off the griddle:

    mobile.twitter.com/alimhaider/status/10125132697

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  270. I am waiting for a well composed but completely irrelevant essay now, Haiku. Beldar gets his man!

    The sad thing is that I had an excellent follow up to any of the obfuscators if they engaged with a shred of integrity. I think that is the reason for the pixel parade.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  271. Thank you, BuDuh.

    To our host:

    This forum for discussion belongs to you. But I respectfully submit that you would improve it were you to be more active in curbing trolls and hecklers.

    Consider BuDuh’s answer in #240 to my inquiry regarding what point he was attempting to make with respect to Bored Lawyer’s comment:

    How about “I’ve proved that Trump critics waste precious pixels when the question is simple and the honest answer is revealing?”

    This is a frank admission, by a troll and a heckler, that his purpose her is to cause other commenters to waste their time. Pixels aren’t precious, but time is.

    I daily wade through heckling and sewage spewed here by a very small number of very regular commenters, in hopes of finding the genuine gems of insight from a much larger number of commenters who comment much less frequently. I am simultaneously grateful to you for providing the forum where I can find their comments, and frustrated with your refusal to shut off the sewage spigots.

    The obvious answer to my later question to BuDuh, regarding why he comes to this blog to waste the time of other people — “Trump critics,” starting with you, Patterico, but certainly not ending with you — is that this is a place where he gets away with that.

    Beldar (169151)

  272. Tah dah!

    Completely irrelevant.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  273. It’s kind of like when Feynman studied Spanish and went to Brazil.

    Do you like Chinese Spare Ribs?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  274. The obvious answer to my later question to BuDuh, regarding why he comes to this blog to waste the time of other people — “Trump critics,” starting with you, Patterico, but certainly not ending with you — is that this is a place where he gets away with that

    Pretty chicken, Beldar. Patterico never engaged in the simple question conundrum that sent you into a tizzy. Now you are reduced to claiming something happened that never did. This is a new low.

    Who would have guessed that answering #139 would have reduced you to this. Are you well?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  275. Never put your trust in people who didn’t understand the stakes in 2016, BuDuh, those who continue to claim no real difference between our two main political parties and continue to provide assistance to the opposition. Treat everything they write or say with a great deal of skepticism. The comments from Steve Hayward that are pasted at the end of the Kennedy retires thread I found to be spot-on.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  276. So now we’re going to follow some apocryphal bit about general Kelly resigning.

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  277. Pixels aren’t precious, but time is.

    Any idea how much time you have wasted not answering a simple question after you chose to engage me on the topic?

    Here is where you started:
    http://patterico.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-upholds-travel-ban-5-4/#comment-2130466

    You even quoted the question perfectly but responded with an answer to a question I didn’t ask. Why? Was it your plan to waste precious time? It doesn’t make sense.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  278. Mr Dustin

    Suppose we do only take “The Best and Brightest” of other countries. Not agreeing or disagreeing.

    At what point do we become “Intellectual Strip-Miners”? At least with Colonialism the natives get sewers and roads.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  279. Why aren’t leftists complaining about kids being ripped away from their mothers and sent to GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS AT FOUR YEARS OLD???

    Why aren’t leftists complaining about government policies that TEAR KIDS AWAY FROM A STAY AT HOME MOMMY???

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  280. @277. More like when Fenneman studied Groucho and went to Hollywood, PP.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  281. Many look back at our nation’s history of people maintaining their home tongue in enclaves and think it’s the same thing today, but it’s not. America is far more interconnected today and not speaking English is a disadvantage. I want a lot of legal immigrants and I want them to be winners, prosperous, and fully incorporated and invested in my nation’s future. I don’t want people who mail checks home after slaving away. I don’t want too many of the people enjoying our great education system to just go home after either. English.

    Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/28/2018 @ 7:02 pm

    I try and learn a little bit of every commonly spoken language around here, because it’s fun and I have time. There are lot’s of Spanish speakers who have almost no clue about English. And those are the kinds of people who get taken advantage of by people who aren’t as nice as I am.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  282. Mr. Dustin

    Also, wasn’t Political Correctness invented in literally Russia?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  283. I would love to live in a country where Home Schoolers were treated on par with criminal aliens.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  284. Mr Dustin

    Suppose we do only take “The Best and Brightest” of other countries. Not agreeing or disagreeing.

    At what point do we become “Intellectual Strip-Miners”? At least with Colonialism the natives get sewers and roads.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 6/28/2018 @ 7:59 pm

    It’s hard to disagree with that approach, of course. At a minimum, I hope most agree that our nation is a lot better off if we do, indeed assimilate the world’s best and brightest who share our vision for a free country and want to be part of it.

    I also think our nation faces a real problem demographically. We have a lot of old people and we need able bodied workers to flourish in our economy. I mean tax payers who do not suck up benefits. As far as I’m concerned, this concept fails if we have entitlement programs, and it’s unfortunate we don’t have a grand compromise. No more food stamps, no more social security disability, no more student loans, no more entitlements at the federal level, which only an exception for the truly extremely desperate and the elderly. In exchange, we overhaul our immigration system to import lots of people who must assimilate and must work.

    I support Trump’s efforts to severly restrict the immigation of Muslims into the US, the tenets of Islam are absolutely incompatible with the Judeo/Christian traditions of Western Civilization. In fact, Islam is more accurately identified as a death cult than a religion.

    Islam represents a malignant cancer on the nation. The more Muslims allowed into our country, the quicker and more numerous will be their terrorist attacks.

    Deny it if you must, but look at what’s happened in Europe.

    ropelight (7bb9e5) — 6/28/2018 @ 7:39 pm

    Indeed, look at what’s happened in Europe. We must not let that happen here. I do not really agree that Islam must be incompatible with western civilization or our values, but a version of Islam, and apparently a dominant one, is indeed full of problems for freedom loving people. Most religions have these problems, but Islam presents them in an especially challenging way because of how difficult things are for moderate Muslims (their very existence denied by the fringe right, and their lives ended by the fringe Islamists).

    The actual tenets of Islam, belief in God, praying to God, giving to the poor, fasting, and pilgrimage to Mecca, are really that alien to western values. They are a lot like Christianity. It’s when Islam goes a lot farther than that where we see some real problems.

    But at any rate, the US Constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of religion. Why not focus on the real basis for the discrimination? We don’t want to import people who want to harm others, or who are hateful of equality for women, or come from a country where it’s too likely they were radicalized. I don’t think such folks are good immigrants whether they are Muslim or not, so why call this a Muslim ban?

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  285. Further to our host:

    Please take blogowners’ notice (the equivalent of judicial notice) the troll’s pleas and demands — in #239, #258, #266, #274, #278 & #281 — to induce me to continue feeding him. This on an argument that has now involved about a dozen commenters, which started on a previous post, but which the troll has imported into this post — about civil communication.

    Recall, to similar effect, the long-running and spectacularly disingenuous trolling about the senior Trump adviser who didn’t exist.

    Perhaps you think that if you drive away trolls and hecklers, you’ll diminish traffic and good-faith commenting. I believe you won’t; rather, the opposite.

    The worst that will happen is that the trolls will bad-mouth you, briefly, at blogs and other internet sites whose community opinions I certainly don’t value, and I doubt you do either.

    Beldar (169151)

  286. I would love to live in a country where tax payers are treated on par with crimaleins.

    mg (9e54f8)

  287. I try and learn a little bit of every commonly spoken language around here, because it’s fun and I have time. There are lot’s of Spanish speakers who have almost no clue about English. And those are the kinds of people who get taken advantage of by people who aren’t as nice as I am.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 6/28/2018 @ 8:08 pm

    Yes. To both points. Different languages are interesting and fun, but not knowing the language of a society is a good way to have a harder life.

    Also, wasn’t Political Correctness invented in literally Russia?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 6/28/2018 @ 8:10 pm

    Many of my relatives are Muslims so I see this Muslim ban a little differently than others. But yes, I consider Russian culture to often be completely incompatible with the values I associate with the USA. Why is cultural incompatibility OK for those guys but not for Muslims?

    A lot of Muslims coming to the USA, just like Russians in the 1990s, love America and rejected the ways they came from. Some kind of assimilation process would really help here.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  288. Damn, Beldar is making a lot of sense.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  289. I wish Trump would get the United Nations out of this country. These foreign ingrates have more rights than me, that is just vile.

    mg (9e54f8)

  290. There won’t be hardly any workplace violence if we make breaking up and getting fired illegal.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  291. No I don’t think so, now Allah is a more Old testament figure, the Shahada profession of belief zakat which is charity of a sort, but it is a different version of the purpose of faith

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  292. It’s not a Muslim ban for crying out loud. I wish it was.

    mg (9e54f8)

  293. How many are zoroastrian or bahai.

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  294. A lot of Muslims coming to the USA, just like Russians in the 1990s, love America and rejected the ways they came from. Some kind of assimilation process would really help here.

    Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/28/2018 @ 8:15 pm

    There’s a white Mormon dude in Canada with 24 wives and 149 children. The government gave him almost one hour of community service per child.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  295. The worst that will happen is that the trolls will bad-mouth you

    Wow. You do realize that Patrick and I have had several adult conversation where I showed him nothing but respect? I made one comment that he questioned my motivation and accepted my apology and explanation.

    This is cowardly, Beldar, and I do hope Patrick takes note.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  296. Beldar (169151) — 6/28/2018 @ 8:14 pm

    Instead of lobbying Patterico to take action against a fellow commenter for commentary you disapprove of, why don’t you just make use of the filter? You can save all that precious time you are concerned about.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  297. So why do we pretend it’s something it isn’t, we pretend Mueller actually has a case against trump, we pretend the practices in 2018 are more thought out than 2014

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  298. Mr Dustin

    I don’t know how much you know about Judaism but there is one sect that has a certain ritual that they perform during the bris that I will not expound upon, but should be illegal. Religious actions like that can and should be made illegal. Religious ceremonies that are basically assault or worse.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  299. I wish Trump would get the United Nations out of this country. These foreign ingrates have more rights than me, that is just vile.

    mg (9e54f8) — 6/28/2018 @ 8:17 pm

    Freedom, particularly civil rights, work a peculiar way. You don’t need free speech to tell someone something nice. You don’t need freedom from a search no cop wants to make. You don’t need the right to bear hugs. You only needs rights to protect you from the interests of others. It is an adversarial thing completely. The drug dealer benefits from that 4th amendment a lot more than the pharmacist. The klansman benefits from free speech rights more than Mister Rogers.

    I don’t say this against those rights. I cherish my freedom and rights and believe very strongly in protecting them for others. But yes, in a lot of ways, an illegal immigrant benefits from a lot of our legal processes in ways a born citizen won’t. I don’t think these people are ingrates or evil though. If immigration really were about ISIS invading to behead us, or ingrates coming to abuse civil rights, this would be a long ago settled political issue.

    The truth we rarely see expressed on this blog is that if we needed to run across the Rio Grande, and break some laws, in order to feed our children, wives, husbands, we might do it. I would do a lot of things for a safe and happy family. These people aren’t really ingrates at all, and the real villain in the immigration debate is not the immigrants, but rather the problems and despairs they are escaping.

    Trump used to talk about Mexico paying for the wall. Really, Mexico remaking itself into a prosperous, lawful, ethical society would eliminate the need for a wall. We build Japan, West Germany, and South Korea, but Mexico?

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  300. Certainly Iran was live and let live under the pahlevis then there have been in the subsequent 40 years.

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  301. Instead of lobbying Patterico to take action against a fellow commenter for commentary you disapprove of, why don’t you just make use of the filter? You can save all that precious time you are concerned about.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/28/2018 @ 8:23 pm

    One problem is that trolls ramp it up until they get a response. Cruz Supporter / buduh would leave several comments in a row until responded to, and then act as though getting the reaction to the trolling was a victory. People quote the trolls in trying to dispute their mendacious nonsense more clearly, so it’s hard to avoid reading them.

    I don’t want the filter to be a protection for people who really do seem to come here just to make this blog’s conversations worse. I think Beldar is right.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  302. There’s a white Mormon dude in Canada with 24 wives and 149 children. The government gave him almost one hour of community service per child.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 6/28/2018 @ 8:20 pm

    One is enough when it comes to wives. I can’t even imagine how many shoes we’re talking about.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  303. The consequences of not being correct on whether or not Bored Lawyer was incorrect about the existence of an event that would paint Trump in a poor light must be perceived to be to be devastating.

    I guess that is why civilized conversation has been dismissed in favor of controlling speech. It is all I can figure.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  304. Islam represents a malignant cancer on the nation.

    I dispute that. It depends on the Islam being practiced. The Muslim woman who was a caregiver to my dying mother, while observing Ramadan, is one of the nicest people I know. We went to her wedding party, we dined with them, we went to their house, we’re Facebook friends. There’s nothing scary about the way they practice their faith. She and her family, observant Muslims, are no “malignant cancer”. Rather the opposite. They’re not rich but they’re the kind of people who this nation should welcome as citizens.
    And FTR, I consider Islam a third-rate religion, the way they demoted Christ, the Son of God, to a minor prophet, and chose to worship a false prophet like Muhammed. Militant Islamism is a malignant cancer, but that’s not a religion, it’s an extremist political ideology.

    Paul Montagu (00b59c)

  305. Lol, it would seem a significant time management problem. Crazy Canadians.

    narciso (d1f714)

  306. I don’t want the filter to be a protection for people who really do seem to come here just to make this blog’s conversations worse. I think Beldar is right.
    Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/28/2018 @ 8:29 pm

    I guess that like beauty, the quality of a conversation is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. The guy who you think is making the conversation worse may seem to be making valid points to another. While you yourself may seem to others to contribute more tediousness to the conversation.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  307. Paul, lifting up moderate Muslims who love our society is the key to helping Islam evolve a bit. Unfortunately, both the extremists in Islam and a lot of people who hate Islam, insist the moderates aren’t the real Muslims.

    Militant Islamism is a malignant cancer, but that’s not a religion, it’s an extremist political ideology.

    Paul Montagu (00b59c) — 6/28/2018 @ 8:35 pm

    Exactly right. Islamofascism is the problem. The Quran might be BS but it’s not the real problem any more than the Talmud is.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  308. “…why don’t you just make use of the filter? You can save all that precious time you are concerned about.”

    Because we’d lose much of the “drama queen- Mean Gurl” vibe… c’mon, man! Chill!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  309. Which was the really the point, but how to winnow the islamist fro the wider community when cair, mpac isna hizbut tapir are blurring the difference.

    narciso (d1f714)

  310. I said it when Nixon went to china, Build our factories and interstates in Mexico. Because their christians. Nixon suxed.

    mg (9e54f8)

  311. Islam represents a malignant cancer on the nation.

    Meh. Grandmother said it was rock ‘n’ roll.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  312. So tabligh jamaat had a network that tied events in sanbernardino , Orlando and other climes in and outside the united states

    narciso (d1f714)

  313. That helps explain why San Bernardino crime scene was allowed to be contaminated How the Orlando shooter stayed under the radar, other events in the uk as well,

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  314. @289 Beldar

    There’s actually a term for this, surprisingly enough:

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

    “Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions. The harasser who uses this tactic also uses fake civility so as to discredit their target. The term arises from a 2014 edition of the webcomic Wondermark, where a character expresses a dislike of sea lions and a passing sea lion repeatedly asks the character to explain.”

    The comic in question: http://wondermark.com/1k62/

    Davethulhu (4d626a)

  315. @ Davethulhu: That’s very interesting, thanks for the info & links!

    Beldar (169151)

  316. So what does juche Dave, old squid and disco do called?

    Narciso (ff6b13)

  317. 310… I hope you are wrong, anon y. mous. But you make a great point! There’s a sameness, a banality that tends to override the occasional salient point.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  318. Jesus H. Christ are you lot still at it? Any conclusions on how many Trumps can dance on a pinhead? Or which of us is a bastard covered with bastard sauce and a crunchy bastard filling? Are you folk drinking heavily as you post? Reads like it. Switch to red wine – it’ll make you mellow out a bit.

    Dustin, on a lighter note I once encountered the evil Canucki polygamist and his multiple wives at a small town rodeo in Wycliffe BC, Canada. I was there with wife and kiddies when a gigantic cheesewagon pulled up and disgorged dozens of dumpy women, 2 or 3 fat dumpy men and billions of kiddies. It was the polygamist colony from Bountiful BC, near Creston BC out for a day trip.

    The evil horny dude does not deserve prison, he deserves a medal. The wives were ugly, ugly, ugly. Likewise the women deserve something because the polygamist men were twice as ugly. The kids were fabulous – well fed, well dressed, active, energetic, having fun all over the place. So Libertarian bastard that I am, I say good on them all.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  319. Sealioning, huh?

    I wondered what Beldar was doing showing up on this thread to harass me with questions even though I never mentioned him here. Same with Dustin.

    So that is what they were up to.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  320. I notice the talking points on the Left the last few days are centered around ripping children from their mother’s arms and banning Muslims. On the Left.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  321. Yep. Looking back all Beldar did was pepper me with bizarre questions.

    Sealioning.

    Great term.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  322. Russia has gas
    And its up the democrats azz.

    mg (9e54f8)

  323. banning Muslims. On the Left.

    I’m genuinely curious, CH. What talking points? What links?

    Paul Montagu (00b59c)

  324. Paul Montagu (00b59c) — 6/28/2018 @ 8:35 pm

    What do you think of the Critical Mass Theory of Islamification i.e. 5% and under Muslims collectively don’t cause many problems but 5%-10% problems start etc?

    I don’t know if you are following what’s going on in the UK but dads who tracked down where their daughters were being raped and called the police ended up getting arrested, not the perps. That’s the kind of thing mr ropelight and I worry about.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  325. The sealioning going on over in Santa Cruz is fun to observe from the end of the wharf during Summer. They gather in a big group in the water, heads tilted, one eye looking at everything above the water, with their other eye keeping an eye on what’s happening below them. You can tell a great white shark is near or directly under them when you see them all move at once, leaving their brown schiff clouds noticeably discoloring the water. Literally scared schiffless, they scatter with surprising speed.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  326. If it’s true that Macron, Merkel and May have no children then what do they care where the rockets come down, so to speak?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  327. Watch TV, PM… read the political blogs.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  328. I don’t know gay terminology, mr Colonel Haiku.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  329. I never liked Carl Hiassens politics, but his books always made me laugh. My spirit is beside him in the loss of his brother and I hope Carl can find comfort somewhere in this time

    steveg (a9dcab)

  330. Islam represents a malignant cancer on the nation.

    Meh. Grandmother said it was rock ‘n’ roll.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/28/2018 @ 8:46 pm

    She was right about rock ‘n’ roll and Paganini.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  331. Exactly right. Islamofascism is the problem. The Quran might be BS but it’s not the real problem any more than the Talmud is.

    Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/28/2018 @ 8:37 pm

    Five or more generations of first cousin marriage ain’t helping.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  332. Sealioning, huh?

    I wondered what Beldar was doing showing up on this thread to harass me with questions even though I never mentioned him here. Same with Dustin.

    So that is what they were up to.

    BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/28/2018 @ 9:19 pm

    I differ in thought from Mr Beldar on several topics but I think it’s a mistake to ascribe those kinds of motives to him, IMHO.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  333. I don’t understand your comment.

    DRJ (15874d) — 6/28/2018 @ 5:29 pm

    You’re reading into it more than is there. He didn’t ban all muslims. He didn’t say he successfully banned all muslims.

    It’s a dog whistle because that’s the term the left uses to discredit the right when it comes to us desiring equality instead of racial preferences. They say being against affirmative action and every other bigoted government policy is racist. So even when you make a valid statement against them, the dog whistle they hear says you are just a racist.

    The only reason I’m continuing this discussion is because now I’m fascinated that so many on here who always want to think the worst about the president refuse to state that he didn’t say what so many have accused him of saying, after he signed the first travel ban.

    NJRob (b00189)

  334. What do you guys think of anon’s point?

    How the British have passively succumbed to the Muslim invasion:

    Home Secretary … MUSLIM
    Mayor of London … MUSLIM
    Mayor of Birmingham … MUSLIM
    Mayor of Leeds … MUSLIM
    Mayor of Blackburn … MUSLIM
    Mayor of Sheffield … MUSLIM
    Mayor of Oxford .. MUSLIM
    Mayor of Luton …. MUSLIM
    Mayor of Oldham … MUSLIM
    Mayor of Rochdale …. MUSLIM

    All the following achieved by just 4-5 million Muslims out of the 66 million population:

    Pinandpuller (1a03ca)

  335. Below the fold:

    Over 3,000 Muslim Mosques
    Over 130 Muslim Sharia Courts
    Over 50 Muslim Sharia Councils
    An unknown number of back alley Madrassas
    Muslims Only No-Go Areas Across The UK
    Muslim Women…78% don’t work and are on FREE benefits / housing
    Muslim Men…63% don’t work and are on FREE benefits/housing
    Muslim Families…6-8 children planning to go on FREE benefits/housing and now all UK schools are ONLY serving HALAL MEAT!

    Pinandpuller (1a03ca)

  336. @338. ‘Empire state building’ PP!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  337. (Truth is important to Harris, and to me. He once tried to speak with Jordan Peterson, and a two-hour conversation was completely hijacked by Harris’s inability to get past Peterson’s odd concept of truth as a malleable concept whose meaning somehow depends on its evolutionary value. But that’s another discussion.)

    This, from the original post, really plays into what happened in the comment section when a simple question could not be answered truthfully. I really appreciate this post, Pat.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  338. “He once tried to speak with Jordan Peterson, and a two-hour conversation was completely hijacked by Harris’s inability to get past Peterson’s odd concept of truth as a malleable concept whose meaning somehow depends on its evolutionary value.”

    Link please, if you can?

    Pst314 (9806cc)

  339. Pst314, I was quoting Patterico from the body of his post. He didn’t include a link. Hopefully he sees your request.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  340. The consequences of not being correct on whether or not Bored Lawyer was incorrect about the existence of an event that would paint Trump in a poor light must be perceived to be to be devastating.

    I guess that is why civilized conversation has been dismissed in favor of controlling speech. It is all I can figure.

    BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/28/2018 @ 8:30 pm

    Why don’t you explain the important points that you think everyone is missing? This is not a classroom, it’s a discussion. If you have something to say that you think is important, say it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  341. I wondered what Beldar was doing showing up on this thread to harass me with questions even though I never mentioned him here. Same with Dustin.

    So that is what they were up to.

    BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/28/2018 @ 9:19 pm

    People get to ask you questions, too. The only one trying to control the discussion here is you.

    DRJ (15874d)

  342. Maybe its here:

    https://samharris.org/speaking-with-jordan- truth

    Narciso (18a59e)

  343. The only one trying to control the discussion here is you.

    Incorrect.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  344. Well I gave it a shot, i think thats a very malleable understanding of truth, ymmv

    Narciso (18a59e)

  345. It is very difficult to take 345 seriously.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  346. It was an impractical proposal, but the reaction to this measure indicates very few ate interested in any real solution.

    Narciso (18a59e)

  347. But look at here stateside, PP and Ropelight, has there been a “strong horse” effect on would-be Muslim terrorists or are they biding time for a large scale series of incidents? Sometimes I feel as if they learned the right lessons from the iterations of the Travel from Select Muslim-Majority and Hard Communist Nations Ban and also the more relentless focus on MS-13 and Latino migrants.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  348. But what do I know, I was called ad hominem for pointing out biers argument

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/29/oddities-in-comey-informants-russian-collusio

    Narciso (18a59e)

  349. Channeling my “inner Lawrence O’Donnell”…

    “Stop the hammering!”

    Colonel Haiku (8c2b3a)

  350. “Can you please repoot teh question?”

    —- Nancy Pelosi

    Colonel Haiku (8c2b3a)

  351. I went to a wedding this past weekend. At the reception, our table was three men and five women. Two lawyers, three doctors, a U.S. diplomat, a farm owner, and one lady whose job I don’t know. Ethnically, we were two Greek-, three Serb-, one Japanese-, and two generic [hyphen]Americans. We had very civilized conversations for over four hours.

    Like Vito “Cool Lips” Chericola Chicago’s Mafia boss used to say: “Hey kid you gotta talka witha righta peoples. You talka witha righta peoples you have a civilized conversation.”

    nk (dbc370)

  352. the dirty NSA slut-puppies are deleting the evidence

    (is what they say)

    The NSA said that it is deleting /all/ call detail records gathered since 2015 because it was “infeasible” for the agency to isolate the data it was authorized to receive from the rest of it. The NSA said it notified relevant oversight committees in Congress, as well as the Department of Justice and the independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, of the decision.

    look at them go

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  353. See how they run!

    Colonel Haiku (8c2b3a)

  354. 359… perfect set-up for a joke, but then you went all-Americana on it…

    Colonel Haiku (8c2b3a)

  355. @359: I think if we all here were sitting at a table at a wedding we would have much more civil discourse and get along surprisingly well. The internet allows people to say things that normally would get them punched, or to misconstrue the tone of a comment.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  356. “For us, there is only the trying/
    the rest is not our business.”

    – T.S. Eliot

    Leviticus (99cede)

  357. All we have is conversation of lawyers lying in d.c.

    mg (9e54f8)

  358. I don’t understand your attitude, BuDuh, but I don’t think you want to engage with other opinions. I think your goal is to humiliate people who disagree with you. I am filtering your comments from now on. You are the only person I’ve ever done this to.

    DRJ (15874d)

  359. I am filtering your comments from now on.

    That will save me from your changing the subject matter to suit your own interests. I think we will both benefit.

    BuDuh (42f8d1)

  360. When the lawyers in d.c. Start telling the truth and are honest with the voting public he!! Will have frozen over.

    mg (9e54f8)

  361. You are being a d*ck, BuDuh. There are no two ways about it.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  362. Mueller loves to persecute people ain’t he supposed to prosecute? D.c. Lawyers have hijacked the constitution along with any morals or values their parents gave them.

    mg (9e54f8)

  363. You are being a d*ck, BuDuh.

    Sadly the conversation thread just now moved on to personal attacks.

    BuDuh (42f8d1)

  364. Mueller loves to persecute people ain’t he supposed to prosecute?

    Besides President Trump, his family, and his close associates, are there any other criminals you think shouldn’t be prosecuted?

    Dave (445e97)

  365. the point is the corrupt slut-justice department could have and should have handled everything herr mueller and his horndog fbi bimbos have done

    there’s literally nothing they’ve prosecuted what has anything to do with the campaign

    and the russians they *did* indict are pantsing them like the weaksuck fbi trash they are

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  366. Gfy,daveyboy.

    mg (9e54f8)

  367. What do you think of the Critical Mass Theory of Islamification

    Never heard of it but I’m well aware* that Britain has a Muslim problem** as well as an Islamophobia-phobia*** problem. I’m not sure if the 5% threshold would apply in the US because the real issue in Europe and Britain, IMO, is that the EU nations do a piss-poor job of assimilating immigrant populations into their societies. We don’t have that issue here.
    * theforvm dot org/muslim-update
    ** theforvm dot org/britains-muslim-problem
    *** theforvm dot org/probable-suicide-bomber-ariana-grande-concert-update-5-abedi-mule
    P.S. I’d like to do actual links to this blog, but doing so gets my comment stuck in the moderation queue.

    Paul Montagu (ef08cb)

  368. Poor poor Daveboy has lost his sheep

    mg (9e54f8)

  369. Watch TV, PM… read the political blogs.

    I do, CH, hence by question.

    Paul Montagu (ef08cb)

  370. Oh, never mind, CH, I initially took your comment as the Left favoring banning Muslims.

    Paul Montagu (ef08cb)

  371. “helping to destroy civil conversation by removing the concept of truth from the tools of meaningful discourse.”

    Wow. Did Donald Trump just come right out and say ‘hey hey ho, Western Culture’s got to go!’ at some point I missed?

    Dysphoria Sam (312848)

  372. Them scutters got no more clue than a turkey in the rain.

    Festus (d19b35)

  373. I mean, has there been a bigger win for small-government, real-life conservatives over the past few decades than the Janus v. AFSCME ruling? The decision not only fortifies the First Amendment by explicitly finding compelled speech unconstitutional, but also calls out the Left’s authoritarian political machinery, which has been holding many American communities, school systems, and workers hostage for decades.

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/27/was-gorsuch-worth-a-trump-presidency-its-starting-to-look-that-way/

    Indeed

    NJRob (b00189)

  374. Podcast about immigration – not much emotion and very fair-minded and seems to contain many facts but doesn’t seem to go into things.

    The interviewer is slow. The interviewee is Andrew Selee, the president of the Migration Policy Institute.

    https://octavianreport.com/rostrum/no-immigration-crisis/

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  375. Gfy,daveyboy.

    No you

    Dave (445e97)

  376. well that’s surprising, not:

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/29/teen-suspects-ms-13-murder-unaccompanied-minors/

    neither is the landrew like impulse to abolish ice,

    narciso (d1f714)

  377. “Sadly the conversation thread just now moved on to personal attacks.”

    – BuDuh

    Sad!

    Seriously, though, I’m just pointing it out. No animus behind it. You could try to engage in a conversation, rather than a contest, if you wanted to do so.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  378. I did. Beldar, Dustin, and DRJ turned it into something else, Leviticus.

    It is all on this thread, and the thread I linked in my 1st comment, and can be scrolled through chronologically.

    Plain as day.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  379. And so, a thread on conversation becomes an exhibit in how we often don’t want to converse.

    Quid erat demonstratum. (And I’m not a mathematician, but my Grandfather taught Alan Turing, so there, nyannh…)

    Appalled (96665e)

  380. Watch TV, PM… read the political blogs.

    I do, CH, hence by question.

    Paul Montagu (ef08cb) — 6/29/2018 @ 9:56 am

    I already have a job… a job that pays! Cable News programs, alphabet news, political sites, I suggest using the googly google and type that world string in or key words, Paul.

    Colonel Haiku (8c2b3a)

  381. “Gfy,daveyboy.

    No you”

    Hate speech in teh faculty lounge, ConDave. Could even be a Title IX violation.

    Colonel Haiku (8c2b3a)

  382. Hate speech in teh faculty lounge, ConDave. Could even be a Title IX violation.

    I hereby demote you from Colonel Haiku to Major Embarrassment…

    Dave (445e97)

  383. Being dickses and teh GFYs… people… can’t we all just get along!?!?!

    Colonel Haiku (8c2b3a)

  384. 391… mathematically impossible, Ms. ConDave

    Colonel Haiku (8c2b3a)

  385. “Besides President Trump, his family, and his close associates, are there any other criminals you think shouldn’t be prosecuted?”

    Dave (445e97) — 6/29/2018 @ 9:25 am

    As has been pointed out many, many times… ConDave is not a Serious Man.

    Colonel Haiku (8c2b3a)

  386. (And I’m not a mathematician, but my Grandfather taught Alan Turing, so there, nyannh…)

    Well, so long as you’re wearing your cup you should be OK.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  387. I blame the MSM for the incivility. The pretense of objectivity during other administrations (easily disproven) has been cast aside with Trump. The incessant cheerleading for progressives by “reporters” both in their tweets and in their “work” products is numbing. Most MSM reporters have given up writing their own copy but now depend on DNC press releases. As less people believe the MSM, the media has become more shrill in their attacks on their opponents. Daily, there are attacks on Trump and others with unfounded accusations of discrimination against all minorities and women. Phony issue attacks are orchestrated in the MSM echo chamber. The media and their cohorts call Trump a dictator without substance, all the while ignoring the “Lightbringer’s” illegal Presidential acts. While I’ve witness the regrettable actions of Trump, especially during the primaries, I am amazed that Trump has fulfilled many of his campaign promises, which is unprecedented by a politician during my lifetime.

    jason stewart (5282a4)

  388. Jason – pretty much.

    harkin (b63958)

  389. Speaking of San Harris – and via his Twitter – a vital conversation:

    Sam Harris Retweeted
    Yasmine Mohammed
    @ConfessionsExMu
    Jun 28
    My daughter is 9. Today is her last day of Gr4.

    She plays on the monkey bars, rides her bike, swims, dances, plays soccer etc. She is in the peak of enjoying her childhood.

    This is the age when #hijab was put on me. I was 9 when my childhood was snatched from me.

    #StopTheCycleCFC

    harkin (b63958)

  390. All we have is conversation. As tonto said to the lone ranger when surounded by wild indians. Lone ranger were in trouble tonto! What you mean we white man! Conservative candidates running for office can run ads asking muslims if they believe in sharia law. t.v stations have to air political ads. Show what religion of peace does to christens in arab world. you can do it as a write in candidate which is much easier.

    wendell (6c04d3)

  391. “And I’m not a mathematician, but my Grandfather taught Alan Turing, so there, nyannh…)”

    Taught him what? 😳

    Colonel Haiku (8c2b3a)

  392. “When 72 percent of Americans say ‘traditional major news sources report news they know to be fake, false or purposely misleading,’ responding to a mass shooting by promulgating knowingly false narratives is not okay.

    Nearly three out of every four Americans (72 percent) surveyed last week said “traditional major news sources report news they know to be fake, false or purposely misleading” at least some of the time. Axios commissioned the story and gave it a bad headline on an otherwise fine article.

    Although the question dealt with not just fake but also purposely misleading news and though the overwhelming majority of Americans expressed concern, the headline was “92 percent of Republicans think media intentionally reports fake news.”

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/29/journalists-blame-trump-for-annapolis-shooting-despite-complete-lack-of-evidence/

    Colonel Haiku (8c2b3a)

  393. Comedian ‘Stuttering John’ just punked Donald Trump.

    The broadcaster John Melendez, who goes by the name Stuttering John and was once a fixture on the Howard Stern show, played a prank on the president of the United States on Thursday.

    http://www.newrepublic.com/minutes/149506

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  394. Col Haiku – I was about to link to same.

    Continuing…

    On Thursday, Wendi Winters, John McNamara, Gerald Fischman, Rebecca Smith, and Rob Hiaasen were murdered at their Annapolis newspaper by a man who had carried an intense grudge against the publication for its accurate reporting on his criminal harassment conviction in 2011. The mass shooting, which injured two others, led to speculation by many that the motive was anger at the perception of politically biased news. Various journalists and other members of the resistance began tweeting that President Donald Trump had “blood on his hands” since he has harshly and regularly condemned “fake news” and its purveyors.

    This week we also saw prominent Democratic politicians call for mobs to publicly threaten those with whom they have political disagreement, but somehow reporters didn’t wonder whether Rep. Maxine Waters or other members of the Resistance were to blame for the Annapolis shooting.

    We also didn’t see them wonder if the media’s harsh treatment of Republicans led to the mass assassination attempt on a baseball field filled with Republican senators and members of Congress last June. They also didn’t wonder if anti-police rhetoric led to the targeted murders of various policemen in recent years. The blame game seems to work one way with traditional media sources.

    Speculation in the absence of facts frequently leads to embarrassment. But as facts about actual motivation and state of mind of the shooter emerged, some media figures were unswayed and kept with their original speculation that Trump was to blame.“

    harkin (b63958)

  395. The more I read about this alleged killer Ramos in Annapolis, the more I’m reminded of a certain deranged bomber who harassed our host.

    harkin (b63958)

  396. 404… yep…

    “Strangely, as the media castigates Trump for “inciting” violence against them, they ignore the fact that hours before this shooting, they were themselves inciting violence against Republicans and Republican elected officials, calling for Democrats to “play by street rules” and for the “street to rise up” against Republicans, to intimidate them away from voting for a conservative justice.”

    But it really deserves no pushback, there is no difference between America’s two main political parties, or so I’ve read in some comments on this site.

    Colonel Haiku (8c2b3a)

  397. “Punked?”

    Hardly. Trump was polite and cordial to Fake Bob Menendez(D) and didn’t budge an inch from his positions. If anything that audio makes Trump look like a reasonable person.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  398. If Trump wasn’t around, would our political discourse be much better? Certainly he has given the green light to move things verily into the gutter and re-focus our bile onto “others” we can acceptably hate, but the stench of desperation that frustrates civil conversation has been building in the air for at least two decades. We’ve become addicted to talk radio, 24/7 cable news, and social media. All of these have stunted our ability to talk with others, especially others who share different views. We no longer listen to actually learn something or to find some common agreement. Everything is about protecting our precious world-view bubble and delivering what we know, by God, is the truth. Trump certainly doesn’t bring humility to our national discourse…or any sense of dedication to facts or nuance….he is about raw emotionalism. But is he a cause….or just the most recent effect?

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  399. @338. ‘Empire state building’ PP!

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/29/2018 @ 2:35 am

    Rooftops in Jersey, Mr DCSCA.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  400. Katie Watson
    @kathrynw5
    A 33-year-old California man has been arrested on charges of threatening to kill the family of FCC Chairman __ _
    __ _

    (((AG)))
    @AG_Conservative
    He was angry about the repeal of net neutrality. Somehow this doesn’t lead to any introspection in the media about the rhetoric and coverage surrounding that topic…

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Sam_5thEstate/status/1012807775901175808/photo/1

    harkin (b63958)

  401. The word you’re looking for pin, is al hijra, conquest by migration

    narciso (d1f714)

  402. Jim Acosta
    @Acosta
    I tried to ask the president if he would stop calling us the enemy of the people. He did not respond.
    __ _

    neontaster
    @neontaster
    Fun game: Try to preface any Jim Acosta tweet with the words “Dear diary,”

    harkin (b63958)

  403. Well how was in 2000-8, before social media hit its heyday.
    The press lied ‘fake turkey’ national guard and only the blogs held them accountable

    narciso (d1f714)

  404. So when the Obama administration tried to deligimate fox news and well 24/7 with the journolist?

    narciso (d1f714)

  405. Link please, if you can?

    Pst314 (9806cc) — 6/29/2018 @ 5:19 am

    Sam Harris has a podcast on iTunes called Waking Up. You don’t have to subscribe to listen.

    Noob tip: Most major podcasts have their content uploaded to YouTube.

    This is Harris V Peterson I and I trust the other may be found in the sidebar.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  406. But look at here stateside, PP and Ropelight, has there been a “strong horse” effect on would-be Muslim terrorists or are they biding time for a large scale series of incidents? Sometimes I feel as if they learned the right lessons from the iterations of the Travel from Select Muslim-Majority and Hard Communist Nations Ban and also the more relentless focus on MS-13 and Latino migrants.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 6/29/2018 @ 6:26 am

    That’s why Mark Steyn titled his book America Alone.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  407. If America, UK or Saudi Arabia change their majority from Christian to Muslim or vice versa organically, that’s one thing.

    I don’t think we should do like Ann Coulter says and bomb and convert them. But why does it seem like some politicians are hell bent on committing cultural suicide and only in The West?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  408. Because they believe in little, we used to, the last we decisively defeated an enemy.

    narciso (d1f714)

  409. While some here fret about “commies,” a real Nazi is running in the GOP:

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/29/arthur-jones-nazi-illinois-republicans-686875

    Tillman (d34303)

  410. nope it’s too hot here for nazis

    summer bummer womp womp for sure

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  411. While some here fret about “commies,” a real Nazi is running in the GOP:

    [Emphasis Festus]

    Fit’in that was comment 420. That boy be higher than a vulture just finished dinner and catching an updraft outta pure smug.

    Festus (d19b35)

  412. @421. Leave the kraut out in the sun too long, it sauers, Mr. Feet.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  413. @418. So EZ for Ann to man up, PP.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  414. Jim Acosta
    @Acosta
    I tried to ask the president if he would stop calling us the enemy of the people. He did not respond.

    That’s progress, Jimbo.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  415. Jim Acosta
    @Acosta
    I tried to ask whine to the president if he would stop calling us the enemy of the people. He did not respond.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  416. cnn hates america and this is a problem

    people need real news

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  417. When do make and Elwood shoe up, they had a black panther a future felon gov, a future felon in Jesse Jackson jr

    Narciso (3a5206)

  418. TrumpWorld is kind of like that weird mirror universe in Star Trek, where Spock has a beard and Sulu likes girls.

    In TrumpWorld, Russia and North Korea are the good guys, and America’s law enforcers and intelligence agencies, plus Canada and everybody else we trade with, are the enemies.

    Dave (59a371)

  419. Democratic Socialist Candidate’s Primary Win Revoked After All Her Votes Forcibly Redistributed.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  420. In ConDaveWorld, it’s unicorn farts, 2 MinuteHate and the Tums flow like Skittles 24x7x365…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  421. Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton called for calm after a regulator cleared the way for the start of the permitting process of a new Enbridge oil pipeline.

    too funny

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  422. Governor target is unintentionally amusing.

    Narciso (3a5206)

  423. So, Roy Moore: dark horse Supreme Court nominee? Discuss!

    Dave (59a371)

  424. no it’s gonna be a girl judge

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  425. But why does it seem like some politicians are hell bent on committing cultural suicide and only in The West?

    The rest of the world does it too. Only they call it westernization, modernization, and other varieties of becoming more like the First World. And it’s been happening for over a century now.

    The whole energy of the jihadis is really rage that the Muslim world is getting to be like EuroAmerica.

    kishnevi (836963)

  426. Don’t forget to swipe left

    harkin (b63958)

  427. Is England becoming more first world or in the other direction, how many acid attacks how many knifings, is france?

    Narciso (3a5206)

  428. Friday relaxation
    https://www.thestrad.com/artists/joseph-joachim-plays-bach/7950.article

    Among other things, he established the reputation of Beethoven’s Violin Concerto as a masterpiece when he performed it with Mendelssohn conducting. He was one month shy of turning 13 at the time.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Joachim#Life

    kishnevi (836963)

  429. You should be mad at the Illinois Nazi guy…he pulled a lot conservative voters into the Dem primary to save blue dog Dam Lipinski…votes that would have been Jeanie Ives for gov votes had they not did the one day crossover.

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  430. The 70 something black panther dude from IL is probably a closet Uncle Ruckus…hes the prototype of the CBC member Trump should get his Wall from.

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  431. Yes but they won’t, no matter what the rank and file might want.

    Narciso (3a5206)

  432. Otoh rush was the only candidate to defeat Obama in the 2000 primaries.

    Narciso (3a5206)

  433. As those who lost continue to ungraciously lament their loss of control over general conversation like aggrieved and demoted assistant managers frantically attempting to get back meeting room privileges after losing sales for years, let us turn back to how the conversation would have gone under those who thought they were going to win, but for Trump’s timely and heroic intervention:

    https://balkin.blogspot.com/2016/05/abandoning-defensive-crouch-liberal.html

    The culture wars are over; they lost, we won. Remember, they were the ones who characterized constitutional disputes as culture wars (see Justice Scalia in Romer v. Evans, and the Wikipedia entry for culture wars, which describes conservative activists, not liberals, using the term.) And they had opportunities to reach a cease fire, but rejected them in favor of a scorched earth policy. The earth that was scorched, though, was their own. (No conservatives demonstrated any interest in trading off recognition of LGBT rights for “religious liberty” protections. Only now that they’ve lost the battle over LGBT rights, have they made those protections central – seeing them, I suppose, as a new front in the culture wars. But, again, they’ve already lost the war.). For liberals, the question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars. That’s mostly a question of tactics. My own judgment is that taking a hard line (“You lost, live with it”) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who – remember – defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all. Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.) I should note that LGBT activists in particular seem to have settled on the hard-line approach, while some liberal academics defend more accommodating approaches. When specific battles in the culture wars were being fought, it might have made sense to try to be accommodating after a local victory, because other related fights were going on, and a hard line might have stiffened the opposition in those fights. But the war’s over, and we won.”

    Aggressively exploit the ambiguities and loopholes in unfavorable precedents that aren’t worth overruling. Take Wal-Mart: Confine it to its unusual facts (a huge nation-wide class, a questionable theory of liability), and don’t treat it as having any generative power in other cases. Or Washington v. Davis, which said that disparate racial impact wasn’t enough to trigger strict scrutiny, but that sometimes such an impact could support an inference of impermissible motive: Play the “sometimes” for all its worth. Defensive-crouch liberalism was afraid to be aggressive about the precedents because of a fear of reversal by higher courts. That fear can now be put aside. (Judge Reinhardt’s essay on habeas corpus, in the Michigan Law Review, is an exemplary discussion of how liberals can exploit ambiguities and loopholes.)

    Finally (trigger/crudeness alert), f*** Anthony Kennedy. I don’t mean that liberals should treat him with disrespect. But defensive-crouch liberalism meant not only trying to figure out arguments that would get Kennedy’s apparently crucial vote (not so crucial any more), but also trying to milk his opinions – and more generally, obviously conservative opinions – for doctrines that might be awkwardly pressed into the service of liberal goals. (Think here of how liberal constitutional scholars treated Kennedy’s [truly silly] concurring opinion in Parents Involved [“You can deal with the consequences of segregated housing patterns by locating new school construction carefully” – in districts that are closing rather than building schools], or his “views” about affirmative action, or recasting the Court’s federalism cases as actually good for liberals.) There’s a lot of liberal constitutional scholarship taking Anthony Kennedy’s “thought” and other conservative opinions as a guide to potentially liberal outcomes if only the cases are massaged properly. Stop it. (See agenda items 1 and 3 for how to treat those opinions.)”

    Dysphoria Sam (312848)

  434. Didn’t balking have disciples in Obama olc

    https://mobile.twitter.com/bopinion/status/1012779311793876995

    narciso (d1f714)

  435. “If Trump wasn’t around, would our political discourse be much better? Certainly he has given the green light to move things verily into the gutter and re-focus our bile onto “others” we can acceptably hate, but the stench of desperation that frustrates civil conversation has been building in the air for at least two decades. We’ve become addicted to talk radio, 24/7 cable news, and social media. All of these have stunted our ability to talk with others, especially others who share different views. We no longer listen to actually learn something or to find some common agreement. Everything is about protecting our precious world-view bubble and delivering what we know, by God, is the truth. Trump certainly doesn’t bring humility to our national discourse…or any sense of dedication to facts or nuance….he is about raw emotionalism. But is he a cause….or just the most recent effect?”

    Go soak your head in water older than this decades-old liberal talking point, concern troll. The very reason “we’ve” (not YOU, oh blameless one!) “talk radio, 24-7 cable news, and social media” have EXPLODED in popularity is precisely due to the targeting, domination, and submission of the formerly shared media ecosystem to unrepentant left wing hacks over the years. The popular anger and backlash was caused by YOU! The various right-wing outlets simply gave that anger a voice and organization, and probably one a whole lot less violent than you deserved! Perhaps you should have asked yourself “why do they hate us?” at some point?

    But now people all have their own pet sources and you can’t just trust that everyone’s heard the news the same way without talking to them and understanding where they’re coming from. Are you lamenting the loss of discourse or the fact that you actually have to talk to people in real life rather than assume you’re all reading from the same script?

    Dysphoria Sam (312848)

  436. So the fbi learned this from the so, right:

    ://mobile.twitter.com/rachelweinerwp/status/1012726933828919297

    Narciso (a14801)

  437. Anyway, this analysis of the Tushnet THOUSAND YEAR LEGAL REICH post perfectly encapsulates both an answer to Pat’s inane Y NO CONVERSATION??? post and AJ Concern Troll’s HOW COULD CONSERVATIVES DO THIS???

    “There were a lot of cinders in there that got the post attention– the overall threateningly triumphalist tone, the tendentious conception of the culture war and how conservatives fought it, the bigoted and backwards interpretation of the aftermaths of the Civil War and civil rights movement, the approval of the homosexual/tranny movement’s aggression, and of course the inevitable, irresistible comparison to defeated Nazis. But most of all it was just the stake in the sand that “we won, they lost” represented, the encapsulation of the Obama era Left’s approach to the future of the United States: they no longer had to learn to live with conservatives, because they had totally defeated them. From this assumption comes so much of the rancor that has made the daily news such a vicious phantasmagoria. Any sense of accommodating very different values, let alone ancient ideas like federalism, seems inconceivable to the Left because they have a sense of being in a position of power where they don’t have to. They have become accustomed to defining legitimacy and illegitimacy in their terms and aren’t willing to recognize a distribution of power in the country that might force them to be more openminded. They’ve been getting the cakes baked and the racists closeted with just about undiluted success and still have enough levers of power at their fingers that they don’t see that ever changing.”

    Dysphoria Sam (312848)

  438. There are all sorts of important questions where truth is a malleable concept whose meaning should depend on its evolutionary value. For example, What is good?

    More specifically, how should society respond to:

    alcohol and drug use,
    various ideologies and religions,
    atypical sexual activities,
    welfare dependency,
    illegal immigration,
    eccentric behavior or mental illness?

    DWPittelli (55f6a2)

  439. The greatest disconnect is religious and cultural: the Republican Party is overwhelmingly Caucasian and Christian and traditional on social issues, while its pundits skew Jewish and agnostic and libertarian. Krauthammer wanted to have it both ways, which is not unlike the hedging that Brooks and Goldberg have displayed. George Will went so far as to say: “I’m an atheist. An agnostic is someone who is not sure. I’m pretty sure. I see no evidence of God.” Meanwhile, Gerson is a liberal Episcopalian who took to the pages of the Atlantic to attack evangelicals for supporting Trump. In sum, the conservative intellectuals didn’t understand the base’s concerns about religious liberty because they hardly cared for religion — which should have disqualified them long ago.

    https://spectator.org/the-collapse-of-the-never-trump-conservatives/

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  440. Yeah, about that…

    The greatest disconnect is religious and cultural: the Republican Party is overwhelmingly Caucasian and Christian and traditional on social issues, while its pundits skew Jewish and agnostic and libertarian.

    So, are we talking about rank and file, or about the representation (elected officials)?

    Bear with me, my brethren…

    For some, it must have been in March when Bill Kristol, longtime editor of the conservative magazine the Weekly Standard, showed up in New Hampshire telling people he would run against President Trump in 2020. Or in April when the conservative website RedState was taken over and purged of writers who were “insufficiently supportive” of the president. Some go back to October 2017 when a Twitter spat broke out between Stephen Hayes and Brit Hume of Fox News over the Weekly Standard’s anti-Trump editorials. With the death last week of Charles Krauthammer, the revered neocon commentator and prominent Trump skeptic, the eclipse of the neocon intellectuals is complete.

    Ouch! I say this because this quote is so offensive to my sensibilities. I would argue that the above, especially Mr.K’s demise has little to do with, oh, let me see, “the right side of history.”

    Yeah, we have seen this phrase, “the right side of history” before, and I have used it now, because it is a cheap and undecidable (at this time) proposition/result that is easy to claim and difficult to refute because the data is incomplete, if not totally absent.

    Please forgive me, I will stop here to prevent my passion from getting the better of me. I welcome anyone who understands, to speak for me in my stead.

    felipe (023cc9)

  441. my comment was in response to the spectator article linked at #452.

    felipe (023cc9)

  442. 446, it’s a long time between July 1 and December 1…can you say William Henry Harrison, Horace Greeley or Peter Finch in Spanish?

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  443. Actually, yes. Here you go:

    William Henry Harrison, Horace Greeley, Peter Finch.

    What, you don’t speak Spanish?

    felipe (023cc9)

  444. The Spectator is assuming that Trump represents conservatism.
    He does, in one sense: the nationalistic socially conservative strand.
    Will and the others are from the other strand, the one that aims for smaller government and less government intervention all around. The two are not always compatible. And right now the two are not.
    There is also the fact that Trump is incompetent, incoherent, and with no integrity. And until Trump supporters come to grips with that, there is no sense in conversing with them.

    kishnevi (de99b8)

  445. Yeah, we have seen this phrase, “the right side of history” before, and I have used it now, because it is a cheap and undecidable (at this time) proposition/result that is easy to claim and difficult to refute because the data is incomplete, if not totally absent.
    felipe (023cc9) — 6/29/2018 @ 8:36 pm

    You seem to be taking offense at the use of the phrase “the right side of history”. But, that phrase does not appear in the linked piece. It was you who introduced it, and then took offense at it. I guess I’m missing your point.

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  446. the huckularity

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  447. kishnevi (de99b8) — 6/29/2018 @ 8:52 pm

    Thanks, Kish. I agree.

    felipe (023cc9)

  448. You seem to be taking offense at the use of the phrase “the right side of history”. But, that phrase does not appear in the linked piece. It was you who introduced it, and then took offense at it. I guess I’m missing your point.
    Anon Y. Mous (01516b) — 6/29/2018 @ 8:53 pm

    You guess correctly. I appreciate that you have responded to my comment.

    felipe (023cc9)

  449. The Spectator is assuming that Trump represents conservatism.
    He does, in one sense: the nationalistic socially conservative strand.
    Will and the others are from the other strand, the one that aims for smaller government and less government intervention all around. The two are not always compatible. And right now the two are not.

    The above is what I agree with in Kish’s comment.

    felipe (023cc9)

  450. The Spectator is assuming that Trump represents conservatism.
    He does, in one sense: the nationalistic socially conservative strand.
    Will and the others are from the other strand, the one that aims for smaller government and less government intervention all around. The two are not always compatible. And right now the two are not.
    There is also the fact that Trump is incompetent, incoherent, and with no integrity. And until Trump supporters come to grips with that, there is no sense in conversing with them.
    kishnevi (de99b8) — 6/29/2018 @ 8:52 pm

    The Trump administration is dialing back regulation, especially when it comes to business, so I would say that Trump is also on the side of smaller government.

    Trump, though seemingly chaotic, is getting stuff done, so, competent. And, his supporters understand him, so coherent. His dedication to actually doing the things he campaigned on is the kind of integrity I wish we could get from the professional politicians, but is apparently too much to expect.

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  451. But do you get the general gist of the references?

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  452. The Trump administration is dialing back regulation, especially when it comes to business, so I would say that Trump is also on the side of smaller government. Anon Y. Mous (01516b) — 6/29/2018 @ 9:06 pm

    You are right on the money -The Trump administration.

    felipe (023cc9)

  453. You are right on the money -The Trump administration.
    felipe (023cc9) — 6/29/2018 @ 9:08 pm

    Who appointed those people? You think that Pruitt’s actions at EPA or Ajit’s actions at FCC have nothing to do with Trump? You don’t think he sought out people who would do those jobs the way they are being done?

    Are you unaware that Trump campaigned on dialing back regulation? That his direction to his administration is that they must cut 2 regs for every 1 that enact?

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  454. But do you get the general gist of the references?
    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5) — 6/29/2018 @ 9:07 pm

    Yes, I do. ULB, But I must “represent” my cohort.

    felipe (023cc9)

  455. “Who appointed those people”

    To which people are you referring? The people Trump installed, or the people that Obama installed that have been held over?

    “You think that Pruitt’s actions at EPA or Ajit’s actions at FCC have nothing to do with Trump?”

    Don’t be ridiculousness, of course it does.

    “You don’t think he sought out people who would do those jobs the way they are being done?”

    I believe he is listening to is advisors, wouldn’t you?

    “Are you unaware that Trump campaigned on dialing back regulation? That his direction to his administration is that they must cut 2 regs for every 1 that enact?”

    Wow! To whom are you used to talking?

    felipe (023cc9)

  456. The Trump administration is dialing back regulation, especially when it comes to business, so I would say that Trump is also on the side of smaller government.

    Trump, though seemingly chaotic, is getting stuff done, so, competent.

    It appears chaotic, but could also be thought agile. Not afraid to fail, but better if it’s fast, get it fixed. Move on to the next thing. His version of the Agile Process. He is getting it done, despite the poor mouthers.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  457. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/29/2018 @ 9:29 pm

    As usual, the Colonel has the right of it. Go, Colonel!

    felipe (023cc9)

  458. “Will and the others are from the other strand, the one that aims for smaller government and less government intervention all around”

    Hmmm… must be why he’s telling all who will listen they must vote for Democrats, teh rat bastard.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  459. Happy Friday night, felipe!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  460. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/29/2018 @ 9:33 pm

    LOL! “Something is afoot at the quickie-mart.”

    felipe (023cc9)

  461. Thanks! Same to you Colonel.

    felipe (023cc9)

  462. “Who appointed those people”

    To which people are you referring? The people Trump installed, or the people that Obama installed that have been held over?

    For starters, the people I named in my very next sentence.

    “You think that Pruitt’s actions at EPA or Ajit’s actions at FCC have nothing to do with Trump?”

    Don’t be ridiculousness, of course it does.

    You’re the one who seems to think that Trump doesn’t deserve the credit for what his administration is up to.

    “You don’t think he sought out people who would do those jobs the way they are being done?”

    I believe he is listening to is advisors, wouldn’t you?

    The advisors that Trump hired? Of course he’s listening to them. That’s why he has them; so he can get their advice.

    “Are you unaware that Trump campaigned on dialing back regulation? That his direction to his administration is that they must cut 2 regs for every 1 that enact?”

    Wow! To whom are you used to talking?
    felipe (023cc9) — 6/29/2018 @ 9:27 pm

    To people who do not avoid answering a question by asking something irrelevant.

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  463. “Smaller government” generally refers to shrinking the number of governmental agencies and programs such that they will operate within a limited budget. I do give Trump credit for accomplishing — through subordinates, but the credit is nevertheless his — a good start at reducing government regulation, and that is important, too. But Trump just signed a gigantic omnibus spending act that cannot under any reasonable definition of the term be considered “small government.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  464. Anon Y Mous, you are expending some effort to no affect. I am pretty sure you totally misunderstood me. But, no matter, I value your comments for the truth they demonstrate.

    felipe (023cc9)

  465. Beldar (fa637a) — 6/29/2018 @ 9:43 pm

    Beldar has my respect, not because I agree with him (on every issue 😉 ) but, because he is right.

    felipe (023cc9)

  466. As you have mine, felipe.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  467. “Smaller government” generally refers to shrinking the number of governmental agencies and programs such that they will operate within a limited budget. I do give Trump credit for accomplishing — through subordinates, but the credit is nevertheless his — a good start at reducing government regulation, and that is important, too. But Trump just signed a gigantic omnibus spending act that cannot under any reasonable definition of the term be considered “small government.”
    Beldar (fa637a) — 6/29/2018 @ 9:43 pm

    I disagree with your claim that “smaller government” is usually limited only to reducing agencies or programs. Especially since both of those things rarely happen. Or, in the case of agencies, never happen. Reducing regulation is also very much part of reducing the reach of government and is legitimately referred to as smaller government.

    I wish it was true that we would eliminate some programs and agencies. BTW,

    Taking aim at the sprawling federal bureaucracy, President Donald Trump’s administration released a detailed proposal Thursday to reorganize a number of federal agencies and merge the Education and Labor departments. The latest in a long string of attempts to rein in the government, the plan met with instant skepticism and faced long odds in Congress.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/white-house-to-propose-merging-education-labor/2018/06/21/8f5e8e54-7561-11e8-bda1-18e53a448a14_story.html?utm_term=.727321b7a6dd

    However, unlike government regs, combining agencies would require Congressional approval, something that he is unlikely to get through the current Senate. Even if the GOP is successful in November and picks up seats, it would still be a long shot at getting this passed. But, Trump is on the side of the angels with what he is trying to accomplish.

    BTW, are you advocating that Trump veto the next omnibus bill and shut down the government? I seem to recall someone posting under your name who lectured me some years ago that I didn’t understand how our government works. That it was unreasonable of me to expect that the GOP House refuse to fund Obamacare, since the GOP only held half of a third of government.

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  468. I don’t recall such a conversation with you, Anon Y Mous.

    I advocate fiscal conservatism. Given the ever-increasing proportion of the budget devoted to nondiscretionary entitlements spending, no meaningful fiscal conservatism can be practiced; almost everything else by way of budget-cutting or restraint is for show. Trump is on record as opposing entitlements reforms, but as a candidate and since taking office.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  469. *both as a candidate and since taking office

    Beldar (fa637a)

  470. Anon Y. Mous (01516b) — 6/29/2018 @ 9:56 pm

    I disagree with your claim that “smaller government” is usually limited only to to reducing agencies or programs.

    bold mine.

    Wow! Twist, much?

    Beldar said:

    generally refers to

    You wanna try that., again? Just trying to help.

    felipe (023cc9)

  471. Beldar’s got this, I’ll butt out.

    felipe (023cc9)

  472. I don’t recall such a conversation with you, Anon Y Mous.

    I advocate fiscal conservatism. Given the ever-increasing proportion of the budget devoted to nondiscretionary entitlements spending, no meaningful fiscal conservatism can be practiced; almost everything else by way of budget-cutting or restraint is for show. Trump is on record as opposing entitlements reforms, but as a candidate and since taking office.
    Beldar (fa637a) — 6/29/2018 @ 10:12 pm

    The conversation took place after the GOP took the House, but before it took the Senate. During the budget battles, to sometime in 2010, I’d guess. I don’t have the energy to go search for it, but the gist of those on my side was that the GOP was a bunch of sell-out worms, since they were not using the power they had, the budget, to refuse to implement Obamacare. Since, per the constitution, all spending bills must come from the House, that there was no way that Obamacare could get implemented if the GOP refused to do so.

    Your position was that it was asking too much of the House GOPers, since as a matter of practicality, they could not prevail, so we should just accept that Obamacare was the law and would be implemented. If I recall correctly, you specifically took the position that it was undesirable to shutdown the government to try to block funding Obamacare.

    Whether or not you remember our particular discussion, that was your position, was it not?

    Yes, Trump’s position was and is not to cut SS and Medicare. Just as well, since it is a fight he can’t win, even if he did want to fight it. The American people don’t support it and it would go nowhere in Congress. It would be remarkably stupid of him, just as a matter of politics, for him to try to cut either SS or medicare.

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  473. I don’t recall the occasion or the conversation. In general I do not believe that government shutdowns are a productive political tool.

    If entitlement spending is not reformed — which will involve cuts; how deep and how prospectively depends on how much longer reforms are delayed — the government will fail. Entitlement reform requires first a comprehensive public education campaign, to acquaint it with the math, which is not difficult, and which as inexorable as the actuarial tables. Only consistent grassroot pressure, the election of fiscally conservative legislators, and then a great deal of political will can create the circumstances in which the reforms can be made. Presidential leadership is essential at every stage of the groundwork for reforms, but Trump’s election effectively guaranteed that not even the groundwork will begin until he’s out of office. Instead, he will actively continue the Dems’ entitlements ponzi schemes. Again, this is one reason — a policy reason, distinct from character reasons — why I will never vote for Trump.

    Beldar (169151)

  474. Let’s see:

    We have a decision in the highly anticipated Travel Ban case.

    We have the retirement of the “Swing Justice”, and the opportunity to put a solid 5th conservative vote on the Court.

    We have a decision eliminating compulsory dues for public sector union members which funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars ad campaigns waged almost entirely against conservative and GOP candidates.

    We have an avowed socialist bartender upend the No. 4 Democrat in the House, who essentially controls the Dem. Party establishment in the NY Borough of Queens.

    The Host hasn’t had a post or comment of significance in 48 hours, and the discourse here the last 36 hours has been pretty laughable.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  475. Perhaps you should write a letter to the editor, swc, threatening to cancel your subscription.

    Beldar (169151)

  476. How did SS reform work out for Bush 43? He waited until after he won his 2nd term to put out his proposal. Within 6 months, he gave it up. It tanked with both Congress and the American people. And, Bush waited until he would never have to face the voters again before he told them about his plan.

    The only way SS cuts will happen is if the pols lie to the American people in order to get elected, and then go back on their word and slash the program anyway.

    If DC wants to convince the American people that entitlements must be reformed, they must first cut all the pork. Lead by example. Once there is no such thing as government funding for stuff like cowboy poetry, maybe DC will convince the people that everything else has been cut to the bone and that there is nothing left but to reform entitlements. But, I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  477. In general I do not believe that government shutdowns are a productive political tool.
    Beldar (169151) — 6/29/2018 @ 10:40 pm

    Which is a different way of saying that you do not want Trump to veto an omnibus spending bill. Which therefore means, if an omnibus spending bill gets to Trump’s desk, Beldar’s position is that Trump should sign it.

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  478. Mouse is on fire!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  479. :)

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  480. Stop pretending you speak for me, please, Anon Y. Mous.

    Beldar (169151)

  481. Just for giiggles, you might search the Bible for “trump.”

    You might get:

    Exodus 19:16 On the morning of the third day there were peals of thunder and lightning, and a heavy cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast, so that all the people in the camp trembled.
    Exodus 19:19 The trumpet blast grew louder and louder, while Moses was speaking and God answering him with thunder.
    Exodus 20:18 When the people witnessed the thunder and lightning, the trumpet blast and the mountain smoking, they all feared and trembled. So they took up a position much farther away
    Leviticus 23:24 “Tell the Israelites: On the first day of the seventh month you shall keep a sabbath rest, with a sacred assembly and with the trumpet blasts as a reminder;
    Leviticus 25:9 Then, on the tenth day of the seventh month let the trumpet resound; on this, the Day of Atonement, the trumpet blast shall re-echo throughout your land.
    Numbers 10:2 “Make two trumpets of beaten silver, which you shall use in assembling the community and in breaking camp.
    Numbers 10:8 “It is the sons of Aaron, the priests, who shall blow the trumpets; and the use of them is prescribed by perpetual statute for you and your descendants.
    Numbers 10:9 When in your own land you go to war against an enemy that is attacking you, you shall sound the alarm on the trumpets, and the LORD, your God, will remember you and save you from your foes.
    Numbers 10:10 On your days of celebration, your festivals, and your new-moon feasts, you shall blow the trumpets over your holocausts and your peace offerings; this will serve as a reminder of you before your God. I, the LORD, am your God.”
    Numbers 29:1 “On the first day of the seventh month you shall hold a sacred assembly, and do no sort of work; it shall be a day on which you sound the trumpet.
    Numbers 31:6 Moses sent them out on the campaign, a thousand from each tribe, with Phinehas, son of Eleazar, the priest for the campaign, who had with him the sacred vessels and the trumpets for sounding the alarm.
    2 Kings 9:13 At once each took his garment, spread it under Jehu on the bare steps, blew the trumpet, and cried out, “Jehu is king!”
    2 Kings 11:14 When she saw the king standing by the pillar, as was the custom, and the captains and trumpeters near him, with all the people of the land rejoicing and blowing trumpets, she tore her garments and cried out, “Treason, treason!”
    2 Kings 12:14 None of the funds brought to the temple of the LORD were used there to make silver cups, snuffers, basins, trumpets, or any gold or silver article.
    1 Chronicles 13:8 while David and all Israel danced before God with great enthusiasm, amid songs and music on lyres, harps, tambourines, cymbals, and trumpets.
    1 Chronicles 15:24 The priests, Shebaniah, Joshaphat, Nethanel, Amasai, Zechariah, Benaiah, and Eliezer, sounded the trumpets before the ark of God. Obed-edom and Jeiel were also gatekeepers before the ark.
    1 Chronicles 15:28 Thus all Israel brought back the ark of the covenant of the LORD with joyful shouting, to the sound of horns, trumpets, and cymbals, and the music of harps and lyres.
    1 Chronicles 16:6 and the priests Benaiah and Jahaziel were to be the regular trumpeters before the ark of the covenant of God.
    1 Chronicles 16:42 with trumpets and cymbals for accompaniment, and instruments for the sacred chant. The sons of Jeduthun kept the gate.
    2 Chronicles 5:12 the Levites who were singers, all who belonged to Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, and their sons and brothers, clothed in fine linen, with cymbals, harps and lyres, stood east of the altar, and with them a hundred and twenty priests blowing trumpets.
    2 Chronicles 5:13 When the trumpeters and singers were heard as a single voice praising and giving thanks to the LORD, and when they raised the sound of the trumpets, cymbals and other musical instruments to “give thanks to the LORD, for he is good, for his mercy endures forever,” the building of the LORD’S temple was filled with a cloud.
    2 Chronicles 7:6 Thus the king and all the people dedicated the house of God. The priests were standing at their stations, as were the Levites, with the musical instruments of the LORD which King David had made for “praising the LORD, for his mercy endures forever,” when David used them to accompany the hymns. Across from them the priests blew the trumpets and all Israel stood.
    2 Chronicles 13:12 See, God is with us, at our head, and his priests are here with trumpets to sound the attack against you. Do not battle against the LORD, the God of your fathers, O Israelites, for you will not succeed!”
    2 Chronicles 13:14 When Judah turned and saw that they had to battle on both fronts, they cried out to the LORD and the priests sounded the trumpets.
    2 Chronicles 15:14 They swore to the LORD with a loud voice, with shouting and with trumpets and horns.
    2 Chronicles 20:28 They came to Jerusalem, to the house of the LORD, with harps, lyres and trumpets.
    2 Chronicles 23:13 She looked, and there was the king standing beside his pillar at the entrance, the officers and the trumpeters around him, and all the people of the land rejoicing and blowing trumpets, while the singers with their musical instruments were leading the acclaim. Athaliah tore her garments and cried out, “Treason! treason!”
    2 Chronicles 29:26 The Levites were stationed with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets.
    2 Chronicles 29:27 Then Hezekiah ordered the holocaust to be sacrificed on the altar, and in the same instant that the holocaust began, they also began the song of the LORD, to the accompaniment of the trumpets and the instruments of David, king of Israel.
    2 Chronicles 29:28 The entire assembly prostrated itself, and they continued to sing the song and to sound the trumpets until the holocaust had been completed.
    Ezra 3:10 When the builders had laid the foundation of the LORD’S temple, the vested priests with the trumpets and the Levites, sons of Asaph, were stationed there with the cymbals to praise the LORD in the manner laid down by David, king of Israel.
    Nehemiah 4:12 Every builder, while he worked, had his sword girt at his side. Also, a trumpeter stood beside me,
    Nehemiah 4:14 wherever you hear the trumpet sound, join us there; our God will fight with us.”
    Nehemiah 12:35 priests with the trumpets, and also Zechariah, son of Jonathan, son of Shemaiah, son of Mattaniah, son of Micaiah, son of Zaccur, son of Asaph,
    Nehemiah 12:41 the priests Eliakim, Maaseiah, Minjamin, Micaiah, Elioenai, Zechariah, Hananiah, with the trumpets,
    Job 39:24 Frenzied and trembling he devours the ground; he holds not back at the sound of the trumpet,
    Psalm 47:6 God mounts the throne amid shouts of joy; the LORD, amid trumpet blasts.
    Psalm 81:4 Blow the trumpet at the new moon, at the full moon, on our solemn feast.
    Psalm 98:6 With trumpets and the sound of the horn shout with joy to the King, the LORD.
    Isaiah 18:3 All you who inhabit the world, who dwell on earth, When the signal is raised on the mountain, look! When the trumpet blows, listen!
    Isaiah 27:13 On that day, A great trumpet shall blow, and the lost in the land of Assyria and the outcasts in the land of Egypt Shall come and worship the LORD on the holy mountain, in Jerusalem.
    Isaiah 58:1 Cry out full-throated and unsparingly, lift up your voice like a trumpet blast; Tell my people their wickedness, and the house of Jacob their sins.
    Jeremiah 4:5 Proclaim it in Judah, make it heard in Jerusalem; Blow the trumpet through the land, summon the recruits! Say, “Fall in, let us march to the fortified cities.”
    Jeremiah 4:19 My breast! my breast! how I suffer! The walls of my heart! My heart beats wildly, I cannot be still; For I have heard the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war.
    Jeremiah 4:21 How long must I see that signal, hear that trumpet sound!
    Jeremiah 6:1 Flee, sons of Benjamin, out of Jerusalem! Blow the trumpet in Tekoa, raise a signal over Beth-haccherem; For evil threatens from the north, and mighty destruction.
    Jeremiah 6:17 When I raised up watchmen for them: “Hearken to the sound of the trumpet!” they said, “We will not hearken.”
    Jeremiah 42:14 saying, “No, we will go to Egypt, where we will see no more of war, hear the trumpet alarm no longer, nor hunger for bread; there we will live”;
    Jeremiah 51:27 Raise a signal on the earth, blow the trumpet among the nations; Dedicate peoples to war against her, summon against her the kingdoms, Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz; Appoint recruiting officers against her, send up horses like bristling locusts.
    Ezekiel 7:14 They shall sound the trumpet and make everything ready, yet no one shall go to war, for my wrath is upon all the throng.
    Ezekiel 33:3 and the watchman, seeing the sword coming against the country, blows the trumpet to warn the people,
    Ezekiel 33:4 anyone hearing but not heeding the warning of the trumpet and therefore slain by the sword that comes against him, shall be responsible for his own death.
    Ezekiel 33:5 He heard the trumpet blast yet refused to take warning; he is responsible for his own death, for had he taken warning he would have escaped with his life.
    Ezekiel 33:6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and fails to blow the warning trumpet, so that the sword comes and takes anyone, I will hold the watchman responsible for that person’s death, even though that person is taken because of his own sin.
    Daniel 3:4 A herald cried out: “Nations and peoples of every language, when you hear the sound of the trumpet, flute, lyre, harp, psaltery, bagpipe, and all the other musical instruments,
    Daniel 3:7 Therefore, as soon as they heard the sound of the trumpet, flute, lyre, harp, psaltery, bagpipe, and all the other musical instruments, the nations and peoples of every language all fell down and worshiped the golden statue which King Nebuchadnezzar had set up.
    Daniel 3:10 O king, you issued a decree that everyone who heard the sound of the trumpet, flute, lyre, harp, psaltery, bagpipe, and all the other musical instruments should fall down and worship the golden statue;
    Daniel 3:15 Be ready now to fall down and worship the statue I had made, whenever you hear the sound of the trumpet, flute, lyre, harp, psaltery, bagpipe, and all the other musical instruments; otherwise, you shall be instantly cast into the white-hot furnace; and who is the God that can deliver you out of my hands?”
    Hosea 5:8 Blow the horn in Gibeah, the trumpet in Ramah! Sound the alarm in Beth-aven: “Look behind you, O Benjamin!”
    Hosea 8:1 A trumpet to your lips, You who watch over the house of the LORD! Since they have violated my covenant, and sinned against my law,
    Joel 2:1 Blow the trumpet in Zion, sound the alarm on my holy mountain! Let all who dwell in the land tremble, for the day of the LORD is coming;
    Joel 2:15 Blow the trumpet in Zion! proclaim a fast, call an assembly;
    Amos 2:2 I will send fire upon Moab, to devour the castles of Kerioth; Moab shall meet death amid uproar and shouts and trumpet blasts.
    Amos 3:6 If the trumpet sounds in a city, will the people not be frightened? If evil befalls a city, has not the LORD caused it?
    Zephaniah 1:16 a day of trumpet blasts and battle alarm Against fortified cities, against battlements on high.
    Zechariah 9:14 The LORD shall appear over them, and his arrow shall shoot forth as lightning; The LORD God shall sound the trumpet, and come in a storm from the south.
    Matthew 6:2 When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
    Matthew 24:31 And he will send out his angels with a trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
    1 Corinthians 15:52 in an instant, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
    1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
    Hebrews 12:19 and a trumpet blast and a voice speaking words such that those who heard begged that no message be further addressed to them,
    Revelation 1:10 I was caught up in spirit on the Lord’s day and heard behind me a voice as loud as a trumpet,
    Revelation 4:1 After this I had a vision of an open door to heaven, and I heard the trumpetlike voice that had spoken to me before, saying, “Come up here and I will show you what must happen afterwards.”
    Revelation 8:2 And I saw that the seven angels who stood before God were given seven trumpets.
    Revelation 8:6 The seven angels who were holding the seven trumpets prepared to blow them.
    Revelation 8:7 When the first one blew his trumpet, there came hail and fire mixed with blood, which was hurled down to the earth. A third of the land was burned up, along with a third of the trees and all green grass.
    Revelation 8:8 When the second angel blew his trumpet, something like a large burning mountain was hurled into the sea. A third of the sea turned to blood,
    Revelation 8:10 When the third angel blew his trumpet, a large star burning like a torch fell from the sky. It fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water.
    Revelation 8:12 When the fourth angel blew his trumpet, a third of the sun, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars were struck, so that a third of them became dark. The day lost its light for a third of the time, as did the night.
    Revelation 8:13 Then I looked again and heard an eagle flying high overhead cry out in a loud voice, “Woe! Woe! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth from the rest of the trumpet blasts that the three angels are about to blow!”
    Revelation 9:1 Then the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. It was given the key for the passage to the abyss.
    Revelation 9:13 Then the sixth angel blew his trumpet, and I heard a voice coming from the (four) horns of the gold altar before God,
    Revelation 9:14 telling the sixth angel who held the trumpet, “Release the four angels who are bound at the banks of the great river Euphrates.”
    Revelation 10:7 At the time when you hear the seventh angel blow his trumpet, the mysterious plan of God shall be fulfilled, as he promised to his servants the prophets.”
    Revelation 11:15 Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet. There were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world now belongs to our Lord and to his Anointed, and he will reign forever and ever.”
    Revelation 18:22 No melodies of harpists and musicians, flutists and trumpeters, will ever be heard in you again. No craftsmen in any trade will ever be found in you again. No sound of the millstone will ever be heard in you again.
    1 Maccabees 3:54 Then they blew the trumpets and cried out loudly.
    1 Maccabees 4:13 they came out of their camp for battle, and the men with Judas blew the trumpet.
    1 Maccabees 4:40 and fell with their faces to the ground. And when the signal was given with trumpets, they cried out to Heaven.
    1 Maccabees 5:31 When Judas perceived that the struggle had begun and that the noise of the battle was resounding to heaven with trumpet blasts and loud shouting,
    1 Maccabees 5:33 He came up behind them with three columns blowing their trumpets and shouting in prayer.
    1 Maccabees 6:33 The king, rising before dawn, moved his force hastily along the road to Beth-zechariah; and the armies prepared for battle, while the trumpets sounded.
    1 Maccabees 7:45 The Jews pursued them a day’s journey, from Adasa to near Gazara, blowing the trumpets behind them as signals.
    1 Maccabees 9:12 Bacchides was on the right wing. Flanked by the two squadrons, the phalanx attacked as they blew their trumpets. Those who were on Judas’ side also blew their trumpets.
    1 Maccabees 16:8 They blew the trumpets, and Cendebeus and his army were put to flight; many of them fell wounded, and the rest fled toward the stronghold.
    2 Maccabees 15:25 Nicanor and his men advanced to the sound of trumpets and battle songs

    But then again, you might not.

    felipe (023cc9)

  482. All I am saying is what my mother, grandmother, great grandmother, tried to beat into me (I paraphrase for your edification): If you aren’t thinking about God, what the hell are you thinking about?

    If only I knew then, what I know now. Cue song.

    felipe (023cc9)

  483. Stop pretending you speak for me, please, Anon Y. Mous.
    Beldar (169151) — 6/29/2018 @ 11:08 pm

    I didn’t pretend to speak for you; I extended the logic of your position, a common practice in debate. If you want to continue the discussion, please reply substantively. I understand if you would rather drop it, as your position is untenable.

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  484. Hey, that was my first “wall o’ text” ever! Can I get an “amen!?”

    felipe (023cc9)

  485. That was sammehtastic, felipe!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  486. Thank you, Colonel! Yes, it was!

    felipe (023cc9)

  487. Epic, I got a blister!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  488. P.S. I’d like to do actual links to this blog, but doing so gets my comment stuck in the moderation queue.

    Paul Montagu (ef08cb) — 6/29/2018 @ 9:54 am

    Thanks. Will look at the links later. But do you think they really did a poor vetting of Muslims by accident?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  489. The mouse is lighting up the house.

    mg (9e54f8)

  490. Say farewell to England in style Time

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  491. Teh mous is loose in teh hous

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  492. Here’s a song messers Haiku and mg will like nsfw High Fivin’

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  493. There’s no England now.

    https://youtu.be/nse0Ch5_cKs

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  494. An older one. First heard this on a pirate FM station years ago. Sadly, it’s gone now.

    Local H – Bound For The Floor

    https://youtu.be/E2Oe5YKhzCE

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  495. Aloha Pinandpuller, that be some heavy I-beam music with some low verticle high fiving

    mg (9e54f8)

  496. 493 — Beldar, why do you always claim people are “speaking for you” when they are simply drawing a conclusion consistent with your own comments?

    If their conclusion is incorrect, explain why.

    The response you chose is a dodge of what was a fair observation.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  497. I advocate fiscal conservatism. Given the ever-increasing proportion of the budget devoted to nondiscretionary entitlements spending, no meaningful fiscal conservatism can be practiced; almost everything else by way of budget-cutting or restraint is for show. Trump is on record as opposing entitlements reforms, but as a candidate and since taking office.

    Bravo.

    How did SS reform work out for Bush 43? He waited until after he won his 2nd term to put out his proposal. Within 6 months, he gave it up. It tanked with both Congress and the American people. And, Bush waited until he would never have to face the voters again before he told them about his plan.

    Nonsense on stilts. Social Security reform was one of the main planks of Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign. He talked about it in every stump speech, and that was so he could rightfully claim to have a mandate to do it in his second term.

    From his 2004 acceptance speech:

    BUSH: In an ownership society, more people will own their health plans and have the confidence of owning a piece of their retirement.

    We’ll always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers.

    With the huge baby boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it.

    We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account, a nest egg you can call your own and government can never take away.

    And while it did not ultimately succeed, that was due to fear-mongering, not lack of effort. Bush worked hard to try to make it happen, traveling the country and advocating for his plan. It was a good plan, and it was the first (and to date, last) attempt to address the problem creatively, using conservative principles.

    Dave (445e97)

  498. First put words in Beldar’s mouth:

    Which is a different way of saying that you do not want Trump to veto an omnibus spending bill. Which therefore means, if an omnibus spending bill gets to Trump’s desk, Beldar’s position is that Trump should sign it.

    Then brazenly deny doing it a few posts later…

    I didn’t pretend to speak for you; I extended the logic of your position, a common practice in debate.

    Perhaps (and I only speculate since I don’t claim to be able to read Beldar’s mind) Beldar believes a more competent, credible and better informed president, with some modicum of negotiating skills, would have been able to engage with his party’s majority in Congress to produce a less objectionable bill for him to sign. Then there would have been no need to shut down the government, or to concede so much to the Democrats.

    That is simply one example proving that he need not necessarily hold the position you claim he must.

    Dave (445e97)

  499. Local H – Bound For The Floor

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b) — 6/29/2018 @ 11:56 pm

    I swear Kurt Cobain must have left some illegitimate young ‘uns here and there around the country. I hear that and Johnny Reznick and maybe Offspring. But I like it.

    Pinandpuller (4b79df)

  500. “Like your view that you acknowledge Trump when he deserves it, I condemn Trump when I think he deserves it.”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    1. Do you think Trump lies?
    2. Do you think lies by a head of state deserve condemnation?
    3. Do you condemn Trump’s lies when he lies?

    The answers to these questions will go a long way towards determining whether it is fair to say that you “excuse [Trump’s] rampant lying.

    Leviticus (99cede)

  501. Glad you came back to the thread, swc- maybe we can discuss the topic above?

    Leviticus (99cede)

  502. Meme from social media:

    Hey Trumpers, you know what happened to “civility?”
    You called it “political correctness” and mocked it.

    Tillman (d34303)

  503. 510. *** If their conclusion is incorrect, explain why. ***

    I like that approach and it used to be common here, but it only works when people are talking in good faith. I don’t think that is always true now.

    DRJ (15874d)

  504. I disagree with that meme, Tillman. Political correctness isn’t civility, it’s groupthink. Civility is tolerance for everyone. PC is about respecting only certain views and people — and if you aren’t in the favored group, it’s the opposite of tolerance.

    DRJ (15874d)

  505. History as they say doesntr exactly repeat but it does rhyme, reagan was deemed to be too plebeian, too unsophisticated to understand detente, too supportive of authoritarian regimes (this was part of the brief against Kirkpatrick, his appointment of judge gorsuchs mother was deemed to be blasphemy, similar with James watt of the sage brush rebellion, so they succeeded in forcing the first one out through lawfare, the second through loose talk

    narciso (d1f714)

  506. Now the late Dr. Krauthammer, really didn’t understand the threat Obama posed, to his credit he did not breakout with the huntress , but he did subsequently tell her ‘to leave the room’ re health policy, he didn’t understand the import of the tea party, and regarded them initially as a threat
    as for the blood libel issued against the tea party in Tucson, he didn’t distinguish himself.

    However George will has been even more histrionic on every one of these counts, all through out,

    narciso (d1f714)

  507. DRJ, there should be no favored groups. Of course anything can, and will, be abused unfortunately and avoiding being rude to people can be taken too far. But at its best, at least it discourages racists from openly calling black people the n word. That societal norm is being eroded by confusing rudeness with some sort of plain honesty. It’s not honest – it’s merely insulting.

    Tillman (d34303)

  508. At least the Walsh matter was explicitly about policy, Mueller’s is more implicitly remember the interests he represents:

    https://themarketswork.com/2018/06/28/rosensteins-telling-house-testimony/

    narciso (d1f714)

  509. I don’t think PC is the way to avoid rudeness, let alone horrible insults, plus PC has costs of its own. There will be racists and other unfortunate viewpoints, even with PC or manners or whatever we call it. They hide viewpoints. They don’t change viewpoints.

    DRJ (15874d)

  510. I think that in Newspeak “civility” does not mean the same as it did in Oldthink. I think it means “When you get slapped, you’ll take it and like it”. Now, is me thinking that Goodthink or Crimethink?

    nk (dbc370)

  511. Its a tactic of maoist derivation, although soviet behavioral models certainly followed the notion, eek yourself how California adopted increasingly more insane practice, ultimately the push against the small l liberal western view was responsibility.

    narciso (d1f714)

  512. So bork was a prophet in many ways and invoking his appointment in 1986, brought the fate of many such sages before him. It was through his scourging that we end up with Kennedy, they had tried to go after rehnquist but he had a more amiable mien, they tried again Thomas be he had the resourcefulness born the gullah

    narciso (d1f714)

  513. I completely disagree DRJ. Society can’t function without mutual respect.

    Governments are composed of human beings, and all of the frailties that humans possess are absorbed into these governments and become active within these governments. Hatred, anger, jealousy, fear, greed, distrust and the whole host of afflictions that humans must bear, lurk just beneath the surface of civility displayed by ‘government.’ – John McAfee

    Tillman (d34303)

  514. I think it is a “live and let live” concept now, nk. It used to mean being polite when you disagree.

    DRJ (15874d)

  515. This is funny, and I bet it’s true:

    Maggie Haberman
    @maggieNYT

    As he sifts through SCOTUS choices, Trump has been telling people he wants someone with a degree from Harvard or Yale, per a source familiar with the conversations.

    5:20 PM · Jun 29, 2018

    DRJ (15874d)

  516. I’m not arguing against respect (although I think tolerance is something we can actually achieve). My argument is that PC isn’t respect. It picks winners and losers, which us the opposite of actual respect or tolerance. It says only certain people get respect.

    DRJ (15874d)

  517. Is this the same haberman who was blaming trump for Annapolis, before the stretchers had departed the newsroom

    Narciso (727943)

  518. One must totally undermine parental authority, because ‘love wins’

    Narciso (727943)

  519. Marilyn Mosby was re-elected Baltimore City States Attorney.

    DRJ (15874d)

  520. Even funnier:

    Maggie Haberman
    @maggieNYT

    Have been reminded a few times since this tweet that Gorsuch’s Harvard law school CV was often the first thing out of Trump’s mouth when talking about him.

    Trump loves elite lawyers!

    DRJ (15874d)

  521. Trump loves elite lawyers!

    Don’t you?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  522. Maggie will not be highlighting this:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1013

    Narciso (727943)

  523. wow President Trump could be the first president to appoint TWO ivy league trash justice sluts since

    obama

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  524. Well judge Roberts was a mixed blessing, looking at his last dozen? Years of his term.

    Narciso (727943)

  525. Given the shakeout in Law across the board with law schools closing and consolidating into other universities, even the guy chasing the ambulance or closing the house for you might need to be from the Big 14 / T-14of law schools.

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  526. Back when we used to show respect for Harvard Law:

    http://patterico.com/2010/01/31/another-kind-of-love-story/

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  527. Anyone hear from Miss Dana lately? I remember her posting she was dealing with some personal issues, but I hope it’s getting better.

    NJRob (b00189)

  528. Trump loves elite lawyers!

    DRJ (15874d) — 6/30/2018 @ 7:23 am

    DRJ loves biased reporters!

    Maggie Haberman. LOL

    https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/

    random viking (6a54c2)

  529. Trump definitely has a lovehate relationship with Maggie Haberman.

    DRJ (15874d)

  530. They seem to need each other. Some even call it a symbiotic relationship:

    Journalists have become part of the story in the Trump administration, enablers and heroes of a nonstop political and constitutional soap opera, and last year Haberman was the most widely read journalist at the Times, according to its analytics. Many of the juiciest Trump pieces have been broken by her: That story about him spending his evenings alone in a bathrobe, watching cable news? Haberman reported and wrote it with her frequent collaborator, Glenn Thrush. The time Trump called the Times to blame the collapse of the Obamacare repeal on the Democrats? It was Haberman he dialed. When he accused former national security adviser Susan Rice of committing crimes, and defended Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly against the sexual harassment claims that would soon end his career at the network? Haberman and Thrush again, with their colleague Matthew Rosenberg. And since President Trump fired FBI director James Comey, Haberman has been on the frontlines of the nonstop news bombshells that have been lobbed, bylining or credited with a reporting assist on around two dozen stories in two weeks. They range from an extraordinarily intimate account of a “sour and dark” Trump berating his staff as “incompetent” to the revelation that Trump called Comey a “nutjob” in an Oval Office meeting with the Russians the day after his dismissal, telling them that Comey’s ouster had relieved the pressure of the investigation into possible collusion between Russia and his campaign.

    Trump frequently complains about Haberman’s coverage. He’s tweeted, at various points, that she’s “third-rate,” “sad,” and “totally in the Hillary circle of bias,” and he almost exclusively refers to the Times as “failing” and “fake news.” But no matter what Haberman writes about Trump, he has never frozen her out. Slate called her Trump’s “snake charmer”; New Yorker editor in chief David Remnick recently likened Trump to her “ardent, twisted suitor.” “I didn’t care for that metaphor,” Haberman says. She finds the framing of her relationship with the president in romantic terms “facile.” No one suggests her male colleagues are “wooing” Trump.

    While the president and the reporter couldn’t seem more different—Trump, the flamboyant tycoon and Manhattan establishment aspirant known for his devil- may-care mendacity; and Haberman, a political insider known for her straight-shooting truth telling—the points at which their histories and personalities converge are revealing about both the media and the president himself. Trump wants what she can give him access to—a kind of status he’s always craved in a newspaper that, she says, “holds an enormously large place in his imagination.” Haberman, for her part, has become a front-page fixture and a Fourth Estate folk hero. “This is a symbiotic relationship,” says an administration official. “Part of the reason” Haberman is so read in the Times “is because she is writing about Donald Trump.”

    DRJ (15874d)

  531. Down to hating on elite Havard lawyers and defending NYT reporters?

    This conversation thread has been one of the best threads I can remember.

    BuDuh (5b4d42)

  532. how about that france vs. argentina match,

    the way I see it, ymmv, is trumps actual statements are what matter, her characterizations from anonymous sources don’t count,

    narciso (d1f714)

  533. Is “symbiotic” the nice word for it? I’d say sick. Trump has a sick relationship with all the media. Whenever he feels the need for a spanking, he says or tweets something to provoke them, and they wield the Forbes magazine. I wonder if they have a safe word. Nancy Pelosi suggested “Palomino”. Could theirs be “Covfefe?”

    nk (dbc370)

  534. It’s reasonable not to trust the media, and I understand thinking that nothing matters but what Trump says and does. But then you shouldn’t trust any positive stories about Trump, either. Right?

    DRJ (15874d)

  535. you feed a Rottweiler, but they regurgitate their own scraps, it used to be this site was contrarian, but more often than usual, it has followed whatever the media talking points have been, no matter how inane.

    narciso (d1f714)

  536. The stories raise questions, narciso.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  537. so this is how ferocious Acosta was against Obama, lol,

    https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/155076547601117185

    narciso (d1f714)

  538. Whether one likes it or not, Trump has proven he will say just about anything at anytime. It is what he does that registers with a lot of people. To my eye, the positive has far exceeded the negative.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  539. it used to be this site was contrarian

    It was contrarian with Obama because he wasn’t conservative, and also with Bush when he wasn’t conservative, and now it is contrarian with Trump when he isn’t conservative. Seems consistent.

    DRJ (15874d)

  540. now his actual public statements don’t suffice though, so they have to make things up

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/29/reporter-maga-hat-annapolis-shooter/

    narciso (d1f714)

  541. On a personal level, some people liked Obama and some people like Trump. Sometimes I wonder if that has caused problems here, maybe even more than policy differences. We can accept that everyone may not agree on abortion or SSM or a Wall, but not that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  542. Maybe you should focus on WhiteHouse.gov, narciso.

    DRJ (15874d)

  543. Supposedly no political outlet, Lol, are even worse than time or the new yorker,

    Narciso (727943)

  544. No conservative president has ever accomplished what Trump has in this short of time. My bank account is proof.
    And seeing him make so many rinos upset is icing on the cake.

    mg (9e54f8)

  545. Messi I should change his diet or something

    Narciso (727943)

  546. Trump has been doing so much good hbe deserves a round of golf.

    mg (9e54f8)

  547. The Supreme has a couple of chicks, a couple of minorities and differing views, but every single one went to Harvard or Yale law schools. They’re already “elite”. Diversity!

    Paul Montagu (00b59c)

  548. I think the GOP only controlled Congress and the Presidency in 1953-1954 and 2003-2006, and now since 2016. They should be accomplishing good things. They should also be doing more.

    DRJ (15874d)

  549. you misunderstand the reason, that mcconnell and cornyn, and ryan, think they are in office,

    narciso (d1f714)

  550. Ajit Pai and his family should find a lawyer to sue Maxine Waters. What a c word this hag is.

    mg (9e54f8)

  551. even with bob dole, the congress got more done, that includes tefra, so when certain parties are doing their best at putting out the modern day sagebrush rebellion, at preventing rebuilding the military, keeping the intelligence services blind as a bat,

    narciso (d1f714)

  552. they need to be sent to st. Elizabeth for their own good,

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/29/conspiratorial-claims-dhs-nazi-code/

    narciso (d1f714)

  553. the irony is secretary Nielsen is not really that much of an immigration hawk,

    narciso (d1f714)

  554. This is why journalists are held in such low regard, and it’s this “journalist” who is part of the problem, proclaiming that “there comes a time, in a time of peril, when silence or neutrality may have momentous consequences, when you wonder if staying on the sidelines is the responsible place to be.”
    I’ll say this. There doesn’t “come a time”, except for journalists to do their jobs. If she wants to be an activist, quit journalism and write op-eds. What this country really needs is good journalism, not opinion-writing masquerading as reporting. There is nothing stopping good reporters from calling out Trump’s lies and challenging his policies, just get the goddam facts right.

    Paul Montagu (00b59c)

  555. Patrick at #81 – you are correct. Your words were more carefully selected that I appreciated when I first read the post, as your clarification makes obvious.

    Frankly, I think the original words made it obvious as well. I don’t think they needed “clarification” and I did not intend my comment to be received as clarification, but more an expression of annoyance that such already-clear language had been twisted, and that I had to take the time to point it out. That said, I appreciate the apology.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  556. “Like your view that you acknowledge Trump when he deserves it, I condemn Trump when I think he deserves it.”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    1. Do you think Trump lies?
    2. Do you think lies by a head of state deserve condemnation?
    3. Do you condemn Trump’s lies when he lies?

    The answers to these questions will go a long way towards determining whether it is fair to say that you “excuse [Trump’s] rampant lying.

    1. Yes, but I don’t think he “lies” with any more purposeful intent to deceive than others that came before him. I think his lies are largely based on an absence of factual data for his views, and he often expresses opinions in the form of facts where there is objective evidence that contradicts his opinions. And there are many instances where he the facts on a particular issue are in conflict, but he adopts one position with certainty. Because the matter remains in dispute, the vocal advocates for the contrary position call his claims “lies.”

    2. Not necessarily — in the real world, deceit is a method by which tactical advantage over opponents — political, geopolitical, and military — can be gained. As you know, the law makes actionable “lies by omission” — do you think a President is worthy of condemnation when he fails to inform the public and world at large of all material aspects or facts in a particular circumstance? In the business world such a failure might get you sued for fraud. In geopolitical diplomacy, its generally better to be operating under the principal “more is less.” Sometimes that requires denying things that are known by you to be true. That’s a lie, but admitting the truth could create a diplomatic or militarily strategic disadvantage.

    3. There are many things that Trump has said that I think are not adequately supported by known facts, and there are some that I would say are conclusively contradicted by generally accepted facts. But I don’t have any need to catalog my views or reactions to every one. He’s not materially different in that regard since becoming President as he was while running for President, so that aspect of his personality was “baked into the cake”, and conduct consistent with what was known about him before he was elected isn’t really a basis to oppose him in my view.

    I certainly hold open the possibility that I could vote for a primary challenger to Trump — I didn’t vote for him in the Primaries in 2016.

    I would not foreclose voting against him in the general, depending on the identity of his opponent if he’s renominated, and whether he conducts some egregious act of misconduct in the next 30 months. He hasn’t done anything yet that I’m aware of in that regard.

    But I guess what sets me apart from the anti-Trumpers here is the fact that I am fully cognizant of the fact that I will never get a “fair characterization” of Trump from the dominant media or his critics.

    Just as I pointed out above — there were a series of very big pro-Conservative, pro-GOP, pro-Trump moments this past week, and his “conservative” critics here became crickets.

    I have accused the host here of several instances of posting up stories originating in the dominant media with anti-Trump angles that were simply “too good to check”, which ended up not being true.

    So this week, with the series of events that were clearly and definitively positive from the POV of any conservative, BUT for which Trump certainly is deserving of credit, they are simply “Too good to comment upon”.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  557. “Like your view that you acknowledge Trump when he deserves it, I condemn Trump when I think he deserves it.”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    1. Do you think Trump lies?
    2. Do you think lies by a head of state deserve condemnation?
    3. Do you condemn Trump’s lies when he lies?

    The answers to these questions will go a long way towards determining whether it is fair to say that you “excuse [Trump’s] rampant lying.

    swc has admitted that I did not level that accusation at all Trump supporters, and that he misread my post.

    How he misread it so badly, I still do not know, especially since I have consistently said here, again and again, that I have no problem with people who merely support Trump while acknowledging his bad behavior, as many do.

    I would still be interested in swc’s answers to these questions. I assume he would answer all three yes.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  558. Ah, our comments crossed and I see he responded.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  559. 571

    He also makes the point elsewhere that Donald Trump, together with any followers of his who excuse his rampant lying

    I’m not suggesting this sentence was intentionally subject to misunderstanding, or that it needed “clarification” for that reason.

    What I said was that when I read through the post, I did not on first glance read this sentence as describing as a subset of “Trump followers” (and “followers” is a arguable prejorative descriptor) as being limited to those followers who “excuse his rampant lying”.

    When you posted your comment, I looked back at it and immediately recognized both the original sentence — and my error.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  560. President Trump never deceives people like how cowardly liar John McCain did when he said he was for border security.

    I appreciate that. My relation with President Trump is grounded in honesty and trust.

    I’ve never slept better my whole life and I wake up with a light heart and a doughty resolve!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  561. But I guess what sets me apart from the anti-Trumpers here is the fact that I am fully cognizant of the fact that I will never get a “fair characterization” of Trump from the dominant media or his critics.

    “Never” is overstatement even as a description of the dominant media, but I consider myself to be fully cognizant of the fact that much of Big Media has been and will continue to be unfair to Trump. I’ve said so many times.

    I’m very troubled by the above statement as it relates to “his critics.”

    I think swc’s claim — that it’s impossible to get a fair characterization of Trump from his critics — is tantamount to saying that any criticism of Trump is unfair, simply by virtue of its being criticism of Trump. I don’t think I’m being unfair in this characterization; I’m just reading what he wrote. (It may not be what he meant — in fact, I very much hope it’s not — and in a moment I invite him to clarify. But I think it’s a fair characterization of what he said.) It’s a claim that, as worded, asserts that if a characterization of Trump comes from one of his critics, that characterization will necessarily be unfair, always and everywhere.

    It strikes me that this claim is not only obviously untrue, but it’s an example of the mindset that I have decried: that literally any criticism of Trump is seen as perforce unfair, seemingly regardless of its content.

    Did you actually mean what you said, swc, or do you want to amend it? I’m not trying to play gotcha here; I want to discuss these issues in a way that allows you to put your best foot forward and make your best case. But it seems to me that if you really mean this statement as worded, you will never accept criticism of the president. Surely that’s not what you intended to convey…is it?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  562. (and “followers” is a arguable prejorative descriptor)

    “Supporters” would have been a better word, but I did not mean “followers” to be pejorative.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  563. 517 — DRJ.

    I read that post — and as you often do with just a few words — it took me back to an episode where I was writing here on a highly charged issue, and I was in the EXTREME minority. I’m referring to the prosecution of Ramos and Campeon, where I supported the prosecution as well as the conviction by the jury based on all the evidence which the government presented.

    I wrote dozens of long comments responding to those who took issue with my views, and I tried to respond factually to deal with what were largely emotional and counter-factual attacks.

    I didn’t call my opposition names or run away and refuse to debate their views, or defend my views. I looked at that as an extreme example of an opportunity to educate and enlighten folks here about how federal prosecutions play out in the real world, and not they way they are portrayed by the media or the advocates on each side of the substantive (immigration) divide.

    That case really had little to do about immigration. It had everything to do with an out-of-policy shooting by a law enforcement agent, and the attempts to cover it up — all of which becomes evidence of “consciousness of guilty” at trial. The issues would have been the same if if was a highway patrol officer in Nebraska shooting at a opioid trafficing suspect trying to run across and open field to escape with a cell phone in his hand.

    But our debates now get truncated because of political disputes, and we cut ourselves off from the consideration of opposing facts by simply refusing to engage when confronted.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  564. Still have yet to see anyone walk back their remarks about the president bragging he banned all Muslims post travel ban.

    NJRob (73071e)

  565. 518 — another DRJ post deserving of applause.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  566. So this week, with the series of events that were clearly and definitively positive from the POV of any conservative, BUT for which Trump certainly is deserving of credit, they are simply “Too good to comment upon”.

    Consider the possibility that I might have other things going on that have distracted me. Rather than leaping to the assumption that I have deliberately refused to comment on these good things, tell me what they are. Perhaps they would be good ideas for a post.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  567. I disagree with that meme, Tillman. Political correctness isn’t civility, it’s groupthink. Civility is tolerance for everyone. PC is about respecting only certain views and people — and if you aren’t in the favored group, it’s the opposite of tolerance.

    Very well said. In a post about the need for conversation, it’s important to recognize that civility is the grease that makes the machinery of real conversation work smoothly, while PC is the explosive that blows the machine to bits.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  568. Tillman:

    at least it discourages racists from openly calling black people the n word

    This is the false construct that creates so many problems with discourse.

    The idea that not putting into place rules of discourse that “discourage” people from using language so as to not offend others, is tantamount to agreeing with those kinds of expressions, is false and unfair.

    The constitution provides for freedom speech, and it does not provide for a right to not be offended by the speech of others.

    So, when I take the view that I don’t want to encourage rules or laws to protect others from being offended, I would be branded a racist under the rules of discourse advocated by the left. That’s “political correctness” — freedom of speech so long as the speech isn’t too far out bounds — as defined by the left — and no one is offended.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  569. because their goal is to silence, as I say derogatory terms are generally the sign of a deprived intellect, and I won’t use them, but being accurate, has been put in the same category,

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/06/will-trump-topple-the-ayatollah.php

    narciso (d1f714)

  570. It’s reasonable not to trust the media, and I understand thinking that nothing matters but what Trump says and does. But then you shouldn’t trust any positive stories about Trump, either. Right?

    DRJ (15874d) — 6/30/2018 @ 8:34 am

    Patrick chided me a few months ago with this same point when I criticized his use of an anti-Trump NYT article.

    But I would respond with a legal point I know you would understand — I think favorable articles about Trump in the dominant media are to be given more credence because they amount to a “statement against interest.”

    Anyone who claims that the dominant media and reporting class are not invested in the idea of taking down the Trump Presidency are simply being dishonest. A couple weeks ago we went round and round about the NYT story that mis-characterized the WH official’s comments about the prospects for a June 12 summit with the Norks. And I repeatedly made the point that the mis-characterization served the purpose of supporting a narrative that has been advanced by the NYT that Trump is unaware of the events happening around him, and the disconnect between what he said about the June 12 summit, and what a WH Official said, were an example of that narrative.

    This is why I begin with a skepticism and distrust of media reporting that is relentlessly negative about Trump. Their bias undermines their credibility — just like a witness on the witness stand.

    But when that witness says something that is contrary to their own interests, i.e., a positive story about Trump in the case of the media, the bias does not discredit the story — the existence of the bias enhances the story.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  571. The Ramos/Compean discussions were very interesting. Aldrete-Davila was incarcerated for 9-1/2 years in 2008 so he has probably been released. He is not listed as a current federal prison inmate.

    DRJ (15874d)

  572. Is it statement against interest if it is a story run by Fox News, Breitbart, Rush/Hannity/etc., Or sites like the current RedState or Conservative Treehouse? I think the presumption is that only criticism by those sources is credible, just as (under that theory) the only credible MSM coverage is praise for Trump.

    DRJ (15874d)

  573. the only credible MSM coverage is praise for Trump

    Indeed, that is Trump’s openly expressed view, when he’s threatening to silence those critical of him:

    The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?

    According to Trump, negative coverage is, by definition “fake”.

    Dave (445e97)

  574. A funny thing happened on the way to Oslo:

    U.S. intelligence agencies believe that North Korea has increased its production of fuel for nuclear weapons at multiple secret sites in recent months — and that Kim Jong Un may try to hide those facilities as he seeks more concessions in nuclear talks with the Trump administration, U.S. officials told NBC News.

    The intelligence assessment, which has not previously been reported, seems to counter the sentiments expressed by President Donald Trump, who tweeted after his historic June 12 summit with Kim that “there was no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.”

    Analysts at the CIA and other intelligence agencies don’t see it that way, according to more than a dozen American officials who are familiar with their assessments and spoke on the condition of anonymity. They see a regime positioning itself to extract every concession it can from the Trump administration — while clinging to nuclear weapons it believes are essential to survival.

    […]

    While the North Koreans have stopped missile and nuclear tests, “there’s no evidence that they are decreasing stockpiles, or that they have stopped their production,” said one U.S. official briefed on the latest intelligence. “There is absolutely unequivocal evidence that they are trying to deceive the U.S.”

    Four other officials familiar with the intelligence assessment also said North Korea intended to deceive the U.S.

    Dave (445e97)

  575. 578 — Patrick:

    I think it overstates my view — and I’m at fault for writing in such a definitive manner — that all criticism of Trump is unfair, and all critics of Trump cannot be trusted (my characterization of what you wrote.)

    I think a better description of my view is that the day-to-day interpretation of events in the media as they are related to Trump and his Administration is infected by the presence of bias IN MOST INSTANCES – not all — and bias undermines credibility. So, I would say I discount the criticism until I find out more about it through my own research.

    When friendly Trump media voices criticize him — like Hugh Hewitt did last week on the family separation policy — I give more credence to the criticism.

    When you criticize him on trade policy from an intellectual standpoint, I give credence to the criticism because I don’t see that as anti-Trump politics.

    But a good example of anti-Trump bias that only gets exposed if you continue to dig beyond the surface of the first-pass reporting involves the “family separation policy” issue that exploded last week. It wasn’t for a couple days — after the administration began pushing back — that some media outlets acknowledged that the controversial policy of separating kids from parents had its roots in the Obama Administration.

    Then the Obama Administration officials pushed back and said “No, no, no — our program recognized that separating families was a bad idea, so we built family detention centers that allowed families to be detained together when they were first time border-crossers, and any separations that happened were a “bug” of our system, not a feature like the zero-tolerance Trump program.”

    And the media ran with that story discrediting the Trump Administration explanation.

    But the Obama admin officials story wasn’t quite true either. As NBC News discovered, the Obama administration began to realize that economic migrant immigrants — mostly from Central America, not Mexico — were being given advice on how to “game” the system. They were told that if you came to the US with children, and applied for asylum, the process would take an extended period of time and under the terms of a consent decree the US Gov’t was required to release children within 20 days — and their parents along with them. So the combination of this tactic, and the Obama Admin. “humanitarian” policy of not separating families, ENCOURAGED more adults to bring children with them when making the dangerous effort to cross the US-Mexico border on foot. And they were learning that many time the children were not even the children of the adults they were traveling with — they had been sent by their parents to take up residence with other relatives already living in the US.

    So, what did the Obama Admin do??? They started a pilot program in Texas IN OCTOBER 2016 which separated “families” apprehended coming across the border.

    And it’s not possible to know to what degree the Obama Administration policy had family separation as a “bug” of its earlier program, because the Obama Administration did not track the number of families separated or the number of children involved.

    Did any of these “Facts” slow the media down in the early days of their reporting on the Trump Administration policy?? How much trust and presumption of credibility does the media deserve 18 months in?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  576. that’s fake news Mr. Dave

    President Trump’s giving China a chance to denude their special needs child-country of the nuclear and the weapons

    if they don’t then guess what

    japan and south korea get nuclear weapons too

    and the dirty filthy chinesers can go to town on that pretty pretty penis til they choke on it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  577. Governments are composed of human beings, and all of the frailties that humans possess are absorbed into these governments and become active within these governments. Hatred, anger, jealousy, fear, greed, distrust and the whole host of afflictions that humans must bear, lurk just beneath the surface of civility displayed by ‘government.’ – John McAfee

    Whether ‘government’ or ‘media’ or academia’, it’s easy to see the dangers of one ideology being predominant over all others.

    An IRS that targets conservatives. Abuses at DOJ and State Dept seeking dirt on political opponents.

    A press that puts the worst possible spin on any reporting to do with Trump/conservatives/Republicans and in multiple cases even creating fake news to smear them.

    College campuses where freedom of speech is deemed dangerous, where puppies and crayons must be deployed for adults to cope with elections and where questioning Halloween costume guidelines will get you hounded from your job.

    harkin (b63958)

  578. Analysts at the CIA and other intelligence agencies don’t see it that way

    the sleazy sloppy CIA has absolutely ZERO credibility outside of its expertise areas of gay porn and skittles by the way

    they lie about everything

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  579. “Did any of these “Facts” slow the media down in the early days of their reporting on the Trump Administration policy?? How much trust and presumption of credibility does the media deserve 18 months in?”

    You’re asking the msm to apply honesty, professionalism and common sense when they are encouraged by Groupthink to remove those attributes.

    harkin (b63958)

  580. How much trust and presumption of credibility does the media deserve 18 months in?

    More than Donald Trump.

    The media correct many of their factual errors, often within minutes or hours. Trump never does.

    The fact that the media correct many of their factual errors gives the lie to the proposition that they are engaged in willful duplicity (intentionally lying, and then correcting the same lie shortly after, is self-defeating).

    Trump’s failure to correct ANY of his lies, on the other hand, is strong evidence that he is completely unconcerned about whether his statements comport with the truth.

    Dave (445e97)

  581. well as usual, it’s the weight of the evidence, that is involved, now yong byon was being built or running for forty years, yet the vaunted experts missed it,

    narciso (d1f714)

  582. For those wrestling with the meaning of “civility”….it’s like porn, it’s pretty obvious when you see it. Trump declaring negative news coverage as “fake” is generally uncivil. Accompanied by threats of license revocations or libel suits, this guarantees it’s uncivil and shuts down any hope of actual conversation. Trump has difficulty arguing facts, so he closes down debate and declares himself victor and the other the enemy. It’s like the playground.

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  583. Obama did not establish a pilot zero tolerance/family separation program Laredo in October 2016. He continued a pilot program called Operation Streamline begun by President Bush in 2005 in the Del Rio Division of the Western District of Texas. (Bush expanded the program to 8 divisions but it had shrunk to 3 divisions by Obama’s second term.) An IG Report on its effectiveness was inconclusive, but only because the data was not collected in a way that the program could be analyzed. However, the overall illegal entry statistics for the participating divisions suggested it was an effective program.

    DRJ (15874d)

  584. Here is the correct link for the IG Report.

    DRJ (15874d)

  585. well that’s very convenient, they can’t evaluate the data, like with fast and furious?

    narciso (d1f714)

  586. I think this rates a billy Madison treatment:

    https://twitter.com/jedshug/status/1013020737576361985

    narciso (d1f714)

  587. My understanding of the Report is that, in 2005-2010, the Border Patrol’s system did not have the ability to document an alien’s entry or deportation history over several years. (I think they had to access the DHS system for each case/prosevution.) Accordingly, they could tell that illegal entry cases were down but they could not say specific offenders had been deterred.

    DRJ (15874d)

  588. but it was a successful program, yet Obama downgraded it, as he virtually eliminated the interrogation program, through sanction and declassification of documents,

    narciso (d1f714)

  589. I was reading about Ben Rhodes a couple days ago, and his comments back around the time of the Iran nuke deal where he made a comment about how all the reporters covering the WH that he had to deal with were a bunch of 20 somethings who had no background or knowledge about the issues they were reporting on, which made lying to them and manipulating their reporting such an easy thing to do.

    I think he was exactly right, and I think this evolution in political reporting and the 24 hour news cycle has done more to bring us to the point we are at in terms of civility and accuracy with regard to the press coverage of the Trump Administration.

    I’m going to point out just one reporter because I’ve done a bit of research on her background in the past, and I don’t have the time to spend digging around about others. So if you want to dismiss my point on the basis that it only deals with one person, that’s on you. But I think she’s emblematic of most of the WH press corps and the NY-DC “Acela Line” reporting class in general.

    Katy Tur now has her own daytime show on MSNBC. Katy Tur came to prominence during the 2016 campaign as the NBC news correspondent covering the Trump campaign. She was generally negative in her reporting about Trump campaign events, policy statements, and speeches — so much so that Trump called her out by name at one particular event in Florida, and the crowd booed her and verbally harassed her during the event while she was in the “press pen”.

    So — who was Katy Tur in 2016, and what was the basis for assigning her to cover Trump’s campaign and provide authoritative “commentary” on the issues of the campaign??

    She graduated from UC Santa Barbara in 2005. So her news career was 10 years old when she covered her first Trump rally in NY in June 2015. At that time she happened to be in New York for reasons unrelated to politics — she was then stationed in London where her major stories had involved airline crashes. But the day Trump announced, someone in NBC news decided to embed a reporter with his campaign for 6 weeks in the summer of 2015. Because she was otherwise unassigned at that particular moment, she was selected. But she had in the past been a general assignment news reporter for the local NBC news station in New York, and at one of the first events she covered Trump recognized her and picked her out of the crowd in making a reference in her direction. She then asked Hope Hicks for a one-on-one interview, and a week later Trump agreed.

    She had never covered politics prior to the summer of 2015. After leaving UCSB, she had stops as at KTLA in Los Angeles, Local News 12 in Brooklyn, WPIX TV (a CW Network affiliate in NY), Fox 5 NY, and later as a storm chaser for the Weather Channel. In 2009 she joined WNBC, the local NBC affiliate in NY, and did some national stories for various NBC News components like Today Show. That eventually led to her becoming a foreign correspondent for NBC News stationed in London, in 2014, where she was prior to being assigned to the nascent Trump campaign in July 2015.

    And because she became the “face” of the press when Trump started his “Fake News” campaign schtick, she was able to parlay that into a campaign memoir and an MSNBC show even though she still has NEVER been assigned to report on politics or government in DC.

    From a June 2017 NYT profile — one year ago:

    Mr. Trump’s sudden rise mirrors that of Ms. Tur’s. Just two years ago she was a foreign correspondent for NBC, living in London. But she happened to be in New York when the future president announced his candidacy, on June 16, 2015.

    “How would you like to spend the summer in New York?” an NBC News executive asked her. “We want you on Trump’s campaign. It will be six weeks, tops. But hey, if he wins, you’ll go to the White House.”

    A year or so later, she had captured national attention. Colleagues rallied around her, thousands tweeted #iamwithtur, magazines came calling, and HarperCollins engaged her to write a book on the 2016 campaign; “Unbelievable” is due out in September. Then there is the afternoon anchor slot, which MSNBC gave her in January. In April, she received a Walter Cronkite Award for excellence. And this month she will become a contributor to the much publicized new NBC News program “Sunday Night With Megyn Kelly.”

    But what she won’t do is go to Washington.

    “I did not want to go to Washington for a number of reasons,” she said, “one of which, the first and foremost of which being I’ve got a personal life now, and I’m engaged. I want to be in New York with my fiancé. And I’m a big believer in reporting from the outside. I’ve always been an outsider. I think being in the White House press corps, it’s difficult to do the sort of journalism that I would want to do.”

    Why would I, as a consumer of news, consider anything Katy Tur writes or says to be significant on any subject? What has she ever done or accomplished, besides being the “scab” that Donald Trump picked at during the campaign, that makes her writing or views on any subject worthy of being considered informed and educated?

    And, when considering issues of journalistic bias, who knew this about her:

    The expat life was a good one: There was my French boyfriend. My bright two-bedroom flat in Islington. My wine at lunch….

    Then came a Make-A-Wish Foundation request from Aaron, a severely ill teen from Pennsylvania. He wanted a tour of NBC’s headquarters at 30 Rock and the chance to shadow me for a day.

    I booked a ticket to New York….

    I took Aaron and his family to the Stonewall Inn, the birthplace of the LGBT rights movement. The Supreme Court had just handed down its decision to legalize gay marriage, and thousands of happy people gathered to celebrate. I marveled at how open this country had become. Love had won. I was ready to go home.

    When I read that it seemed odd. Why would that stand out in a profile where she described how it was that she came to be in New York at the time Trump announced his candidacy, which led to her assignment to his campaign?

    Then I learned this:

    Tur is the daughter of journalists Hanna Zoey Tur and Marika Gerrard.

    That seemed odd. As it turns out, her parents — and awarding winning helicopter news crew in LA — had divorced in 2003 while she was in college.

    Her father’s name at the time of the divorce was Robert Albert Tur. In June 2013 Tur announced having gender identity disorder, and in 2014 revealed that [s]he was undergoing hormone replacement therapy. In August 2014, following gender reassignment surgery, [s]he applied to a court to change her name and gender from male to female.

    From her background and her comments, would it be fair to assume that Tur’s politics lean left — maybe more than just “lean”??

    Combine that with a lack of any real policy chops on any particular subject involving domestic politics or government, and why should I accept her reporting on anything having to do with the Trump campaign or Administration.

    But this is the new “norm” in politics. The 24 hour news cycle makes experienced reporters unwilling to go on the road — who wants to live that lifestyle, separated from friends and family for weeks at a time. So what you get are young reporters, largely unattached and willing to travel with little notice in terms of departure or destination. And the coverage they provide has no foundation in the form of an understanding of events from a historical perspective.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  590. cnn invented the “fake news” meme to explain why hillary lost lost lost they said it was cause americans stupidly clicked on the wrong things (poor clicking discernment)

    but cnn lies all the time!

    all those nasty CNN poofter boys they lie and they lie and they lie

    then they exploit some dead children (we want you to pimp the dead babies like they was thai tranny hookers anderson) (okey dokey Mr. Zucker)

    then they do CNN Jake Tapper fake news all up in it 24 hours out of every day!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  591. 506… that’s a riot, PandP!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  592. Still have yet to see anyone walk back their remarks about the president bragging he banned all Muslims post travel ban.

    NJRob (73071e) — 6/30/2018 @ 9:37 am

    I have not followed the entirety of the discussion, but while I am unaware of evidence that Trump specifically bragged about having signed a “Muslim ban” I think it’s fair to say that his public remarks post-signing are consistent with the proposition that he continued to see his orders as a form of Muslim ban.

    As a candidate he stated that he intended to ban all Muslims from entering on a temporary basis. As a president he signed an order that temporarily denied entry to people from many but not all Muslim countries and a couple of non-Muslim ones. He and his supporters recharacterized it as “extreme vetting” — but when asked about his campaign remarks he refused to apologize.

    By analogy, say I declared that I intended to temporarily ban all Trump supporters until we could figure out what the hell was going on. Then I banned a large number of the most vocal Trump supporters and a couple of non-Trump supporters, while leaving some less vocal Trump supporters unaffected. Assume that my guest bloggers explain that I was simply dealing with the uncivil commenters, but when asked about my initial announcement that I planned to ban people for simply supporting Trump, I say: “I have no apologies for that statement.”

    Have I bragged that I banned all Trump supporters after the ban? Not really. Would the entirety of this scenario reasonably lead people to conclude that the banning had a lot to do with people being Trump supporters? I think it would.

    One might argue that Trump’s MO is never to apologize for anything (which is not quite 100% true; he apologized for the Billy Bush tape) and thus you can’t read anything into his lack of apology. This is not convincing to me, because it lets him have it both ways: he doesn’t have to apologize but he also doesn’t have to own the consequences of refusing to apologize.

    Patterico (a592c1)

  593. haiku at 400.

    He was his thesis advisor at Princeton.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  594. Another victim of civility: Hugh Hewitt. He has lost his show on MSNBC. While I have profound differences with him, the man has been unfailingly, and to a fault, civil and polite with everyone. He has always actively sought out various sides of various issues. His ratings suffered for it and the plug has been pulled.

    Ever so tolerant, MSNBC.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  595. I thought it was folly for Hewitt to attach himself to MSNBC. Their viewership is skewed dramatically away from his POV. The fact that he went straight down the middle on a Saturday morning show wasn’t going to change the fact that he was going to attract guests who were generally sympathetic to the Trump administration, and the viewership of MSNBC was just never going to accept that.

    I know he really values his time on MTP, and enjoys a good relationship with Chuck Todd. Whether that’s strong enough to keep him tied to NBC or not remains to be seen.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  596. a lot of people get hung up on President Trump for aesthetic reasons but not me

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  597. @614. Pfft. More like another victim of free market capitalism:

    TV shows canceled in 2017-18: 76 and counting

    -source, http://www.tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com

    “I argued that television was a volatile industry in which success and failure were determined week by week…” – Frank Hackett [Robert Duvall] ‘Network’ 1976

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  598. Hugh Hewitt: Cancelled by MSNBC, No Season Two for Political Interview Series

    “Well, there’s always radio. The Hugh Hewitt TV show has been cancelled after little more than one year on MSNBC. The lawyer, law professor, and conservative commentator announced his half-hour Saturday morning series was ending, during this morning’s broadcast. Watch it, below. In his announcement, Hewitt said that he would remain on the cable news network as a contributor and guest, continue to appear on NBC‘s Meet the Press, and would conduct more one-on-one interviews. Whether he meant those interviews would be for MSNBC or his Salem Radio Network series, is not clear.”

    “Meanwhile, an early May Media Matters for America piece is getting some new attention. The report asserts, “Hewitt repeatedly used his employment at MSNBC to praise the Trump administration’s efforts to weaken the Clean Water Act, calling it one of the ‘accomplishments’ of President Donald Trump’s first year in office. But Hewitt and MSNBC did not disclose that one of his law firm’s clients is an oil and gas company that is currently litigating allegations it violated the environmental law.” The piece furthermore highlights that Hewitt is friends with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and that Hewitt’s son works for the EPA. That’s getting beyond our scope here, which is MSNBC’s cancellation of Hugh Hewitt, so be sure to check out that article for more details.”

    – source, http://www.tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/hugh-hewitt-cancelled-by-msnbc-no-season-two-for-political-interview-series/

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  599. 1856 all over again. soon new dred scott decision on abortion. then harpers ferry, fort sumter. the abolitionsts won’t figt southern battle cry until shiloh then cemetery ridge gettysburg.

    wendell (0ebc6e)

  600. @616. The natives are restless today, Mr. Feet.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  601. Media mutters that fulltime tax dodge masquerading as a legitimate enterprise, lol.

    Narciso (1d2840)

  602. It wasn’t for a couple days — after the administration began pushing back — that some media outlets acknowledged that the controversial policy of separating kids from parents had its roots in the Obama Administration.

    It may have had some roots but it wasn’t the same policy.

    Paul Montagu (852677)

  603. I didn’t pretend to speak for you; I extended the logic of your position, a common practice in debate. If you want to continue the discussion, please reply substantively. I understand if you would rather drop it, as your position is untenable.

    To me, it looked like you were attributing a position to Beldar that he denies.

    If you want to say that you believe the logic of his position would lead a person to believe x, that’s is one thing. Saying Beldar favors x is another.

    I am on the verge of announcing a rule making it a bannable offense to persistently mischaracterize the views of others, especially after they explain that this is not their view. Persisting in such behavior runs the risk of appearing to be deliberate trolling, adds nothing to the conversation, and indeed detracts seriously from the conversation.

    Patterico (a592c1)

  604. Well, I kind of think it is trolling. But that’s me.

    Your blog, your rules.

    Simon Jester (5218ff)

  605. Patterico, I found this helpful to me.

    http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  606. Obama apparently doesn’t understand the concept of a peaceful transference of power resulting from an election. No, it’s not that. What it is is that he doesn’t accept it. https://nypost.com/2018/06/30/obamas-disappearance-is-a-myth/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    Colonel Haiku (d82ccd)

  607. 622 — except you didn’t read the article carefully enough to know the attempt at “debunking” the equivalency claim is itself suspect:

    it’s simply untrue to say he had a policy of separating families.

    Except that’s wrong. The Obama admin. made a decision to not separate families of FIRST TIME border crossers. If the border crosser had been stopped previously, the families were separated.

    Immigration experts we spoke to said Obama-era policies did lead to some family separations, but only relatively rarely, and nowhere near the rate of the Trump administration.

    An interesting claim that is undercut by the parenthetical that follows it:

    (A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman said the Obama administration did not count the number of families separated at the border.)

    Hard to know if the Obama Admin are telling the truth or not when they did not track the number of families separated.

    In Trump’s case, family separations are a feature, not a bug, of the administration’s border policies, said David Fitzgerald, who co-directs the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies.

    Well, you can’t say that if you can’t document the number of families separated under the Obama policy.

    Andrew Selee, president of the Migration Policy Institute, said that, as a deterrent, the Obama administration began prosecuting border-crossers who had already been deported at least once.

    So I guess there was a “policy” of family separation, just with regard to a narrower class of border crossers. So maybe it wasn’t inaccurate to say the Trump policy had its “roots” in the Obama administration.

    But very few of those people crossed with children, so it didn’t become as visible an issue,” he said. “There was some child separation and some pushback by immigrant advocacy groups around that, but the numbers were quite limited.

    AND THAT’S THE RUB — it became known in the smuggling community that adults traveling with kids would not be detained. They could file asylum petitions, and they were going to be let go.

    In 2014, amid an influx of asylum seekers from Central America, the administration established large family detention centers to hold parents and children — potentially indefinitely — as a means of deterring other asylees. The practice eventually lost a legal challenge, resulting in a 2016 decision that stopped families from being detained together.

    The illegal migrant population has dramatically transformed itself from largely single Mexican males, to entire families now mostly from Central America. Mexico sheppards them along their way so long as they agree they will not take up residency in Mexico. As long as Mexico is just the highway they use in their trek to the US, they let them go right ahead.

    So, the change in tactics required a change in response. The Trump Admin had one less option available to it — the family detention centers — because of the lawfare that was waged against the Obama Admin. policies by illegal immigration advocates.

    So, yes, the problem and the policy has its roots in the Obama Administration.

    Want to try again Paul?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  608. swc, repeat border-crossers are always prosecuted criminally. That’s the law, and that part didn’t change from Bush to Obama to Trump. For first-time offenders, which is the actual issue here, the feds have the option to prosecute civilly or criminally, and Sessions went with the latter for all cases.

    Paul Montagu (852677)

  609. PC is the explosive that blows the machine to bits.

    Then we must have different definitions for PC. I don’t see how discouraging people from going around calling each other racial slurs is “explosive.” To me, that is the heart of being politically correct.

    Tillman (d34303)

  610. “To me, that is the heart of being politically correct.“

    It’s a simple case of being polite, following the Golden Rule.

    Colonel Haiku (d82ccd)

  611. Would fitzgerald have a reason to cover with a pillow?

    narciso (d1f714)

  612. 623. Normally if you want to presume on someone’s beliefs, provided that they havne’t expressed them explicitly, you would say something like, “I think it’s reasonable for me to think that you believe [insert believe here].” That’s not what was done here.

    Gryph (5efbad)

  613. repeat border crossers are not always prosecuted. for a long time the policy was “catch and release” particularly on busy days and it was not uncommon for people to be apprehended 2X in one day for crossing and each time simply released back into Mexico.

    I know a day laborer who has told me that he was caught crossing the border 8X and never did more than 24 hours in detention. the last 7 times should have been felonies

    It is impractical to require ICE to keep people together due to sheer volume of crossings. How is ICE supposed to verify that the group its sees together really is a family? Obviously ICE needs to be prudent and exercise caution, so separate them, interview them, examine any documents, verify documents, verify that those minor children are indeed family. That all takes a lot of time and manpower

    steveg (a9dcab)

  614. I think this USA Today article has a more accurate analysis of family separations during the Bush, Obama, and Trump Administrations. First, all three Presidents separated families if there was a basis to suspect smuggling or trafficking was occurring, or where a parent/adult had outstanding warrants or criminal charges other than illegal entry.

    The real issue is the zero tolerance policy that separates families where one parent is charged with illegal entry. Both Bush and Obama tried zero tolerance policies that separated families if there were criminal charges for illegal entry. Bush tried it from 2005-2010 in Operation Streamline, but in a limited number of remote areas — originally in Del Rio and ultimately in 8 remote border divisions. and

    Obama scaled back the program to, at most, 3 border areas … and maybe just Laredo. My guess is he kept the Laredo program because there were so many families and unaccompanied minors targeting Laredo in 2014 that the media even gave it a name: The Surge.

    Meanwhile, Trump expanded zero tolerance to all jurisdictions so it has impacted many more people in just the first months it has been in effect.

    DRJ (15874d)

  615. It should also be noted that Trump and Obama have had to abide by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, a gift from Bush on his way out.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  616. Technically Bush’s term ended in 2008 but it appears that his Operation Streamline continued under Obama until 2010.

    DRJ (15874d)

  617. I’m not clear on how the Trafficking Act impacts the border problems. It seems to be limited.

    DRJ (15874d)

  618. It doesn’t flow, it should be easier to establish such numbers in a smaller cohort.

    narciso (d1f714)

  619. More reminders for the blackpillers among us:

    “A failed Trump presidency has still accomplished the following:

    – created a populist uprising that has shown fanatical devotion

    – badly damaged the conservative media establishment

    – separated a majority of the base from the Republican establishment

    – reoriented right wing politics around immigration and trade instead of taxes and budget cuts

    – ground neocon warmongering to a halt

    – proved the enemy’s vulnerability–it can bleed, and therefore it can die

    – for the first time in a century, made America First a successful political slogan

    If you can’t appreciate that, you need to switch from blackpills to a full bottle of your mom’s Ambien. It’s courteous, however, to leave a note.”

    Dysphoria Sam (312848)

  620. “The caricature from the self-caricature alt-right is that Trump supporters–“fools”–excuse everything Trump does by calling it some absurd variation of 5D chess. This was a meme used hyperbolically during the election, but which is now deployed by blackpilled alt-righters to sarcastically (and childishly) deny that any interpretation of events other than their own is valid. Merely by snarkily referencing “5D chess”, inane bloggers with practically no life experience can expound (blow hard) about politics well into the night, proud of never being wrong, or never being really wrong, or only being wrong for the right reasons–whatever the current BS excuse is.

    In reality, politics is rarely two-dimensional–hence, Republicans who really supported DACA nevertheless loudly criticized it when there was no hope of doing anything about it. (Or Obamacare. Or our porous southern border. Or abortion. Or gay marriage.) There is, normally, a certain amount of kabuki. The legislative calendar is arranged by partisan needs. Many pieces of legislation are designed to fail, or to succeed and then to fail, or whatever convoluted outcome is required. Because they do this every day, legislators are usually smarter about this than the blog-reading spectators.

    By now, using “5D” snark to defuse counter-argument is the dumb person’s tactic. It’s only deployed by dumb, insecure people who don’t have a lot to go on other than their depressive feelings and the toll that being antisocial has taken on them.

    MPC–I can speak for it because I created it–does not believe in an all-powerful Trump. We also do not believe that an all-powerful Trump, or a victorious Trump presidency, is required to move forward. Very nice to have, but not a requirement. Even a failed Trump presidency is superior to the bumbling alt-right meth squad, which aside from being antisocial, stupid, bitter, insular, self-serving, unpopular, narcissistic, and amoral, is just plain unpleasant.

    Reading these criticisms, I ask you again: How are the #NeverTrumpers any different in spirit or tactics from the alt-righters who decided to go the Spencer-Kessler route? Is their forced in-joke of ‘4D CHESS!!!’ snarking really all that distinguishable from the “BUT GORSUCH!!!” meme? Are they truly any more social, intelligent, winning, cosmopolitan, attentive to the needs of a greater party, popular, outward-focused, or moral than the typical TRS junkie? If so, is the degree of difference really all that great, or more of a ‘gotta keep juuuuuust above completely and obsessively toxic to keep this job?” Could we, as a national Republican party, do better than this?

    Dysphoria Sam (312848)

  621. Even in the Reagan administration, there were not loyalists all through out, as pointed out in arms control in Latin American operations in justice.

    Narciso (f8d04a)

  622. Stop it, Sam 641. Suggesting suicide is never humorous and way out of bounds.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  623. If you can’t appreciate that, you need to switch from blackpills to a full bottle of your mom’s Ambien. It’s courteous, however, to leave a note.”

    Goodbye.

    Patterico (a592c1)

  624. DRJ, speaking of “open borders” and odd definitions of “PC,” you have identified the problem with the comments section. A few people feel that they can say anything at all, no matter how rude or tasteless, on Patterico’s blog.

    I’m glad to see Patterico having some limits—when people misstate what others say, and lie about having done so repeatedly—but he is VERY open minded.

    I suspect that these few unpleasant individuals have few places that they can spew their bile, so here it is.

    Mind you, there are many folks who disagree with others and with Patterico vehemently, but are never rude or vulgar. They are not the problem.

    But I agree: hyperbolic “jokes” about suicide, that will likely be defended with faux-macho and “can’t you take a joke” ought to be out of bounds.

    Still: not my blog.

    Simon Jester (79a3c0)

  625. Whoops. Thank you, Patterico.

    Simon Jester (79a3c0)

  626. I was speaking of invective, some don’t have the facts or the temperament to make an argument, that’s why there’s stormfront and daily kos the other side.

    Narciso (f8d04a)

  627. To me, it looked like you were attributing a position to Beldar that he denies.

    Well gool-ly, it looks to me this was explained.

    I didn’t pretend to speak for you; I extended the logic of your position, a common practice in debate.

    If a feller cain’t do such a thing, the whole of the idear of conversation seems pretty one sided, if ya see what I mean.

    It’s one thing to put quotes around what another feller says, it’s another thing to tease out where he’s a going by the tracks he’s laid down already.

    But, if’in ya cain’t see the difference, I guess ya cain’t be blamed for a plugg’in yer ears. Pity’s on yerself though.

    Festus (d19b35)

  628. Golden years g-o-l-d
    (whop-whop-whop)
    Golden years g-o-l-d
    (whop-whop-whop)

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  629. I didn’t really know that song till it was the soundtrack for a,little known Stephen king story of the same name, with Keith skarabja(sic) then mccalls assiciate in the equalizer,

    Narciso (f8d04a)

  630. It’s one thing to put quotes around what another feller says, it’s another thing to tease out where he’s a going by the tracks he’s laid down already.

    But, if’in ya cain’t see the difference, I guess ya cain’t be blamed for a plugg’in yer ears. Pity’s on yerself though.

    Re-read my comment. I distinguished between teasing out the implications and putting words in another person’s mouth. If you want to tease out implications, do so — but don’t pretend to know what another person is saying when they have denied it.

    If YOU can’t tell the difference between the two, you’re unlikely to be contributing much value here.

    Patterico (a592c1)

  631. Claiming “Festus claims to enjoy carnal knowledge with barn animals” and then later “clarifying” that I was just teasing out the implications of someone taking the position that they are a down-home aw-shucks hick — that would be annoying, and dishonest, and detracting from real conversation.

    Patterico (a592c1)

  632. I’m likely to be less tolerant of trolls going forward, is what I’m trying to say.

    Don’t put words in others’ mouths.

    Patterico (a592c1)

  633. Festus, you apparently read my comment 623, but you oddly seem to have missed this part of that very short comment:

    If you want to say that you believe the logic of his position would lead a person to believe x, that’s is one thing. Saying Beldar favors x is another.

    If that was too difficult for you to understand, let me try to make it clearer.

    If Anon Y. Mous intends to argue: “it appears that according to Beldar’s logic, if an omnibus spending bill gets to Trump’s desk, Trump should sign it”

    Then I require him to put it that way, and not to say:

    “Beldar’s position is that Trump should sign it”

    Because the latter is putting words in Beldar’s mouth, and that is aggressive and obnoxious when Beldar has denied that is his position. I don’t much care that it’s explained later. Don’t do it to begin with.

    Especially when, as others have pointed out, Beldar’s distaste for shutdown politics does not compel the conclusion Mr. Mous reached.

    Hopefully that makes my point easier to understand. Could you kindly reply with a comment that shows you understand my point?

    Patterico (a592c1)

  634. When you think they can’t dial to eleven:

    http://mobile.twitter.com/Cameron_Gray/status/

    Narciso (f8d04a)

  635. Mr. Mous can argue his own position if’in he wants, I’m just a say’un the rules of discourse get a little tougher, or a little easier, dependen on who a feller do’in the judging favors generally. If y’all can’t get that straight in your mind I’m thinking the whole idear of recusal is lost on yer.

    And that ain’t no way near possible. But see what I did there?

    Festus (d19b35)

  636. there’s a lot of other web pages but i always come back to this one

    even when the thread is stale

    but things go stale quick in this heat oh my goodness but i looked it up we’re nowhere near any kind of record it’s just we been pretty spoiled so far this year with the temperate weathers

    i’m planning a great lakes sojourn for august so i need to get acclimated that’s for sure

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  637. Notably this was the other faction, that helped topple both mossadecq and the shah:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/30/pressure-mounts-iranian-regime-traders-go-strike-sanctions-begin/

    narciso (d1f714)

  638. Claiming “Festus claims to enjoy carnal knowledge with barn animals” and then later “clarifying” that I was just teasing out the implications of someone taking the position that they are a down-home aw-shucks hick — that would be annoying, and dishonest, and detracting from real conversation.

    Y’all go right on and do that. Oh , wait. Ya did..

    Anyway, Be’in that’s where ya went, says more ’bout you than me. I ain’t the one with a opinion of “hick’s” past boarder’in on the perverted.

    Festus (d19b35)

  639. and yeah like Mr. Rob said it’d be nice to have an update on Dana I hope she’s better soon

    i wonder if she’s in a good place to try some sangria recipes

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  640. Very well said, and good for Patterico for setting even higher standards for himself(on top of his already high standards of civility. Contrary to what some here think, him calling out the BS and lies of others doesn’t equate to incivility). Trump’s propensity to lie perpetually and his lack of dignified behavior in public discourse I feel has brought out the worst in many people, especially by those who rationalize this kind of behavior and lying as acceptable. In order for conservatism to be a viable and healthy movement, requires winning new adherents to the cause. With Trump’s deleterious behavior making the news front and center, it is doing long term damage to conservatism. Many potential converts to the conservative cause and movement look at how the President behaves, and associate conservatism with it. Granted, people are fallible, and politicians getting economical with the truth and losing their tempers is nothing new. But at least most of them had some shame as to hide it, or try to make amends for it. Now, incivility and lying is openly bragged about in some quarters of the sphere of public debate. The progressive left, of course, have had this problem for years, without any sign of abatement. They’ve for years engaged in Aliskyesque tactics and behaviors. One of the most damning things about Trump and some of his hard core supporters, is that they engage in the same behaviors and tactics of the left, even while rightfully criticizing them for it.

    I feel that all of us need to make a renewed commitment to civility and intellectual honesty in our public discourse. Only then will elected officeholders come to reflect such virtues. It all starts with each one of us. In the end, we get the government and politicians we deserve.

    Huddyboy (88f856)

  641. do you *really* think these sermons are effective Mr. Huddyboy

    what we got going on in america right now, it’s just the zeitgeist it has to run its course as these things are wont to do

    and there’s no wrong way to zeitgeist really unless you make a planet of the apes reference about valerie jarrett or go out to eat at the wrong place at the wrong time

    but i was thinking the other day

    (not today this was before)

    and I saw Mr. Instapundit had an information what said that people only go to 25 places at a time!

    So I was thinking

    if people just kinda keep going to their 25 places until everyone stops being so melodramatic about President Trump then we’re gonna get through this just fine, all of us

    except for if you do planet of the apes all up in it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  642. I’m just a say’un the rules of discourse get a little tougher, or a little easier, dependen on who a feller do’in the judging favors generally.

    Sam Harris would never condition discourse on favoritism, so that sort of behavior couldn’t possibly happen here.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  643. Sort of explains how Poodleman-Shultz got elected… http://ace.mu.nu/archives/Peak%20Florida.jpg

    Colonel Haiku (820854)

  644. 666, about damn time to aim the flamethrower back on he who cast aspersions on the Golden Shower State and the Land of Stinkin

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  645. Boundry Waters, happyfeet.

    mg (9e54f8)

  646. this time gonna do wisconsin

    the apostles!

    cause i imagine i’ll do more wisconsins later

    cheese activities and dells and house on rock and foliage and lake geneva and door county and milwaukee all seem inevitable

    but to get to the Apostles you really have to make an effort

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  647. repeat border crossers are not always prosecuted.

    Actually, you’re right steve, my bad. For both illegal entry and illegal reentry, there is prosecutorial discretion for both violations.

    “It is the government’s choice whether to criminally prosecute someone for illegal entry or reentry,” Brown wrote in an email to FactCheck.org. “That is the quintessential definition of ‘prosecutorial discretion.’”
    “Historically, most immigrants were not prosecuted, even when the law allowed for it, they were simply removed in civil proceedings,” she said. “The significant uptick in criminal prosecution began under President George W. Bush, and continued through the early Obama administration.”
    U.S Attorney General Jeff Sessions outlined the new enforcement actions on May 7.
    “If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple,” Sessions said. “If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law.”

    Since Sessions did not differentiate between first-timers and repeat offenders in his announcement, then the conclusion to draw is that he changed the policy to wholesale criminal prosecutions, and the natural result is a family separation policy.

    Paul Montagu (852677)

  648. wisconsin’s still on the kinda small list of states i never been to since i was a kid

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  649. A gorgeous state and have a swell time.

    mg (9e54f8)

  650. thank you i’m excited to get started on it

    my little brother lived there for a little bit but I never got to visit

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  651. omg

    disgraced fbi poofter jim comey and the slut-suck fbi continue to plumb new depths

    summer bummer womp womp

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  652. From the link at Narciso (58519e) — 6/30/2018 @ 9:03 pm

    They [Obamas] recently bought their DC rental home and erected a massive security wall around the property, which includes offices, and are installing a swimming pool.

    A wall you say?

    felipe (023cc9)

  653. It just takes two tweets to know that Jim Acosta is an embarrassing media hack. First, there’s his tweet.

    I tried to ask the president if he would stop calling us the enemy of the people. He did not respond.

    So there he is, coming across as a Valiant Journalist, defending his trade against an unresponsive president. And while what he said was technically true, it was misleading, as Politico demonstrates.
    Acosta was in the back of the room, so of course Trump didn’t respond. It’s doubtful Trump heard him in the first place. And note a couple of other things. The bald guy in front of Acosta was shushing him. If you squint your eyes, he looks a little like Stephen Miller but he was probably just another media guy who’s seen Acosta’s antics before. You could almost see the eyeroll. The other thing is how Acosta shouted his question three times, then looked back at the cameraman and signaled him to shut off the TV lights, which makes his whole business look more like a media stunt instead of real journalism.

    Paul Montagu (852677)

  654. Also, wouldn’t the wall make the property a “compound?” Or is that descriptor reserved for certain others by the media?

    felipe (023cc9)

  655. i don’t think the older obama daughter’s particularly bright

    she’s dumbing harvard down even more than it is

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  656. my whole life ahead and i’ll never be a “former harvey weinstein intern”

    i love that about me

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  657. Bohemian Rhapsody (ROCK & METAL IMPRESSIONS COVER) Parapsyche

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  658. rami malek directed by bryan singer is gonna be

    something of a test of our zeit and our geist i think

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  659. It’s obvious that Trump didn’t hear Acosta; if he had, he would have insulted and/or threatened him.

    Dave (59a371)

  660. Didn’t Trump shoot somebody and nobody cared?

    mg (9e54f8)

  661. In portland to night it was clubs not conversation.

    wendell (e06ca9)

  662. No, but Durbin and Duckworth, did, same difference.

    Narciso (28ee45)

  663. Oh you betcha

    https://www.americanthinker.com/

    Narciso (28ee45)

  664. “Many people mistook their policy positions for principles, and Trump has made them look foolish. What do they stand for now? What does it mean to be conservative if you’re not clear about what you’re conserving? Credit David Brooks, of all people, with waving the white flag first this April, and with some humility when he admitted that ‘Part of the problem is that anti-Trumpism has a tendency to be insufferably condescending.’ Brooks then basically summarized the great failure of the Never Trumpers as ‘an epic attempt to offend 40 percent of our fellow citizens by reducing them to psychological inferiors.’” https://spectator.org/the-collapse-of-the-never-trump-conservatives/

    “It’s difficult to argue that we’d be better off with a Hillary economy, a Hillary foreign policy, or a second Hillary Supreme Court Justice. But that’s what you’re arguing, if you’re NeverTrump.” —- Glenn Reynolds

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  665. Mr. Mous can argue his own position if’in he wants, I’m just a say’un the rules of discourse get a little tougher, or a little easier, dependen on who a feller do’in the judging favors generally. If y’all can’t get that straight in your mind I’m thinking the whole idear of recusal is lost on yer.

    And that ain’t no way near possible. But see what I did there?

    The only thing that I “see what [you] did there,” Festus, is share an IP address with Colonel Haiku.

    We don’t allow sock puppets here.

    The other thing that I “see what [you] did there” is totally ignore the point I was making to whine about the “rules of discourse” in a way that is not falsifiable because it is pure opinion, much as “waaaah I think you complain about Trump too much” (a complaint I hear a lot from Colonel Haiku, who shares your IP address) is a whine that is not falsifiable and seems designed to be a troll.

    So there’s evidence you’re a sock puppet and you’re clearly trolling (which Colonel Haiku often does too — trolling, that is).

    Which is interesting. Given that you share an IP address with him.

    So what do I do with a person who seems to be sock puppeting and is definitely trolling and not responding to my points? Traditionally, there is an answer for that. But I put the question to both Festus and Haiku. Since they share an IP address.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  666. omg Mr. Colonel the comments

    they’re coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  667. If y’all can’t get that straight in your mind I’m thinking the whole idear of recusal is lost on yer.

    Recusal in its broadest sense is defined as removing oneself from participation. That seems to be what Haiku/Festus are doing.

    DRJ (15874d)

  668. The next liberal meme: Conservative justices are “weaponizing the First Amendment”. It sounds ominous, as if ruling on expanded free speech rights is some sort threat to society.

    Paul Montagu (852677)

  669. I have not followed the entirety of the discussion, but while I am unaware of evidence that Trump specifically bragged about having signed a “Muslim ban” I think it’s fair to say that his public remarks post-signing are consistent with the proposition that he continued to see his orders as a form of Muslim ban.

    As a candidate he stated that he intended to ban all Muslims from entering on a temporary basis. As a president he signed an order that temporarily denied entry to people from many but not all Muslim countries and a couple of non-Muslim ones. He and his supporters recharacterized it as “extreme vetting” — but when asked about his campaign remarks he refused to apologize.

    By analogy, say I declared that I intended to temporarily ban all Trump supporters until we could figure out what the hell was going on. Then I banned a large number of the most vocal Trump supporters and a couple of non-Trump supporters, while leaving some less vocal Trump supporters unaffected. Assume that my guest bloggers explain that I was simply dealing with the uncivil commenters, but when asked about my initial announcement that I planned to ban people for simply supporting Trump, I say: “I have no apologies for that statement.”

    Have I bragged that I banned all Trump supporters after the ban? Not really. Would the entirety of this scenario reasonably lead people to conclude that the banning had a lot to do with people being Trump supporters? I think it would.

    One might argue that Trump’s MO is never to apologize for anything (which is not quite 100% true; he apologized for the Billy Bush tape) and thus you can’t read anything into his lack of apology. This is not convincing to me, because it lets him have it both ways: he doesn’t have to apologize but he also doesn’t have to own the consequences of refusing to apologize.

    Patterico (a592c1) — 6/30/2018 @ 12:14 pm

    The problem with this is that we say words matter. It’s clear, by his remarks and the restrictions with the travel ban, that he did no such thing. It’s also why so many kept posting remarks he had from either the campaign website or before he was nominated for president. Then, when it was made clear that he hadn’t said any such thing since the ban was put in place, people said that he said it in a way that his supporters would know what it means.

    That’s just doubling down without accepting that the original proposition was wrong. I’ve made mistakes on here and admitted to them. I’ve apologized when asked and it was clear I was in the wrong. But, for some reason, there are too many on here that never seem to reciprocate. It’s a problem and will definitely hinder conversations in the future because it implies to those who are open to conversation that some are just discussing these issues in bad faith.

    NJRob (b00189)

  670. Double the “you betcha”, narciso

    mg (9e54f8)

  671. The problem with this is that we say words matter. It’s clear, by his remarks and the restrictions with the travel ban, that he did no such thing. It’s also why so many kept posting remarks he had from either the campaign website or before he was nominated for president. Then, when it was made clear that he hadn’t said any such thing since the ban was put in place, people said that he said it in a way that his supporters would know what it means.

    That’s just doubling down without accepting that the original proposition was wrong. I’ve made mistakes on here and admitted to them. I’ve apologized when asked and it was clear I was in the wrong. But, for some reason, there are too many on here that never seem to reciprocate. It’s a problem and will definitely hinder conversations in the future because it implies to those who are open to conversation that some are just discussing these issues in bad faith.

    I hear what you are saying: it seems to show bad faith not to apologize when one is shown wrong, and you believe that has happened here.

    I’d like to explore the second part of your claim further. I have two questions towards that end.

    First, I have not followed the entirety of the discussion. What, specifically, was “the original proposition” to which you refer?

    Second, I have said: “I am unaware of evidence that Trump specifically bragged about having signed a ‘Muslim ban.’”

    Can I get you, NJRob, to agree with this proposition, which I also said? “I think it’s fair to say that his public remarks post-signing are consistent with the proposition that he continued to see his orders as a form of Muslim ban.”

    If you could answer those two questions plainly, it would move the discussion forward. Again, they are: 1. What was the original proposition that you complain was wrong and that people will not apologize for? and 2. Do you agree that Trump’s public remarks post-signing are consistent with the proposition that he continued to see his orders as a form of Muslim ban?

    If you answer no to question 2, then I would like you to engage with the comment of mine you quoted, including the example about banning commenters. I opened this comment trying to show that I heard you and understood your position. I am asking you to reciprocate and show that you understand mine. If you disagree with my proposition (expressed in question #2 about Trump’s public remarks, no problem. All I ask is that you engage what I said about it in a way that shows you took the time to read what I said about it, you understand it, and you’re willing to summarize it in a way that I would approve as a fair summary of my point. That would show me that you’re truly listening and engaging, and I think it is the way to move a conversation forward.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  672. “The next Liberal meme”

    They are actually arguing that liberalism/socialism/communism advocates cannot win arguments unless they curtail the Freedom Of Speech of people who oppose those views.

    It’s like an own-goal.

    harkin (e4ec42)

  673. “The next Liberal meme”

    They are actually arguing that liberalism/socialism/communism advocates cannot win arguments unless they curtail the Freedom Of Speech of people who oppose those views.

    It’s like an own-goal.

    Having looked at that article, I would be fascinated to know what the losses for liberal speech are, that figure into the little bar charts Liptak has. Let’s hear the specifics. Maybe lefty claims of speech violation have simply gotten more outrageous and untethered from the law lately.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  674. I loved sock-puppet Friday.
    And i miss duh Biden.

    mg (9e54f8)

  675. The same people who say conservatives have weaponized freedom of speech are the same ones who see no problem forcing a union member to pay dues that go to support candidates and policies he/she opposes.

    harkin (e4ec42)

  676. Benny Shapiro looks awful he should be on sucide watch. What a despicable hack.

    mg (9e54f8)

  677. If Liptak really wanted to address the issue of “weaponizing the First Amendment”, he would’ve covered Putin’s ongoing propaganda/disinformation campaign, where Putineers are literally taking advantage of our First Amendment protections to wage information warfare against American interests.

    Paul Montagu (852677)

  678. Mg, That’s what happens if you try to have it both ways…”yes, we get it you are a Jewish electrician”, one might view Shapiro with that jaundice.

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  679. Aw shucks, I ain’t no colonel, and I weren’t so much talk’in about tough rules on the president, but easier ones on fellers here ya generally think more of than others.

    Ain’t no insult or such, just an observation, and one near everybody fits into, don’t yer see?

    Civility in conversation is a fine thing, and there’s virtue in its doin. But it’s kinder like the law, hittin thems ya don’t like with it hard and overlook’in it in them ones ya do cheapens the whole of it in everyone’s eye.

    Festus (d19b35)

  680. If I may join in, the conversation started on another thread. BuDuh posed a question in response to a comment by Bored Lawyer. Several people replied but, not satisfied with the responses, BuDuh repeated it on this thread at comment 18, above.

    DRJ (15874d)

  681. Two nice readers’ comments to the ‘Weaponized’ piece…..

    Mmm says:

    “The Left’s selective endorsement of free speech is a dangerous trend.

    We saw this in the shameful announcement that the ACLU would stop fighting for free speech where it could be viewed as at odds with modern liberal conceptions of social justice (i.e. only approved viewpoints should be protected).

    We’ve seen it at college campuses and from Democrat politicians and liberal commentators who argue it’s OK to use violence and coercion to censor ideas you disagree with (i.e., couch your opponents as Nazis and no need to debate).

    We’ve even seen it in the intersection of social media and commerce — where businesses are bullied into terminating employees that might espouse controversial opinions (i.e., free speech values can be selectively discarded when censorship doesn’t implicate state action).

    It seems as the left gains more political and social power, it is becoming the entrenched authority that has more to lose by the dissemination of opposing ideas.

    Scholars and the courts have recognized all sorts of values that free speech promotes: autonomy and self-actualization, the search for truth, and of course informed democratic self-government.

    But the most important reason the First Amendment exists is that we don’t trust authority figures with the power of censorship because it will be abused to serve their selfish ends.

    That’s why we shouldn’t let any powerful group–whether the state, the media or the mob–claim the right to censor others.”
    __ _

    Phil says:

    “I am a 70 year old conservative Republican who is a reformed liberal, former ACLU member, and voter for Gene McCarthy. I’ve been a consistent free speech advocate since the 1950s, and I still am.

    I’m quite amused at how liberals now recoil at free speech arguments. Of course free speech can be positive and beneficial or hateful and harmful; this was true in the 1950s and 1960s too. It all depends on your point of view. If you only allow speech you like, then it’s not free: it’s just an amplified echo.

    I feel like a heavy blanket has been lifted. Now speech really is open and free. The only place where authoritarian leaders and mobs limit speech is on liberal college campuses.”

    harkin (e4ec42)

  682. Speaking of trying to have it both ways, is he trying to insure a SC appointment? http://www.thedailybeast.com/ted-cruz-tells-people-to-vote-democrat-in-il-3-race

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  683. BuDuh clarified his question/concern here.

    DRJ (15874d)

  684. My main contribution washere. I think NJ Rob called it a dog whistle.

    DRJ (15874d)

  685. So when Ukrainians bear the standard of Bandera, that is fake news.

    Narciso (da3617)

  686. BuDuh also has a follow up he hasn’t shared, yet:

    I am waiting for a well composed but completely irrelevant essay now, Haiku. Beldar gets his man!

    The sad thing is that I had an excellent follow up to any of the obfuscators if they engaged with a shred of integrity. I think that is the reason for the pixel parade.

    BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/28/2018 @ 7:46 pm

    DRJ (15874d)

  687. There was more discussion after that, with both Beldar and BuDuh saying they hoped you would notice.

    DRJ (15874d)

  688. I love the IDF. If your targeting me with your electrical response, urban, gfy.

    mg (9e54f8)

  689. @708: It’s the same “positive liberty vs. negative liberty” argument that’s been going on forever. The difference is that free speech used to be the one exception for the Left. Now it’s a positive liberty, as with everything else for them.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  690. Hardly, mg, i love the IDF too and have happyfeets view of Pallies. I just question if Shapiro’s recent impeach comment is one of those bone throws to the rest of the tribe that has opposite politics, i.e. Cruz condemning the Nazi, Allen (Col. West defending Trayvon Martin etc.

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  691. Kind of fitting that the Russian goalie used a hockey move to save and secure.

    What a match. According the fifa biggest knockout level upset ever.

    I wonder how Putin & Trump made it happen.

    harkin (e4ec42)

  692. I apologize, urban. My mistake.

    mg (9e54f8)

  693. I hear what you are saying: it seems to show bad faith not to apologize when one is shown wrong, and you believe that has happened here.

    I’d like to explore the second part of your claim further. I have two questions towards that end.

    First, I have not followed the entirety of the discussion. What, specifically, was “the original proposition” to which you refer?

    Second, I have said: “I am unaware of evidence that Trump specifically bragged about having signed a ‘Muslim ban.’”

    Can I get you, NJRob, to agree with this proposition, which I also said? “I think it’s fair to say that his public remarks post-signing are consistent with the proposition that he continued to see his orders as a form of Muslim ban.”

    If you could answer those two questions plainly, it would move the discussion forward. Again, they are: 1. What was the original proposition that you complain was wrong and that people will not apologize for? and 2. Do you agree that Trump’s public remarks post-signing are consistent with the proposition that he continued to see his orders as a form of Muslim ban?

    If you answer no to question 2, then I would like you to engage with the comment of mine you quoted, including the example about banning commenters. I opened this comment trying to show that I heard you and understood your position. I am asking you to reciprocate and show that you understand mine. If you disagree with my proposition (expressed in question #2 about Trump’s public remarks, no problem. All I ask is that you engage what I said about it in a way that shows you took the time to read what I said about it, you understand it, and you’re willing to summarize it in a way that I would approve as a fair summary of my point. That would show me that you’re truly listening and engaging, and I think it is the way to move a conversation forward.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 7/1/2018 @ 8:48 am

    Here is the full quote from Bored Lawyer that got this started.

    The problem with the whole animus argument (at least as presented in this case) is one glaring fact: Politicians Lie.

    Trump promised a Muslim ban. But political realities are such that he cannot deliver.

    So he ordered what is a fairly reasonable ban based on political instability in certain countries — which was based on determinations made by the Obama Administration. As even Ilya Somin conceded, the same ban enacted by the Obama Administration would have been beyond challenge.

    Then Trump brags to his base that he enacted a “Muslim ban” when he did no such thing.

    If the Court had gone the other way, that would open the door to judicial scrutiny of political speech. You promised X but delivered Y, well Y has animus because X is bigoted. Especially if you lie and say that you really delivered X. IMO, this is a can of worms the Court did not want to open.

    Bored Lawyer (998177) — 6/26/2018 @ 10:42 am

    It was asked for evidence that he bragged to his base that he enacted a Muslim ban. If he had done so, it would’ve been broadcast high and low and used as evidence in the Supreme Court case that the ban was based on religious malice. No such evidence was presented.

    I don’t see his public comments as consistent with him saying he did a muslim ban. I don’t see the proposition correct that he viewed his orders as a muslim ban. If he did, why did he exclude the most populous muslim nations from the ban? I see his remarks as consistent with not being able to verify people who come from dangerous nations that seek to harm the United States. There is no prima facie case that the intent of this ban is to prevent muslims from coming here versus people who come from destabilized nations that are hostile to the USA.

    NJRob (b00189)

  694. Benny Shapiro looks awful he should be on sucide watch. What a despicable hack.

    mg (9e54f8) — 7/1/2018 @ 9:14 am

    What brings you to this conclusion?

    NJRob (b00189)

  695. The Liberal Meme — it’s that whole “Congress shall make no law …. ” thing that keeps them up at night.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  696. Sotomayor did review Trump’s travel ban statements in her dissent, but the majority held that the Executive Order implementing the travel ban was facially neutral so there was no need/reason to look atbother evidence.

    By the way, the first version of the travel ban announced January 27, 2017 — one week after Trump was inaugurated — applied to “countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12).” That applies to Iraq, Syria, and other areas designated by the DHS, which at that time included Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. I believe they are all Muslim-majority nations. Later versions of the travel ban added non-Muslim majority countries like Venezuela.

    DRJ (15874d)

  697. From that NYT article:

    “When I was younger, I had more of the standard liberal view of civil liberties,” said Louis Michael Seidman, a law professor at Georgetown. “And I’ve gradually changed my mind about it. What I have come to see is that it’s a mistake to think of free speech as an effective means to accomplish a more just society.”

    Unbelievable. THAT is how you end up with a totalitarian government.

    To the contrary, free speech reinforces and amplifies injustice, Catharine A. MacKinnon, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in “The Free Speech Century,” a collection of essays to be published this year.

    “Once a defense of the powerless, the First Amendment over the last hundred years has mainly become a weapon of the powerful,” she wrote. “Legally, what was, toward the beginning of the 20th century, a shield for radicals, artists and activists, socialists and pacifists, the excluded and the dispossessed, has become a sword for authoritarians, racists and misogynists, Nazis and Klansmen, pornographers and corporations buying elections.”

    She doesn’t want a “free” society, she wants a society that only reflects her world views.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  698. Is the snippet “rampant lies” based on based on feelings or fact?
    Of course words like rampant can be parsed to mean whatever the author feels is a fair comparison.
    Trump in fact lies, but does he lie more than most politicians… that’s a feeling in the absence of some fair and honest quantification.
    I’m a little biased because of my own penchant for embellishment, so lies like grandiose proclamations of record crowd size, best evers, biggest evers, don’t really count to me as lies anymore than those ads where “4 out of 5 dentists recommend…” which are based on pretty thin gruel

    steveg (a9dcab)

  699. 723 — DRJ:

    I think the first version, adopted just 6 days after inauguration, relied on a list of countries that had been complied by the Obama Administration for some similar purpose. It was not a list which the Trump Administration created themselves.

    The second EO was March 6, by which time the parameters established for the travel restrictions resulted in the inclusion of North Korea and Venezuela under the guidelines applied to all countries which by that time had underwent some form of review by multiple cabinet agencies.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  700. Are you saying words don’t matter, steveg?

    DRJ (15874d)

  701. As per actual legislation and the merits of the lawsuit no?

    narciso (d1f714)

  702. That is one way to look at it, swc, but not the only way. We can also look at what Trump said about the travel ban that day, and Guiliani said the following day:

    Jan. 27, 2017

    Trump before signing the first travel ban during a ceremony at the Pentagon:

    “This is the ‘Protection of the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.’ We all know what that means.”

    Jan. 28, 2017

    Trump adviser and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani speaking on Fox News, when asked how Trump selected the seven countries targeted in the first ban:

    “So when he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, “Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’ What we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”

    A commenter said I skewed the words to suggest Trump could have been talking about Muslims. Apparently Giuliani skewed them, too.

    DRJ (15874d)

  703. I’m reading through the study that Liptak cites in his article.

    First comment — it takes 4 votes for a cert petition to be taken up by the Court.

    It would to be no more shocking that a “conservative” court would find 4 votes to take up cases with “conservative” speech issues, than it would be to find a “liberal” court would find 4 votes to take up cases with “liberal” speech issues. So it would not seem to be much of a surprise that the Warren and Burger Courts took up more cases with “liberal” speech issues, while the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have taken up more cases with “conservative” speech issues.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  704. I think the Supreme Court made the right decision. We are a nation of laws so we should look at the text of the EO, not the contemporaneous political rhetoric. But inflammatory rhetoric undermines our faith in our laws. Unfortunately, sometimes I think Trump does that on purpose to suit his goals and polls.

    DRJ (15874d)

  705. I liked Roger L. Simon’s invocation of Deng Xiaoping: “I don’t care if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.” I’m not certain what to say to those who believe the converse, especially this late in the game. Now that a growing phalanx of Progressives have taken to arguing that Trump’s myriad successes are simply dumb luck, there’s not much left to discuss, civilly or otherwise. Trump has won and it wasn’t even close.

    I’m not familiar with Emerald Robinson, the author of the piece Haiku links to at #691, but she tees off as well as any. As Robinson points out, the problem for Never Trumpers is that the ground on which they once stood is cut away. They have become citizens of no man’s land by their own consignment. Once admired, men like George Will and Bill Kristol are now little more than objects of near-universal distaste. And rightly so: they allowed their vanity to get the better of them. Life is not a haircut (or a colorful bow-tie).

    And just a little reminder, I voted against Trump in both the primary and general elections. I am not a Trump true believer. I am a practical conservative who is delighted by the unexpected (at least to me) right turn by the executive branch. Bravo, Mr. President!

    ThOR (d25d69)

  706. Guiliani want actually involved in drafting the order, either, neither was bannon if his purported words have any import. Details matter except the particular statues didn’t to the 11th or other circus.

    narciso (d1f714)

  707. Shapiro is a self promoting tool the likes of Kristol. What difference does it make?

    mg (9e54f8)

  708. yes yes Mr. ThOR this is an embarrassment of riches all these good policies

    and i love the verve with which President Trump navigates from week to week

    I’ve become quite fond of the gentleman his enthusiasm for America is so touching to me, especially after those squalid nasty food stamp years where obama kept raping everything

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  709. The pdf of the report has an active link to a site where it says the data for the study will be housed. But the link only takes you back to the page where the study link is found, and there isn’t a way I can find to look at the data behind the study.

    So at this point I can find the cases of the “liberal” speech losses they attribute to the Roberts Court — which the study says resolves cases of “liberal” speech in favor of the speaker only 20% of the time, compared to 70% win rate for “conservative” speech cases.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  710. Thank you, happy.

    I’m delighted by the way the Trump critique has devolved. It used to be: “He’s a complete idiot.” Now it’s: “He’s a complete idiot except when he is an evil genius.” Never will it be conceded that he’s a worthy opponent. Never. That’s how incivility works.

    Also.

    Shouldn’t it tell you something when Sonia Sotomayor takes up your side of the argument in her dissenting opinion?

    ThOR (d25d69)

  711. the law allows assertions like 4 out of 5 and basically says do your own due diligence so I just dismiss those types of claims as probable embellishment or google it. I don’t consider it to be behavior that rises to the level of a lie and I think the courts agree with me.

    Word do matter, maybe not like we think they should, but some lawyers and others live and die by playing word julienne and I don’t.

    steveg (a9dcab)

  712. “Unfortunately, sometimes I think Trump does that on purpose to suit his goals and polls.”

    Eureka! Among the results of this personality flaw is that it brings out the absolute worst in his detractors on the unhinged Left. Every time.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  713. 720… yes, NJRob… try as they might not, no evidence presented, but that won’t stop them.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  714. I got no idear how them there IP address things work, but the colonel feller was talking the same rodeo at #691 that I brung up a back at #380.

    Like I says, don’t know if that’s any explain’in on the matter, but it shore pains me a different feller gettin defamed by be’in confused with the likes of me.

    Festus (d19b35)

  715. Sonia was sad you could tell she had summer bummer womp womp all up in it and people were concerned and wanted to help.

    Why you so sad Sonia? said happyfeet

    Oh my goodness happyfeet did you hear about Justice Kennedy? he’s gonna resign!

    Yes yes i heard but to everything there is a season I always say.

    I don’t know what you mean by season happy but what I was thinking was about how much I hate hate hate being the stupidest person on the court so I was thinking hey maybe President Trump will nommernate somebody dumber than me then THEY can be the dumbest justice for a change (see how they like it) but

    but

    but then i saw the list he’s using and everybody on it’s like super smart like einstein smart and I’m gonna be the dumbest justice FOREVER

    oh sonia but you’ll still be the only justice what makes homemade tortillas! Everybody loves your fresh tortillas that’s for sure and no matter how smart the new justice is they’re gonna be so jealous at lunch when you have your tasty fresh tortillas and they’re eating bland processed off-the-shelf carbohydrates!

    you know what happy you’re right I’m very wise i have tortilla wisdom and this is my diversity all up in it! I make the court so good!

    yes you do sweetheart now turn that frown upside down and go make some tortillas!

    I will happy thank you for being my amigo

    of course of course i love you sonia

    i love you too happy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  716. 7 out of 10 dentists belong to the ADA, which means about 40K dentists are not involved.
    Out of the 70%, a good number probably just shoot a check over and never even read the mailers.
    Either way, the number can be misleading and may even be grossly inaccurate so when their salesperson/spokesperson blows gas I ignore the fluff and try to concentrate on the meat of the subject that the puffery is pushed out to buttress… if I even care.

    Words do matter, but look at the things Jesus says in the Bible like “turn the other cheek”, “give up your cloak also”,”the poor will always be with you” and even “go and sin no more”.

    These words are constantly taken out of context, misapplied and twisted eventually into lies. I’ve heard some bad sermons and have learned to let nonsensical “Bible” flourishment go unless the church has a guy outside confiscating cloaks, in which case I’d get a little exercised that the twist had elevated to a lie

    steveg (a9dcab)

  717. Jagoff…shes Rican, so substitute Arroz con Gandules for Tortillas…that coronary inducing delicacy probably caught up to Scalia.

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  718. Trump is first and foremost a salesman. He didn’t invent our national disaffection with the media, our elected officials, the bureaucracy and the law. These corrupt and self-dealing institutions did that to themselves. Trump simply took up the pitch. And now they blame the messenger, which only serves to confirm the message. Well played, Mr. President! He’s a first rate salesman, alright.

    ThOR (d25d69)

  719. Good luck parsing the terms of his pitch and thinking you have some insight into the man.

    ThOR (d25d69)

  720. OT for all you baseball fans:

    As ESPN reminds us, today is “Bobby Bonilla Day” in New York City.

    Yes, the following is not a joke.

    In 2000, the NY Mets owed Bonilla $5.9 million for his salary for that season — even though they had cut him in January, and he never played another game for the Mets. MLB salaries are guaranteed — being on the team isn’t a factor. If you are under contract, and the team thinks they have someone who can play better than you, they can cut you but they have to pay both.

    But the Mets did not want to pay the entire $5.9 million for a player not on their roster.

    So Bonilla’s agent worked out a deal where Bonilla would defer payment of that $5.9 million for a decade, and then would take his payment in the form of annual installments over a number of years.

    The interest rate — which began to accumulate in 2000 — was 8%.

    So, every July 1, starting in 2011 and continuing to 2035 (another 17 years), the Mets cut Bonilla a check for:

    $1.2 million.

    That is a nice retirement.

    The Mets will pay $28.8 million to Bonilla in order to retire a $5.9 million debt.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  721. Chicago finances stuff the same way

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  722. As fer be’in a troll, maybe in today’s parlance a such a charge might’in be be seen reasonable, an by the same token I’m a racist for be’in contrywise to our last president, or for even use’in the word token. Also a bigot for be’in contrywise to open borders, and a homophobe for be’in contrywise to the whole idear of two men maken up a marriage.

    Never mind I got a black wife, a Latina daughter-in-law, and a gay daughter. We all had a wonderful fathers day by the by.

    Anyways, such do’ins are common, libel’in the person is often easier on a feller than take’in what he’s atrying to tell you if it makes ya consider the beam in her own eye, is why Nazi’s are aseem’in to be everywhere these days.

    It’s a help if ya know yerself, an practice humility and the golden rule. That there’s a big mouth full that takes some chew’in, but if ya can getter down civility gets easier, even when somebody is avex’in ya.

    Festus (d19b35)

  723. Jesper Jorgensen a crimalien who is the arsonist in burning thousands of acres in Colorado should be attached to a sturdy oak branch.

    mg (9e54f8)

  724. I don’t see his public comments as consistent with him saying he did a muslim ban. I don’t see the proposition correct that he viewed his orders as a muslim ban. If he did, why did he exclude the most populous muslim nations from the ban? I see his remarks as consistent with not being able to verify people who come from dangerous nations that seek to harm the United States. There is no prima facie case that the intent of this ban is to prevent muslims from coming here versus people who come from destabilized nations that are hostile to the USA.

    NJRob,

    It’s probably vain of me to ask that my comments be given priority over other people’s, but I’m going to pull rank and ask you to focus on what I say, including everything I say and not just one part that you pick out and choose to respond to while ignoring the rest. Just for now, please?

    In my comment I quoted, I said:

    If you answer no to question 2, then I would like you to engage with the comment of mine you quoted, including the example about banning commenters. I opened this comment trying to show that I heard you and understood your position. I am asking you to reciprocate and show that you understand mine. If you disagree with my proposition (expressed in question #2 about Trump’s public remarks, no problem. All I ask is that you engage what I said about it in a way that shows you took the time to read what I said about it, you understand it, and you’re willing to summarize it in a way that I would approve as a fair summary of my point. That would show me that you’re truly listening and engaging, and I think it is the way to move a conversation forward.

    I am going to repeat the request, even though I don’t like repeating myself.

    I spent some time explaining why I think the answer to question #2 is yes, and I invite you and anyone else who agrees with you to do exactly what I have asked here.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  725. As fer be’in a troll, maybe in today’s parlance a such a charge might’in be be seen reasonable, an by the same token I’m a racist for be’in contrywise to our last president, or for even use’in the word token. Also a bigot for be’in contrywise to open borders, and a homophobe for be’in contrywise to the whole idear of two men maken up a marriage.

    I am going to ban the IP that you use because you share it with another commenter and that looks like evidence of sock puppeting.

    If I ever see you sharing an IP address with that same commenter again — a commenter who notably did not deny being you, although such a denial would be natural — I’ll ban both of you for good.

    My guess is that this means we have seen the last of Festus. At the very least he is going to have to get more creative.

    Banning both for good is still a possibility I haven’t ruled out.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  726. the whole travel ban thing’s a bush legacy cause he made terrorism the number one issue while neglecting border security at the same time

    feckless and cowardly, that was george bush

    so now seventeen years later we still have a lot of work to do to get a handle on who’s coming into the country (President Trump’s finally taken the first steps god bless him)

    george w bush was a very sucky president and exponentially compounded the damage what the al qaedas did

    got a lot of good people killed too

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  727. NJRob and any others who would answer my second question to him this way:

    The comment to which I’d like a response is at 612, and I’ll save you the trouble by repeating it now (although, again, I’ don’t like repeating myself):

    As a candidate he stated that he intended to ban all Muslims from entering on a temporary basis. As a president he signed an order that temporarily denied entry to people from many but not all Muslim countries and a couple of non-Muslim ones. He and his supporters recharacterized it as “extreme vetting” — but when asked about his campaign remarks he refused to apologize.

    By analogy, say I declared that I intended to temporarily ban all Trump supporters until we could figure out what the hell was going on. Then I banned a large number of the most vocal Trump supporters and a couple of non-Trump supporters, while leaving some less vocal Trump supporters unaffected. Assume that my guest bloggers explain that I was simply dealing with the uncivil commenters, but when asked about my initial announcement that I planned to ban people for simply supporting Trump, I say: “I have no apologies for that statement.”

    Have I bragged that I banned all Trump supporters after the ban? Not really. Would the entirety of this scenario reasonably lead people to conclude that the banning had a lot to do with people being Trump supporters? I think it would.

    What I’m looking for is not a quick and dirty “let’s refute this somehow and dust off our hands” response, but a real response — one that acknowledges any valid point you think I may have made, if you think I have.

    It’s a test of sorts as to whether a conversation is possible rather than a “I found some way to ignore or undercut you” response.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  728. With DRJ’s help, I have reviewed some of the interaction between her and Beldar, on one hand, and BuDuh, on the other. I think BuDuh is taking a very narrow view of the matter, and refusing to openly confront some of the things that were said chronologically after the first order was issued.

    I am going to invite, in a rather insistent way, BuDuh to answer the same questions I have posed to NJRob, since he clearly agrees.

    I’ve had some complaints that BuDuh is trolling, and it’s always harder to make such a determination when it’s other people doing the interaction rather than yourself.

    So BuDuh, respond, please, fully and honestly. For you, this is a sort of test to see if you are being a troll or not, so I advise you not to shrug it off. Note the bold language in my previous comment. I want to see if you’re playing games or engaged in honest conversation.

    This is a thread about honest conversation, and I’m increasingly of the view that people who refuse to engage in it, and who seem to interact uncharitably and unreasonably with people I know to be patient and rational, are a distraction from the effort to converse honestly, and may need to be removed from the discussion.

    Let’s find out who deserves to stay.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  729. As a candidate he stated that he intended to ban all Muslims from entering on a temporary basis. As a president he signed an order that temporarily denied entry to people from many but not all Muslim countries and a couple of non-Muslim ones. He and his supporters recharacterized it as “extreme vetting” — but when asked about his campaign remarks he refused to apologize.

    By analogy, say I declared that I intended to temporarily ban all Trump supporters until we could figure out what the hell was going on. Then I banned a large number of the most vocal Trump supporters and a couple of non-Trump supporters, while leaving some less vocal Trump supporters unaffected. Assume that my guest bloggers explain that I was simply dealing with the uncivil commenters, but when asked about my initial announcement that I planned to ban people for simply supporting Trump, I say: “I have no apologies for that statement.”

    Have I bragged that I banned all Trump supporters after the ban? Not really. Would the entirety of this scenario reasonably lead people to conclude that the banning had a lot to do with people being Trump supporters? I think it would.

    One might argue that Trump’s MO is never to apologize for anything (which is not quite 100% true; he apologized for the Billy Bush tape) and thus you can’t read anything into his lack of apology. This is not convincing to me, because it lets him have it both ways: he doesn’t have to apologize but he also doesn’t have to own the consequences of refusing to apologize.

    Patterico (a592c1) — 6/30/2018 @ 12:14 pm

    Needed to dig up the post you were talking about and I’d rather it be quoted in full.

    It’s a false dichotomy to me because it isn’t parallel to the specific accusation made against Trump, but I’ll argue it for the sake of the discussion.

    1) You get credit for apologies. Trump does not. He gets villified in the press no matter what he does and he constantly gets accused of actions in bad faith such as his separating children and parents starting in October 2016. That’s obviously impossible as he wasn’t the president or president elect at that time.

    2) Your remarks have more in common with the change in policy at Red State than anything that we are discussing with Trump.

    3) I think people would interpret it as you trying to create an atmosphere more conducive to your worldview, but you are ignoring the safety aspect that the President is directly responsible for and would be held accountable for if anything should happen such as another terrorist attack.

    4) The president has the authority, granted by Congress, to restrict any and all entry. You have the authority to ban people as you see fit, on a whim or any other reason. That’s about the only comparison I can see between the two scenarios.

    5) I don’t see your remarks or his remarks as trying to prevent a specific group of people based on their specific characteristics.

    NJRob (b00189)

  730. I never knew there were people here who use the “I’m telling Mom!” approach.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  731. I have a lot of catching up to do, Pat. It will take me a moment to consider your question thoughtfully. I have just started scrolling backwards to see what has happened while I was away. It may take more time than I have at the moment.

    In the meantime may I ask several favors. I see that you have some idea of who uses what IP address. Is there something you can say to Dustin so he is assured that I am not some name changing troll? It really diminishes the conversation when he goes down that road. I believe I used a different name sometime in the past when I dabbled here before but I forgot that name so I picked BuDuh and haven’t changed.

    Also, I think it would be helpful to point out that I was the only person who honestly engaged you in trying to understand the logical formation of the Trump “official who didn’t exist” tweet. We didn’t agree but we did debated cordially and left with zero harsh language or animosity. I keep getting painted as disingenuous and I don’t think that is fair.

    Lastly, DRJ linked to the thread where I originally asked for Bored Lawyer to source out his assertion that such an event took place. Would you take a look at Beldar’s response to me and see if you would have felt unnecessarily critized by being labeled as someone who possibly relied on intellectual dishonest sources while reading a non answer to your question?

    To be clear, non of these are preconditions for me to answer your question. I don’t operate that way. I do, however, think the answers will go a long way towards having honest conversations.

    Thank you.

    My chores beckon so I must head out for a while. But I promise you, like I faithfully have done before, I will answer your question.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  732. This is a thread about honest conversation, and I’m increasingly of the view that people who refuse to engage in it, and who seem to interact uncharitably and unreasonably with people I know to be patient and rational, are a distraction from the effort to converse honestly, and may need to be removed from the discussion.

    Let’s find out who deserves to stay.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 7/1/2018 @ 12:09 pm

    How about asking those who falsely claimed that Trump bragged about a muslim ban after his travel restrictions were enacted to explain themselves in the same manner you choose to do those who disagree with you?

    Fair play and all.

    NJRob (b00189)

  733. At the California State Capitol last Thu, teenage health advocates from Stockton urged lawmakers to stand with communities like theirs and put people’s health over corporate profits.

    After more than a year of knocking on doors, talking with people at farmers markets, and attending community events to build support for a soda tax in their city, these young activists were up against an unexpected challenge – a state law that would render their efforts meaningless by banning cities from adopting soda taxes until 2030.

    oh sweet diabetic jesus there’s just so much to unpack

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  734. I know he’s a Dane, but by golly it has to make me rethink that while “White S.A.s AND Brown Eses” program I had in mind in case things get real real real bad down Cape Town way.

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  735. That last question may not make sense. Imagine yourself in the position where the 1st person who responds to you doesn’t answer your question and alludes to the problem being that you relied on intellectually dishonest sourcing. I don’t think you would be pleased, Pat, but I welcome your interpretation of that failed bit of dialog between Beldar and my.

    Back later today.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  736. the oversight on “mischaracterzation” will be interesting, as that is the primary conversational tool employed by some.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  737. It’s a false dichotomy to me because it isn’t parallel to the specific accusation made against Trump

    My entire argument is predicated on the belief that it is parallel, so I want you to lay out your argument that it is not parallel in a meaningful way.

    I’d like to remain laser-focused on this point.

    As for your point number one, I think “who started this” is a separate issue and thus a distraction from the points I made. I’m no sure what you mean about apologies when you say: “You get credit for apologies. Trump does not. He gets villified in the press no matter what he does…” It sounds like another distraction from the point I made about apologies, which is that I don’t believe Trump should be able to eat his cake (not apologize) and have it too (not suffer the consequences that arise from refusing to apologize — which consequences, here, include a conclusion that his executive orders were indeed a form of Muslim ban, since he said he was going to enact a Muslim ban and refused to take that back or apologize for it, ever.

    Point #2 seems like a distraction. I don’t want to talk about RedState but how my example relates to the Muslim ban.

    In point #3 you say: “I think people would interpret it as you trying to create an atmosphere more conducive to your worldview, but you are ignoring the safety aspect that the President is directly responsible for and would be held accountable for if anything should happen such as another terrorist attack.” I think what you are saying here is that there are legitimate reasons for Trump’s ban on entry of citizens of many countries, on safety grounds. I tend to agree with that, and I have no quarrel with the Supreme Court’s ruling that says (as I read it) that such legitimate reasons can trump (thank you, I did mean to do that) any expressions of animus.

    That’s fine as far as it goes, but we are not here discussing the validity of the order. We are discussing, as I see it, your “no” answer to my question #2: “Do you agree that Trump’s public remarks post-signing are consistent with the proposition that he continued to see his orders as a form of Muslim ban?” I think the fact that there are other legitimate reasons for the orders is relevant — much as a call for civility is relevant to a decision to ban a swath of Trump supporters in my analogy. But that doesn’t address his clear remarks beforehand that he wanted a ban on entry from all Muslims, or his post-order statements refusing to apologize and arguably insinuating that he had done just that.

    In point #4 you articulate one similarity between the two scenarios but show a complete and utter blindness to the central point I am making: that a very specific announcement of an invidious purpose for an action before the action is taken, pointedly not retracted after the action is taken, is evidence that the action was taken for an invidious purpose. I find it incredibly frustrating that you ignore this argument of mine and I implore you not to shrug it off, even at the cost of having to acknowledge something you don’t want to acknowledge.

    In your point #5 you say: “I don’t see your remarks or his remarks as trying to prevent a specific group of people based on their specific characteristics.” Certainly you can’t say this about the remarks made before the action in either case, since in both cases the invidious purpose was clearly stated before the action was taken.

    I’m looking for less evasion and more direct grappling with my actual points. I have bolded the most important point if the wall of text here is too overwhelming. If you do nothing else, grapple with the bolded part.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  738. How about asking those who falsely claimed that Trump bragged about a muslim ban after his travel restrictions were enacted to explain themselves in the same manner you choose to do those who disagree with you?

    Fair play and all.

    I fully understand their position. I don’t understand yours. I think the points they made were roundly ignored by you and others like you. But that’s all water under the bridge for purposes of this discussion. I am going to ignore distractions and efforts to move the conversation away from the specific questions I have asked.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  739. Speaking of honest conversation, I watched an interview on NPR a few nights ago after Justice Kennedy announced his resignation. The entire session was about who President Trump might appoint, and what the effect would be on some landmark cases, namely Roe v. Wade. The reporter interviewed all Democrats, and there was a lengthy discussion with the Senator from New York who was forecasting dire results for women in this country. She said on two separate occasions that the Democrats had to stop any appointee at all costs–because President Trump stated he wants to punish women. The reporter, of course, just nodded and kept on going.

    I may be wrong, and Trump has said lots of cringe-worthy things, but I don’t recall him ever saying that he wanted to punish women. Now, I suppose, you could argue that overturning Roe v. Wade punishes some women, that is, those who want abortions, but that is now what passes for reporting in this country, and most of the conversations in this country follow suit. There is a very big difference between saying President Trump said he wants to punish women and saying President Trump’s actions or policies punish women.

    I’m a Trump supporter for no other reason than I wanted him to nominate Constitutionalists to the Supreme Court, but any Trump supporter, if they’re honest, has to admit that he was a flawed candidate, and continues in those flaws, but the other candidate was more flawed.

    Rochf (877dba)

  740. In the meantime may I ask several favors. I see that you have some idea of who uses what IP address. Is there something you can say to Dustin so he is assured that I am not some name changing troll? It really diminishes the conversation when he goes down that road. I believe I used a different name sometime in the past when I dabbled here before but I forgot that name so I picked BuDuh and haven’t changed.

    Also, I think it would be helpful to point out that I was the only person who honestly engaged you in trying to understand the logical formation of the Trump “official who didn’t exist” tweet. We didn’t agree but we did debated cordially and left with zero harsh language or animosity. I keep getting painted as disingenuous and I don’t think that is fair.

    Lastly, DRJ linked to the thread where I originally asked for Bored Lawyer to source out his assertion that such an event took place. Would you take a look at Beldar’s response to me and see if you would have felt unnecessarily critized by being labeled as someone who possibly relied on intellectual dishonest sources while reading a non answer to your question?

    Respectfully, I consider these distractions at this point. I am interested in seeing whether I can have a dialogue with people about the two questions I asked without getting distracted by 56 different whataboutthises and whataboutthats.

    I am laser-focused on the two questions I asked, the analogy I employed, the bolded language in 766, and responses to that question. I am going to continue to brush off any and all responses that I view as an attempt to distract from the point, because I truly want to see if rational discussion can take place without all the distractions.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  741. I may be wrong, and Trump has said lots of cringe-worthy things, but I don’t recall him ever saying that he wanted to punish women.

    He did say that in an interview and was roundly criticized for it. He had clearly never thought about the issue before and looked up at the sky before saying he wanted women criminally punished for abortions. I’ll look up the source. I am confident I wrote about it at this blog.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  742. 722: they’ve never really been able to grasp the fact that the Bill Of Rights isn’t so much about what each citizen can do but rather what the government is prevented from doing to citizens.

    harkin (e4ec42)

  743. During the campaign, Trump talked about punishing women who get abortions. He promptly recanted. I don’t think he meant it and was just trying to make hay with the pro-life groups, but the damage was done.

    DRJ (15874d)

  744. I never knew there were people here who use the “I’m telling Mom!” approach.

    Are you Festus, Colonel? That’s a direct question with a yes or no answer.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  745. but I don’t recall him ever saying that he wanted to punish women

    he misspoke this one time and said that chicks what got all knocked up and had their uteruses scraped cleaned should be punished cause of how abortion is super-naughty

    but he walked that back right away

    meanwhile NPR basically takes our tax money and uses it to lobby for mass fetus death

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  746. Thank you, DRJ.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  747. No problem, P, and you may be right that Trump was clueless instead of lying. I’m trying to see things from his and his supporters’ viewpoints. They seem to like the idea that Trump lies about everything, instead of that he might be ignorant about the issues. It also seems that most see getting even as a good motive, no matter what the result.

    DRJ (15874d)

  748. I admit it was me playing the Festus character. Thought it would be amusing. Was too, though turns out it’s a pain trying to write like Festus talks.

    Anyway, it’s true I’m largely ignorant on how IP addresses work, and haven’t a clue how another commenter shares mine, but I assure everyone “Festus” is not a Colonel Haiku sockpuppet, and it would be a grave injustice to ban him based on my my actions.

    So, having, I hope, cleared the air on the matter, I’ll clear out. Patterico’s Pontifications has become decided unamusing…seemingly for most everyone involved.

    the Bas (d19b35)

  749. I have to admit that I am bummed having read that I am subjected to a trolo test. This flys in the face of our relationship here, Pat. It does match the caricature of me that has been drawn by others. I’m sorry you fell for it.

    I will put an effort into your question, but it will also be my last appearance here when we are done. Unless you want me to leave now.

    As a candidate he stated that he intended to ban all Muslims from entering on a temporary basis. As a president he signed an order that temporarily denied entry to people from many but not all Muslim countries and a couple of non-Muslim ones. He and his supporters recharacterized it as “extreme vetting” — but when asked about his campaign remarks he refused to apologize.

    By analogy, say I declared that I intended to temporarily ban all Trump supporters until we could figure out what the hell was going on. Then I banned a large number of the most vocal Trump supporters and a couple of non-Trump supporters, while leaving some less vocal Trump supporters unaffected. Assume that my guest bloggers explain that I was simply dealing with the uncivil commenters, but when asked about my initial announcement that I planned to ban people for simply supporting Trump, I say: “I have no apologies for that statement.”

    Have I bragged that I banned all Trump supporters after the ban? Not really. Would the entirety of this scenario reasonably lead people to conclude that the banning had a lot to do with people being Trump supporters? I think it would.

    I have highlighted where your premise and your analogy to your premise have me hesitant to answer. The ban left far more Muslims unaffected than affected. By a huge margin. In your analogy should I consider that far more Trump supporters were unaffected than affected by an equivalent enormous margin?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  750. Note in the second link that Trump promised to change abortion laws through his judicial appointments.

    DRJ (15874d)

  751. 773… uh… no, I am not teh Festus.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  752. President Trump is the prospective child’s best friend in America that’s for sure

    he’s large he contains multitudes

    we got time oh baby

    there’s no rush

    it’s gonna be

    a better day for us

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  753. But, if I gained 50 lbs. and shaved my head, I could probably pass for Uncle Fester.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  754. Here’s what the NYTimes said:

    “Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that women who seek abortions should be subject to “some form of punishment” if the procedure is banned in the United States, further elevating Republican concerns that his explosive remarks about women could doom the party in the fall.”

    You go back to a position like they had where they would perhaps go to illegal places,” Mr. Trump said, after initially deflecting questions. “But you have to ban it.”

    He added, after a bit more prodding, “There has to be some form of punishment.”

    The comment, which Mr. Trump later recanted, attracted instant, bipartisan criticism — the latest in a series of high-profile episodes that have shined a light on Mr. Trump’s feeble approval ratings among women nationally.

    In this case, Mr. Trump also ran afoul of conservative doctrine, with opponents of abortion rights immediately castigating him for suggesting that those who receive abortions — and not merely those who perform them — should be punished if the practice is outlawed.

    The statement came as Mr. Trump appeared at a town-hall-style forum with Chris Matthews of MSNBC, recorded for broadcast on Wednesday night. Mr. Matthews pressed Mr. Trump, who once supported abortion rights, on his calls to ban the procedure, asking how he might enforce such a restriction.

    Hours later, Mr. Trump recanted his remarks, essentially in full, a rare and remarkable shift for a candidate who proudly extols his unwillingness to apologize or bow to “political correctness.”

    If abortion were disallowed, he said in a statement, “the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman.”

    Besides reading like a Hillary campaign pamphlet, this whole thing seems rather nebulous. I don’t see him recanting anything they quoted him as saying, only what they imply he was suggesting.

    In suggesting that Trump wanted to punish women, maybe the Times got it just as wrong as the sentence about his “feeble approval ratings among women”. There were enough women to put him in the White House.

    harkin (e4ec42)

  755. 774 on chris mathews show. but took it back later. Non corporate establishment democrats are now saying they will remove trump supreme court justices from office when they get back in power. Impeach or what ever ;but so far not saying what ever means.

    wendell (a054ab)

  756. I have highlighted where your premise and your analogy to your premise have me hesitant to answer. The ban left far more Muslims unaffected than affected. By a huge margin. In your analogy should I consider that far more Trump supporters were unaffected than affected by an equivalent enormous margin?

    Sure, you can conclude that, as long as you remember that in the example, I promised to ban Trump supporters for being Trump supporters before I banned many Trump supporters, and that I refused to apologize for that language after the ban.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  757. What Trump said before the EO:

    “The idea that Islam is a ‘peaceful religion hijacked by extremists’ is a dangerous fantasy—and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge.”

    “… the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism.”

    “At this moment in history, there is only one religion that systematically stifles free expression with credible threats of violence. The truth is, we have already lost our First Amendment rights with respect to Islam—and because they brand any observation of this fact a symptom of Islamophobia, Muslim apologists … are largely to blame.”

    Actually, those are Sam Harris quotes.

    The host: “a very specific announcement of an invidious purpose for an action before the action is taken, pointedly not retracted after the action is taken, is evidence that the action was taken for an invidious purpose.”

    I agree with this. So, President Harris could not advocate for the EO without being accused of doing so as a result of his anti-Muslim animus.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  758. Ok. Thanks for the clarification. For my last post here:

    Have I bragged that I banned all Trump supporters after the ban?

    No.

    Would the entirety of this scenario reasonably lead people to conclude that the banning had a lot to do with people being Trump supporters?

    No, because the evidence suggests that the vast majority of Trump supporters, as evidenced by the entirety of the scenario, were completely unaffected.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  759. I have to admit that I am bummed having read that I am subjected to a trolo test. This flys in the face of our relationship here, Pat. It does match the caricature of me that has been drawn by others. I’m sorry you fell for it.

    It is based on my reading your comments, in which several pieces of evidence regarding Trump’s statements after the ban were offered. In none of them did he explicitly say the words “I am boasting about having enacted a Muslim ban” but he did refuse to apologize for exactly those words, sending a signal that he stood by them — and you persistently ignored that and other post-order statements to pretend that nothing had been offered about his statements post-executive order.

    You could have acknowledged those statements and discussed your view of their limited significance, but that’s not how you chose to play it. You made it a black and white situation.

    But forget all that now. Let’s discuss this, here and now. I want to see how you respond to me.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  760. 767 — You’re picking sides before you even understand the debate.

    It started with a very simple point — a comment said “Trump bragged to supporters that he had enacted a Muslim ban”.

    The request was for the person making the assertion to provide a link to Trump “bragging” about having enacted a “Muslim ban.”

    The assertion is contrary to the facts, so it was incumbent on Bored Lawyer to back up his claim.

    The only things I saw posted were comments where one might say Trump “alluded” to religion in talking about the Travel Ban, but nothing coming close to a claim that he “bragged” about a “Muslim Ban” — which was the precise claim made.

    Beldar joined in a later in a rather disagreeable fashion. He mischaracterized a portion of Roberts’ opinion, where Roberts used “Muslim ban” — but it was in reference to a pre-election issue, not the post-election claim that Bored Lawyer had hung on Trump.

    Beldar, in just a few posts, was calling BuDuh “intellectually dishonest”, and asking if he was a bigot.

    It was really pretty stunning, and all BuDuh had asked was whether Bored Lawyer could back up his claim that Trump had “bragged” about having enacted a “Muslim Ban.”

    The debate transcript of the Raddatz moderated debate is pretty clear that Trump had backed away from the total halt of Muslim immigration that he had originally suggested, and that what he really wanted was an “extreme vetting” regime that focused on potentially dangerous actors coming into the US from Muslim-majority countries.

    So, to now try to pin BuDuh down with a rather inapposite analogy regarding banning Trump supporters, when he’s never received a responsive answer to the question he posed, is pretty much taking sides.

    Frankly, I’d like an answer to his question too.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  761. Actually, those are Sam Harris quotes.

    Sam Harris opposed Trump’s travel ban.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  762. So, to now try to pin BuDuh down with a rather inapposite analogy regarding banning Trump supporters

    How is it inapposite?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  763. swc:

    A bolded phrase from a comment of mine above reads thusly:

    ” a very specific announcement of an invidious purpose for an action before the action is taken, pointedly not retracted after the action is taken, is evidence that the action was taken for an invidious purpose”

    Do you agree or disagree?

    This is the only thing I am discussing now. Anything else is a distraction.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  764. They seem to like the idea that Trump lies about everything, instead of that he might be ignorant about the issues. It also seems that most see getting even as a good motive, no matter what the result.

    DRJ (15874d) — 7/1/2018 @ 1:03 pm

    Other than happyfeet, do you have any quotations from Trump supporters saying this, or is this just ad hominem?

    NJRob (9c8acc)

  765. By the way, I agree with this, as modified by me:

    The request was for the person making the assertion to provide a link to Trump “bragging” about having enacted a “Muslim ban.”

    The assertion [was made by Bored Lawyer], so it was incumbent on Bored Lawyer to back up his claim.

    That said, a lot of material has been provided to show that Trump’s public remarks post-signing are consistent with the proposition that he continued to see his orders as a form of Muslim ban. That material should not be ignored as if it had never been provided.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  766. Sam Harris opposed Trump’s travel ban.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 7/1/2018 @ 1:32 pm

    Irrelevant to my point. His comments back him into a corner where he could not support a travel ban now or anytime into a Harris presidency without being accused of nefarious intent.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  767. And, here’s the problem with your analogy:

    Trump proposed a ban on Muslim IMMIGRATION. He never once made reference to Muslims already legally in the country.

    Your analogy to your blog would be tantamout to kicking Trump supporters out of the blog, while allowing others to remain — not simply blocking new commentators from joining your blog until “you could figure it out.”

    If you want to go by numbers, there are roughly 50 Muslim-majority countries in the world. EO1 applied to 7 of them, and EO2 applied to only 5 of them.

    According to Roberts’ opinion, only 9% of the worlds’ Muslim population resides in the countries covered by EO2.

    So, Muslims in the US were not “banned”, and 91% of Muslims living worldwide were not “banned”.

    So why are we continuing to discuss whether Trump either enacted or bragged about a “Muslim ban”????

    Because its another one of those dominant media narratives that has been counter-factual for two years but which fits the attack that Trump is a racist bigot.

    Pushed by both the left wing and certain elements of the anti-Trump crowd of the GOP, or former GOP.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  768. You could have acknowledged those statements and discussed your view of their limited significance, but that’s not how you chose to play it. You made it a black and white situation.

    FWIW, Bored Lawyer made it black and white. The entirety of the premise of his full statement gets rejected it the quoted portion of his statement is false.(my follow up question would have delt with this, DRJ, if there had been a reasonable debate.)

    I am slowly leaving, but leaving here nonetheless. Just thought you may consider the full background of what Bored Lawyer put on the table. Or not…

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  769. Trump’s public remarks post-signing are consistent with the proposition that he continued to see his orders as a form of Muslim ban.

    See, that’s what BuDuh was asking for, but so far as I can tell from my reading of the comments that followed, any such conclusions are characterizations of what he said — or mischaracterizations of what others said about what Trump said.

    What is the best single example of a “post-signing” comment “consistent with the proposition” that Trump considered the EO a “Muslim ban”??

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  770. Patterico,

    It’s not parallel because there are no stakes in your example compared to Trump. Everything he says is analyzed and is analyzed where his supporters interpret it one way and his antagonists interpret it differently.

    But the number one job of the president is to protect the people of his nation. A travel ban from hostile nations is a step in that direction. Pressure against the invasion on our southern border is another step.

    As for your remarks about understanding their position I don’t see how that is possible because, with the exception of DRJ, not a single person attempted to explain their position. They just used statements from the past that had zero bearing on the accusation made that Trump bragged to his base that he enacted a Muslim ban.

    NJRob (9c8acc)

  771. 793 — he retracted in in the debate moderated by Martha Raddatz. Sammy provided the text:

    TRUMP: First of all, Captain Khan is an American hero, and if I were president at that time, he would be alive today, because unlike her, who voted for the war without knowing what she was doing, I would not have had our people in Iraq. Iraq was disaster. So he would have been alive today.

    The Muslim ban is something that in some form has morphed into a extreme vetting from certain areas of the world. Hillary Clinton wants to allow hundreds of thousands — excuse me. Excuse me..

    RADDATZ: And why did it morph into that? No, did you — no, answer the question. Do you still believe… TRUMP: Why don’t you interrupt her? You interrupt me all the time.

    RADDATZ: I do.

    TRUMP: Why don’t you interrupt her?

    RADDATZ: Would you please explain whether or not the Muslim ban still stands?

    TRUMP: It’s called extreme vetting. We are going to areas like Syria where they’re coming in by the tens of thousands because of Barack Obama. And Hillary Clinton wants to allow a 550 percent increase over Obama. People are coming into our country like we have no idea who they are, where they are from, what their feelings about our country is, and she wants 550 percent more. This is going to be the great Trojan horse of all time.

    We have enough problems in this country. I believe in building safe zones. I believe in having other people pay for them, as an example, the Gulf states, who are not carrying their weight, but they have nothing but money, and take care of people. But I don’t want to have, with all the problems this country has and all of the problems that you see going on, hundreds of thousands of people coming in from Syria when we know nothing about them. We know nothing about their values and we know nothing about their love for our country.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  772. Ok. Thanks for the clarification. For my last post here:

    Have I bragged that I banned all Trump supporters after the ban?

    No.

    Would the entirety of this scenario reasonably lead people to conclude that the banning had a lot to do with people being Trump supporters?

    No, because the evidence suggests that the vast majority of Trump supporters, as evidenced by the entirety of the scenario, were completely unaffected.

    The evidence is at least equally (and I believe more) consistent with a conclusion that the banning had to do with people being Trump supporters, but I didn’t think I could get away with banning them all, so I banned the ones I could get away with.

    The legitimate justification does not whisk away the clearly stated animus.

    If Lois Lerner said “I’m going after conservative non-profits because I hate their conservative politics” and then went after hundreds of conservative non-profits and seven lefty ones, while leaving tens of thousands of conservative non-profits unaffected — and later refused to apologize for her initial statement, saying there is nothing to apologize for –there is no way in hell that anyone here would conclude that her animus towards conservatives did not affect her actions. Even if some of the ones she went after were actually violating the rules.

    Her public remarks (the non-apology) post-audit would be consistent with the proposition that she continued to see the audits as a form of attack on conservatives.

    There is no meaningful difference between that example and the Muslim ban. An honest conversation would include people grappling with examples like this.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  773. Don’t forget Dear Leader’s horrible lie about Muslims cheering on 9/11.

    Tillman (d34303)

  774. Whats wrong with muslim ban. Why do you want them coming over here to instal sharia law like they are trying to do in detroit right now.

    wendell (a054ab)

  775. swc,

    I am aware of that quote. Does it nullify the other quotes that have been discussed? The refusal to apologize? The “we all know what it means” notion? The “find a way to do it legally” command combined with the above?

    I contend that it does not. Trump often says two different things. I acknowledge the quote you provided. But he has not been consistent, and any honest analysis has to take that into account.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  776. 802. There is no meaningful difference between that example and the Muslim ban. An honest conversation would include people grappling with examples like this.

    Pat, I think you know as well as I do that Schlichterites are not interested in honest conversation. They’re “winning” and “mak[ing] America great again,” and that’s all that counts — honesty be damned.

    Gryph (08c844)

  777. You can add “It’s morphed into extreme vetting of non-profits” to my example from 802 and I continue to contend that absolutely nobody here would let Lerner off the hook even with that “retraction.” Nobody. Nor should they.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  778. 801 — and “extreme vetting” is EXACTLY what EO1, EO2, and EO3 all put into place.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  779. 803 I saw pictures of them passing out candy in celebration on the west bank. Arafat donated blood to try and damp it down. Also reports of some celebrating in new jersey ;but fake news media censored most reports.

    wendell (a054ab)

  780. Pat, I think you know as well as I do that Schlichterites are not interested in honest conversation. They’re “winning” and “mak[ing] America great again,” and that’s all that counts — honesty be damned.

    I’m giving those who disagree with me a chance right now.

    I’ve asked for people to characterize my position in a way that I would agree. Absolutely nobody has tried to do that.

    I have tried more than once with others.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  781. What was the “request” or apology, and what were words of the “refusal”?

    Honest question because I haven’t seen it referenced, and I don’t have time to look it up.

    In fact, I have to depart now for a couple hours.

    But I’ll return.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  782. @810 “reports of some celebrating in new jersey”

    Really? I seriously doubt that. You have any evidence?

    Tillman (d34303)

  783. 810. Donald Trump would be okay with a Muslim ban, but his advisors knew the courts wouldn’t let it fly so they aided him in coming up with a way to make it as legally palatable for the courts as possible (which is what politicians and the judiciary [but I repeat myself] do).

    The courts knew what his intent was, and they acted accordingly, upon which Trump moved to readjust just like a little kid trolling his parents to see how much bad behavior they can get away with after being told not to do something. And thus the pi$$ing match has commenced. The courts won’t give up until anything even remotely resembling a “muslim ban” is completely and utterly toothless.

    Pretty simple, isn’t it Schlicterites?

    Gryph (08c844)

  784. @772. Meh. He’s always been a ‘if-you-say-chocolate-I’ll-say-vanilla’ interview. It’s a confrontational, combative style. That’s his TeeVee/radio ramble. Imagine letters or words inked on a multitude of popcorn kernels. Then toss ’em into an open frying pan on low heat w/a little vegetable oil. Then stand back and watch what passes for coherent language fly out all over. That’s a Trump interview-rally rant. And there’s a certain kind of crowd so hungry for it, they just eats it up, wherever it lands.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  785. On this thread, happyfeet and steveg think Trump lies but they don’t seem to care. Recently another commenter didn’t care if Trump lies to the media, and it appears (in a conversation with Patterico) that a Trump supporter here thinks Trump lies but doesn’t seem to care.

    Want me to keep looking?

    DRJ (46c88f)

  786. What was the “request” or apology, and what were words of the “refusal”?

    Honest question because I haven’t seen it referenced, and I don’t have time to look it up.

    You told me I was taking sides in a debate I didn’t understand, yet you missed one of the most important pieces of evidence provided to date. One that has been discussed more than once and which was linked.

    Is it possible you don’t fully understand everything about the discussion yet have taken sides?

    I have to go. DRJ, do you want to provide your evidence to swc again?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  787. Media down played muslim reaction and said they could only find an incident in new jersey. ;but more interested in covering up then reporting it. To busy telling us about the “good muslims and their religion of peace!”

    wendell (a054ab)

  788. 817.

    The only good Muslim is a…
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Wait for it…
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    …Muslim who doesn’t live in America.

    😉

    Gryph (08c844)

  789. Law and politics are not the same things, but law can still be helpful:

    (A) Prior inconsistent statements traditionally have been admissible to impeach but not as substantive evidence. Under the rule they are substantive evidence. As has been said by the California Law Revision Commission with respect to a similar provision:

    “Section 1235 admits inconsistent statements of witnesses because the dangers against which the hearsay rule is designed to protect are largely nonexistent. The declarant is in court and may be examined and cross-examined in regard to his statements and their subject matter. In many cases, the inconsistent statement is more likely to be true than the testimony of the witness at the trial because it was made nearer in time to the matter to which it relates and is less likely to be influenced by the controversy that gave rise to the litigation. The trier of fact has the declarant before it and can observe his demeanor and the nature of his testimony as he denies or tries to explain away the inconsistency. Hence, it is in as good a position to determine the truth or falsity of the prior statement as it is to determine the truth or falsity of the inconsistent testimony given in court. Moreover, Section 1235 will provide a party with desirable protection against the ‘turncoat’ witness who changes his story on the stand and deprives the party calling him of evidence essential to his case.”

    For instance, do you believe what Trump originally said, when he thought there were no consequences, or do you believe his “new improved version” that arguably attempts to avoid unpleasant consequences?

    DRJ (46c88f)

  790. Really? I seriously doubt that. You have any evidence?

    For starters, there’s this

    Chuck Bartowski (211c17)

  791. “Don’t forget Dear Leader’s horrible lie about Muslims cheering on 9/11.”

    Tillman (d34303) — 7/1/2018 @ 1:53 pm

    Some did, e.g., some Palestinians. Others did as well. Just as there were some Americans of a certain political persuasion who thought America had got what she deserved.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  792. swc,

    Here is an example of Trump refusing to apologize for prior Muslim comments in connection with his travel ban:

    WASHINGTON — President Trump said he won’t apologize for his harsh rhetoric on Muslims traveling to the United States, saying an apology wouldn’t make any difference in helping to save his travel ban executive order in the Supreme Court.

    “There’s no reason to apologize,” Trump said Monday in a Rose Garden press conference. “I think if I apologized, it wouldn’t make 10 cents worth of difference to them.”

    Last week, the state of Hawaii argued in the Supreme Court that Trump hasn’t disavowed his anti-Muslim statements — and so those discriminatory remarks continue to color his proclamation barring visitors from certain predominately Muslim countries.

    “I think the President could have disclaimed — you know, easily moved away from all of these statements,” said attorney Neal Katyal, who was urging the Supreme Court to strike down the travel ban. “But instead they embraced them. That’s the difference.”

    Is that what you were asking, swc?

    DRJ (46c88f)

  793. Or are you talking about Giuliani’s description of the first travel ban that I linked above?

    Jan. 28, 2017

    Trump adviser and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani speaking on Fox News, when asked how Trump selected the seven countries targeted in the first ban:

    “So when he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, “Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’ What we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”

    DRJ (46c88f)

  794. DRJ, your post about a statement against interest is something that I was going to post myself. Interestingly, it’s a point but others have made here before in reference to accepting positive stories about Trump from Big Media while ignoring negative ones.

    Patterico (beeefc)

  795. 820 just googled muslim celebrated 9-11 in new jersey to make sure I remembered correctly. just goole it its their all the proof you need.

    wendell (a054ab)

  796. I think swc made the point about statements against interest. It makes sense but not with pro-Trump media. Then it only makes sense if you argue that negative stories about Trump are credible.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  797. swc said:

    So, to now try to pin BuDuh down with a rather inapposite analogy regarding banning Trump supporters, when he’s never received a responsive answer to the question he posed, is pretty much taking sides.

    That was an accusation against me, and it was predicated upon a positive assertion that BuSuh never received a responsive answer to his question. Yet we now learn that he was unaware of the responsive answer regarding Trump’s lack of apology as set forth in comment 823. This means the foundation for the attack on me was incorrect.

    This is not really what I had in mind when I wrote the post.

    Patterico (beeefc)

  798. swc,

    In addition, at the USA Today link, there are entries from Trump Administration sources where they say the travel ban policies and principles would not change, even though the travel ban EOs changed or were modified.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  799. The theme of the past few days has been we were unfair to BuDuh because we wouldn’t clearly, succinctly answer his simple question. The implication was that we couldn’t bring ourselves to answer honestly and let Trump off the hook.

    I wish I had said the question wasn’t as easy as it looked (to BuDuh and others) because Trump’s past statements tainted everything he did on the travel ban after he was President.

    I think that is the point Patterico is trying to make with his analogy — past statements will not be forgotten if you do something that appears consistent with the past statements, even if you claim you have a different motive. People don’t believe self-serving statements unless they really want to believe someone.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  800. So, instead, we spent a lot of time trying to show BuDuh the past inconsistent statements and the ongoing statements, but he was only interested in Trump’s post-election statements. He didn’t even seem to care that Giuliani undermined those statements.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  801. I can’t resist going back to one of my favorite Trump quotes of all time (trigger alert – Chris Matthews is the moderator), when Muslim bans were still Muslim bans and before Trump caved to political correctness and left us at the mercy of 92% of the world’s Muslims:

    DONALD TRUMP: “Believe it or not, I have a lot of friends that are Muslim, and they call me, and in most cases, they’re very rich Muslims, OK? They’ll come in. They’ll come in, and you’ll have exceptions.”

    For a frightening, but revealing, glimpse inside Trump’s reptile brain, this brief quote is among the best: we’ll have one set of laws for him and his “very rich” friends and another set for everyone else. And he is completely oblivious to the un-Americanism of what he is saying – to him, that is the obvious and natural way things should be.

    Earlier in the same Town Hall, he also said:

    “I think banning until we figure out what’s going on is an important thing, and I take a lot of heat for it, and a lot of people like me for it to be honest with you.”

    Whatever Donald Trump does is done for one reason, and one reason only: to benefit Donald Trump.

    Dave (445e97)

  802. Yet we now learn that he was unaware of the responsive answer regarding Trump’s lack of apology as set forth in comment 823.

    I was aware of this answer that was unresponsive to my question. That is why I persisted through the insults.

    Remember, Bored Lawyer’s entire statement fails if he can’t back up his black and white assertion. He hasn’t and no one else has either.

    The simple question has been Jordan Petersoned for days now.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  803. The implication was that we couldn’t bring ourselves to answer honestly and let Trump off the hook.

    Actually, the reality is that you couldn’t bring yourselves to give a compelling defense that saves Bored Lawyer’s entire statement. It isn’t about Trump being let off the hook, but the fact that you believe that is why you fight so hard to keep that from happening.

    What it is about is whether or not a Trump detractor words and “facts” matter. Bored Lawyer chose a very specific way of wording his entire comment. Without that one sentence, and its false claim, tlhe has no basis.

    This isn’t about defending Trump’s words. It about exploring Bored Lawyer’s words.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  804. 799. What is the best single example of a “post-signing” comment “consistent with the proposition” that Trump considered the EO a “Muslim ban”??

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 7/1/2018 @ 1:48 pm. I think it is my comment 162, but I’m sure you and BuDuh read that to mean something different than I read it as. That’s fine. I see your points but I don’t think BuDuh (in particular) sees mine. It’s hard to have a discussion with someone who thinks your point is skewed or stupid or dishonest. Or, in the case of Festus, that you are an “Unhinged Leftist.”

    DRJ (15874d)

  805. Sorry. Forgot the blockquotes. Let me try again.

    st single example of a “post-signing” comment “consistent with the proposition” that Trump considered the EO a “Muslim ban”??

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 7/1/2018 @ 1:48 pm.

    I think it is my comment 162, but I’m sure you and BuDuh read that to mean something different than I read it as. That’s fine. I see your points but I don’t think BuDuh (in particular) sees mine. It’s hard to have a discussion with someone who thinks your point is skewed or stupid or dishonest. Or, in the case of Festus, that you are an “Unhinged Leftist.”

    DRJ (15874d)

  806. 832… ConDave is back at it.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  807. It’s also become an exercise in how you think, too.

    DRJ (15874d)

  808. I have no reason to defend Bored Lawyer’s words if I think they are wrong, but I did not think he was wrong. I still don’t. I think Trump wanted a Muslim travel ban and he thought his base wanted it. At least he was smart enough to try to present it (as Giuliani said) as a travel ban designed to stop dangerous terrorists from entering. I am glad he is trying to strengthen our borders. I just wish he weren’t so inept at it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  809. Some did, e.g., some Palestinians. Others did as well. Just as there were some Americans of a certain political persuasion who thought America had got what she deserved.
    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/1/2018 @ 2:19 pm

    I can attest to the truth of this statement, because I know devout Muslims who celebrated 9/11 as a group when it happened. Even going as far as spiking the football in my face with the words “Do you see how many of your people one of mine can kill?”

    I just stared back at them, blankly. The next time I saw them, one of them had a black eye. I volunteer this detail as evidence that not all of “us” are as forgiving of their attitude on that day.

    I know that I have told this to you before, but it bears repeating. What is important about this particular group of Muslims was that they were all gainfully employed and residents of the U.S.A. for at least ten years (the time I had known them) which would suggest that in all that time, they were impervious to the “American dream.”

    felipe (023cc9)

  810. It’s hard to have a discussion with someone who thinks your point is skewed

    When you skew the context of something specific it is inevitable that the point will be skewed. To be clear I didn’t say any of that as a generalization of you broader comments on the topic. It was very specific to the short unsourced quote you presented that did not have any of your implied negative connotations when viewed in its entirety in the full quote source I provided.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  811. BuDuh: Actually, the reality is that you couldn’t bring yourselves to give a compelling defense that saves Bored Lawyer’s entire statement.

    Do you see the flaw in what you said? I think it is a compelling defense and some people agree with me, but you don’t. It is fine that you disagree but it would be nice if we could move on to why we disagree, instead of persisting with this “You won’t answer me” claim.

    DRJ (15874d)

  812. Trump’s past statements are the negative connotations, BuDuh.

    DRJ (15874d)

  813. That ‘s horrible, felipe. And frightening and disappointing.

    DRJ (15874d)

  814. @841 Even if your account is true, it is not a claim that:

    1. “thousands and thousands” were cheering in New Jersey.
    2. He says that he saw that footage of people cheering on TV.

    Spanky’s lie is dumb since it is easy to debunk.

    Tillman (d34303)

  815. Ok, back to the skew claims. No doubt NJRob will chime in with his dog whistle rhetoric (whatever he meant by that) and Festus will again call me an Unhinged Leftist. But “my side” is insulting people. Bless your hearts, folks, I hope you can find peace and happiness.

    DRJ (15874d)

  816. I have no reason to defend Bored Lawyer’s words if I think they are wrong, but I did not think he was wrong. I still don’t. I think Trump wanted a Muslim travel ban and he thought his base wanted it.

    Your last sentence has nothing to do with the other sentences. Bored Lawyer’s words described an event where Trump bragged about a Muslim ban after its enactment.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  817. Ok, back to the skew claims

    Back to explaining it again because you misrepresented it again.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  818. It is, DRJ, the pain of it still vexes and challenges my sense Charity, in that I secretly wanted to be the one who dished out the black eye – although I believe I passed the test of turning the other cheek on that day. I cannot fathom the daily challenges endured by those who lost loved ones amidst the these shameful celebrations.

    felipe (023cc9)

  819. 840, weird follow-up question: do you feel as if that Muslim made it a point to focus his braggadocio a usted, as if to say another “minority” was too unorganized/lazy/stupid to stick it to the man like they just did.

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  820. ” loved ones amidst the these shameful celebrations.”

    felipe (023cc9)

  821. It is fine that you disagree but it would be nice if we could move on to why we disagree, instead of persisting with this “You won’t answer me” claim.

    The persistence is an issue. You are correct. Maybe we can resolve this if you state Bored Lawyer’s words as part of the answer.

    For instance: Bored Lawer is correct that after Trump was elected and after the travel ban was “enacted” Trump did indeed “brag” about the “Muslim ban” because on this day(fill in the blank) and at this time(fill in the blank) Trump was quoted as saying(fill in the blank) and here is the source that resolves this debate.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  822. Yes, you did the right thing but I also think you had the right feelings. We should be appalled and upset by that behavior.

    DRJ (15874d)

  823. felipe, well the shameful coin has two sides. I used to have a childhood racist friend who made the claim that “Next, we’ll have to take out the sand-n****ers.”

    The was many years before 9/11. It turned my stomach at the time.

    Tillman (d34303)

  824. Back for just a moment before taking the kids to see Incredibles 2 — on the Host’s recommendation by the way.

    Re the April 30 presser referred to by DRJ — it took a lot of looking for me to find a TRANSCRIPT, of the question and answer, and the answer in the context of the question provides a significantly different view of whether or not the failure/refusal to apologize can be fairly characterized as “proof of invidious intent.”

    On Monday, Mr. Trump appeared to do so again. Told by a reporter that “the lawyers for the opponents said that if you would simply apologize for some of your rhetoric during the campaign, the whole case would go away,”

    I don’t think it would, No. 1,” he said. “And there’s no reason to apologize. Our immigration laws in this country are a total disaster. They’re laughed at all over the world — they’re laughed at for their stupidity, and we have to have strong immigration laws. So I think if I apologize, it wouldn’t make 10 cents’ worth of difference to them. There’s nothing to apologize for.”

    So the context of the question came out of the oral argument where a line of questioning by the participants was “What if he just apologized for his campaign statements?” followed by a completely disingenuous answer by Katyal that a disavowal by Trump of his campaign statements would insulate the Travel Ban.

    So, if you tease out Trump’s comment, his “ban” was his response to ineffectual and dangerous immigration laws — not an animus expressed at Muslims on the basis of their religion.

    I’ve got a much longer comment kicking around in my head about an issue that was never fully addressed in the Travel Ban litigation, and i’ll try to get it up later. My question is how do you divorce the issue of a person’s religion from the issue of the person’s threat to the populace of the US without addressing his religion, when the reason/purpose for the existence of the threat from the person is that his religion inspires his choice to harm the populace of the US?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  825. I now live in a state where people will admit they voted for Trump. I suspect that those still California have to watch their words there. Trump supporters don’t get picked for the corner office.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  826. Bored Lawyer is correct that after he was elected, Trump bragged about (**) the Muslim ban when he announced it on January 27, 2017, where he said We all know what that means.” Giuliani’s comments the next day confirmed that was his intent.

    (**) I would have said Trump “confirmed” instead of “bragged” but that would probably be quibbling.

    DRJ (15874d)

  827. So when Ukrainians bear the standard of Bandera, that is fake news.

    Ukrainians had the unenviable choice of aligning with either Stalin or Hitler in WWII, both of whom have the blood of tens of millions on their hands. After Stalin had literally starved millions of Ukrainians to death less than a decade earlier, is it any wonder that Ukrainian separatists might take their chances with Door Number 2? The real irony of all this is that Putineers trotting out the likes of Bandera gives the likes of Putin an excuse to call uppity Ukrainians “fascists” when the real fascist, as defined*, in this drama is Putin himself.
    * A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

    Paul Montagu (852677)

  828. urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5) — 7/1/2018 @ 3:30 pm

    I like your weird question, ULB. It demonstrates that you think that Muslims think of themselves as a “minority;” they do not.

    One thing that shocked me was despite being told, over and over again, that I looked Iranian (as opposed to ?), and despite the fact that I had enjoyed invitations to their homes to celebrate engagement announces, and other sorts of social events, that I was still seen as one of “them” – a Christian, not an American, not as a minority. Do not, for even a moment, entertain the notion that I was invited into their social circle out of PC-ness; careful observation confirms that there is no PC- ness in Islam.

    To every Muslim I have ever known “minority” simply means “poor.”

    felipe (023cc9)

  829. DRJ

    You’re back to the ad hominem. Only Steve’s statement is remotely relevant to what you claim are Trump supporters not caring about lying. I’d like Steve to answer for himself if he disputes the characterization.

    My remarks about dog whistles are correct because no one can find evidence of Trump saying any such thing since the ban went into effect.

    That you feel the need to parse this discussion as if it was a court room and bring past statements into the discussion, which are entirely irrevalent to the discussion about remarks made later, shows why people get frustrated with lawyers. We are having a discussion about the plain meaning of words and you’re trying to hedge because you feel a certain way. That’s fine, but don’t pretend that your evidence is relevant to any but your fellow travellers.

    NJRob (9c8acc)

  830. I lived in NJ on 9/11. I saw the smoke from the buildings. I almost got into fights with people joking around about planes going into the Trade Center and enjoying the moment. That the media made it go away doesn’t mean it didn’t happen

    NJRob (9c8acc)

  831. Bored Lawyer is correct that after he was elected, Trump bragged about (**) the Muslim ban when he announced it on January 27, 2017, where he said We all know what that means.”

    That isn’t what happened and I provided the Cspan link to show that.

    Anything else?

    This kind of sourcing didn’t fly when Pat was demanding specifics that would explain Trump’s tweet about a “Whitehouse official that didn’t exist,” why is it acceptable now?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  832. NJRob (9c8acc) — 7/1/2018 @ 3:54 pm

    Well said, sir. You and I are witnesses of an historic event, and our witness is important.

    felipe (023cc9)

  833. Tillman, that is weird unless 1. The friend was of Balkan descent, 2. yous were in metro Detroit or the SW side of Chicago , or 3. Friend had a military or expat link to someone working in the mid-east a la DCSCA.

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  834. Welp, I’ve delt with this long enough and to the detriment of more pressing personal matters.

    Best wishes and Happy 4th. If you see “Buduh” in the future comment sections, it is a sock puppet. Take care.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  835. Swc,

    Do you think that if Trump had been asked a different question or the reporter had used different wording that Trump would have said, “I apologize for talking about or calling for a Muslim ban. It was a mistake and I don’t want it.”

    Is there any scenario where you think he would have said that?

    DRJ (15874d)

  836. I have sympathy for the Ukrainians a with other subject peoples, but lets not pretend there aren’t some dubious aapects, snyder write about these bloodlands between Germany and Russia.

    narciso (d1f714)

  837. BuDuh (fc15db) — 7/1/2018 @ 4:07 pm

    OK, we’ll see you later under a new name. May I suggest, “Guess who’s back?”

    felipe (023cc9)

  838. Those were Trump’s words and you acknowledged they were his words, BuDuh. You interpret them to mean something different than I do.

    DRJ (15874d)

  839. Tillman, that is weird unless 1. The friend was of Balkan descent, 2. yous were in metro Detroit or the SW side of Chicago , or 3. Friend had a military or expat link to someone working in the mid-east a la DCSCA.

    Eh, “Kick their ass, take their gas” bumper stickers have a long history, going back to the oil embargo of the 1970’s…

    Dave (59a371)

  840. “For a frightening, but revealing, glimpse inside Trump’s reptile brain, this brief quote is among the best: we’ll have one set of laws for him and his “very rich” friends and another set for everyone else.”

    That must be why he nominated Gorsuch. They can now redistribute rights based not only on personal income but also on being cold-blooded vertebrates with external scales.

    harkin (e4ec42)

  841. LOL, felipe! You drug me back so I can make sure it is clear. I have no intention of ever commenting here again. Ever. I will stick around to read this thread and occasionally I will read some future threads.

    I learned a lot thanks to Bored Lawyer. I am in his debt.

    Chow.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  842. You asked me for statements about people not caring if Trump lied and now you complain I brought in past statements? Really?

    DRJ (15874d)

  843. President Trump welcomes all the muslims who come here legally except for some of them from certain countries (terrorism countries).

    He celebrated ramadan personally and he’s got a lot of good respect for islam and other muslim religions.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  844. BuDuh (fc15db) — 7/1/2018 @ 4:17 pm

    You have a good sense of humor, mate. I will always like that about you. Take care.

    felipe (023cc9)

  845. Also, NJRob, aren’t you overlooking happyfeet? I know you excluded him from the list of people I was allowed to mention but he is Exhibit A on the list of committed Trump supporters here.

    DRJ (15874d)

  846. Indeed i do support our president, President Donald Trump, because he stands for freedom, for prosperity, and because he’s insouciant in all the best ways (quintessentially american gentleman).

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  847. That isn’t what happened and I provided the Cspan link to show that.

    OK, did Trump say the words “We all know what that means” after stating the name of the travel ban EO?

    If he did, what do you think he meant by them?

    DRJ (15874d)

  848. islam and other muslim religions.
    happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/1/2018 @ 4:19 pm

    Happy would you enlighten me by naming the other Muslim religions? Thanks, in advance.

    felipe (023cc9)

  849. there’s all sorts of ones!

    my muslim friends are super-sweet for example and they love America especially spiderman and going to the beach

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  850. Chow.

    BuDuh (fc15db) — 7/1/2018 @ 4:17 pm

    Odd dee oh’s.

    Dave (59a371)

  851. Chow.

    BuDuh (fc15db) — 7/1/2018 @ 4:17 pm

    Odd dee oh’s.
    Dave (59a371) — 7/1/2018 @ 4:26 pm

    The correct response, Dave, to “chow,” is “mein,”

    felipe (023cc9)

  852. ugh i don’t wanna go to work tomorrow the whole week is gonna be stupid cause of the awkward way the independence is on a wednesday

    who does that

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  853. Ciao, is the phrase.

    I suppose pikachu is referring to shia and sunni but sufi and ahmadi even yazidi in that grouping

    narciso (d1f714)

  854. One of the vendors i have to ride herd on is Canadian so that blots out the early half of my week as well. Kind of not coincidental, in my opinion, theyve been smarmy in customer service convos lately.

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  855. I know its a case of the mondays

    narciso (d1f714)

  856. When’s eid, so I can NOT go to mall of America and the Prince places that weekend.

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  857. A refresher, BuDuh, since you said you are still reading. At first you said I was hearing things amd you linked the video of Trump’s 1/27/17 press conference. Then you said that, yes, he did say that but:

    Since you will probably get more specific with my link that you choose to get with Bored Lawyer’s quote I probably should point out that Trump does say what you quoted him saying. Your skewed context is what I don’t hear. I hope that is clear.

    It was clear to me that you did not agree with me. It was also clear that you thought it was unreasonable of me to think that. I still don’t see why. I understand why you want to believe Trump was focusing on terrorists, not Muslims. I hope he was but what he said during the campaign, on that day, and what Giuliani said the next day make me not as sure about his intentions as you are.

    DRJ (15874d)

  858. narciso (d1f714) — 7/1/2018 @ 4:32 pm

    Yes, of course he is, but he also knows that they are sects.

    felipe (023cc9)

  859. my friends are the bangladeshi ones and they’re so sweet

    in their culture the highest compliment they can pay on you is to invite you to their home and the aunties cook for you – so many wonderful flavors!

    i love that so much cause a lot of people (urban people) have supplanted the old ways with “brunch” and it’s just not the same

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  860. You asked me for statements about people not caring if Trump lied and now you complain I brought in past statements? Really?

    DRJ (15874d) — 7/1/2018 @ 4:17 pm

    I referenced two separate posts in one response. I apologize if that wasn’t clear. The past remarks response was specifically about Trump and Bored Lawyer’s incorrect statement regarding his remarks.

    NJRob (9c8acc)

  861. DRJ,

    I think happyfeet is a troll and his remarks have no bearing on a serious discussion. If you notice, I ignore his responses as much as possible.

    NJRob (9c8acc)

  862. well that’s your opinion

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  863. Did apologizing serve w anything, did remove the disputed 16 words from that speech, no the dems doubled down with their lies, that’s what were dealing with.

    narciso (d1f714)

  864. But Dave. Old squid and disco are likely orukhai if not naxgul

    narciso (d1f714)

  865. urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5) — 7/1/2018 @ 4:33 pm
    Kind of like English Bob?

    felipe (023cc9)

  866. I wish I knew what happyfeet is about. He’s an enigma.

    DRJ (15874d)

  867. Here is what Trump said in announcing his first travel ban:

    “This is the ‘Protection of the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.’ We all know what that means.”

    Anybody, what do you think he meant by that?

    DRJ (15874d)

  868. Because that’s what its about,

    narciso (d1f714)

  869. I am weak, but DRJ is persistent.

    I understand why you want to believe Trump was focusing on terrorists, not Muslims.

    Do you? If you watched the entire clip you would know that Trump was very specific about “radical Islamic terrorism.” “Muslim” was never mentioned. You have to leap very far to convince yourself that your select quote is about bragging over a Muslim ban. I, on the other hand, need to put zero effort into letting his plain language from the entire signing event support itself. It is obvious.

    Hope that helps.

    Ciao? Ok. Ciao.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  870. The past remarks response was specifically about Trump and Bored Lawyer’s incorrect statement regarding his remarks.

    NJRob (9c8acc) — 7/1/2018 @ 4:38 pm

    I’m glad you added that because I did not understand (obviously). But I think past statements are still relevant. We don’t get to start each day unencumbered by our past statements, even if we are President. Trump’s campaign statements are relevant to his actions as President. They are the blueprint for what he is going to do.

    DRJ (15874d)

  871. DRJ, I won’t be answering anything else. I didn’t want to leave you hanging on that one thing.

    felipe, I promise this time.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  872. Capital Gazette takes hit at Trump: ‘We won’t forget being called an enemy of the people’

    journalists are so unabashedly trashy anymore you can’t even be embarrassed for them

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  873. Which reminds me – happy Dominion Day to all our friends in The Maple-Leaf State!

    Your quirky (but charming!) individualism, like insisting on celebrating the 4th of July on the wrong day, only endears you to us further. Plus, Queen Liz! Gordon Lightfoot! What’s not to like? Other than the transplanted surrender monkeys in Quebec, anyway.

    Dave (59a371)

  874. Do each of my comments stand alone, BuDuh, or are you entitled to read everything I’ve written in deciding how you interpret what I think? According to your analysis of Trump, only what he says on that day and at that time is relevant.

    Even if that is true, what did he mean by “We all know what that means“? Do you think he believed people did not understand the title of his EO? That they didn’t understand the words “foreign terrorists”?

    DRJ (15874d)

  875. Did you just say that it’s a leap to go from the danger of radical Islamic terrorism to a Muslim ban? It wasn’t a leap for Giuliani. It’s what he said they told Trump to do:

    Trump adviser and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani speaking on Fox News, when asked how Trump selected the seven countries targeted in the first ban:

    “So when he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, “Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’ What we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”

    DRJ (15874d)

  876. So, IMO, when Trump said “We all know what that means”, he could have meant we all know “foreign terrorists” is code for “Muslims” … because that’s what I’ve been campaigning on for 18 months.

    Maybe not because I don’t know what is in his head at any given moment, but I can’t rule it out.

    DRJ (15874d)

  877. They are the blueprint for what he is going to do. DRJ (15874d) — 7/1/2018 @ 4:52 pm

    I agree with this completely, and I hope I am not misunderstanding its import.

    I hope all the Trump supporters take note of this generous statement. It expresses the concession that Trump, unlike some (pick your favorites) past Presidents whose statements are the blueprint for what he is NOT going to do.

    felipe (023cc9)

  878. Stupid brain!

    are the blueprint for what he is they are NOT going to do.

    felipe (023cc9)

  879. I think we are entitled to expect him to deliver, or try to deliver, what he campaigned on. I also think he wants to deliver some of his promises like conservative judges and a wall. I don’t think he expected to win so I’m not sure all his promises were sincere. I don’t think he was sincere about his abortion and Planned Parenthood promises.

    DRJ (15874d)

  880. i went to a place today i been wanting to go to (venerable establishment) it was Canada Day there

    it’s sorta become a gastropub and I was over in the neighborhood dropping off a print for to get framed (rush) so i stopped in and decided to just make the best of what i could do for something low carb (nice house-made sausage plate and a really lovely cold beet dish)

    they don’t have a cocktail program so i asked for a sazerac but they couldn’t swing it so I got a g&t

    it was ok but not t enuff

    i like a real bite of quinine in mine ones

    so anyway the point is it was Canada Day but number one beer is too many carbs number

    number two canadians have become surly and unpleasant to where I don’t even wanna drink their stupid beer

    anyway when i was planning my day this morning and looking at what was around the frame shop i wa gonna use i read up on this bar and here is an anecdotal evidence about the past people used to live in

    it’s from an article where the proprietor talks about the humble beginnings of his now very respectable establishment

    The kind of people that came in were fairly nasty. Every day at noon – they had a TV and VCR built into the wall – a guy from a video store dropped off a porno movie and picked up yesterday’s. So the old guys would sit there and watch a porno. There were several traditions that ended when I took over. I took the poker machines out – the main revenue source of the place. Some lowlifes came in to sell stuff they’d stolen – like steaks from Jewel.

    holy moly that’s a lot of seedy all up in one place. Do places this seedy still even exist anymore?

    Probably in Baltimore.

    But here in Chicago I feel like something’s been lost.

    you can read more here if you want

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  881. oops the frame shop i *was* gonna use i mean

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  882. I think we are entitled to expect him to deliver, or try to deliver, what he campaigned on. I also think he wants to deliver some of his promises like conservative judges and a wall.

    Very well said, DRJ. If those considered to be “never-Trumpers” could remember to include Trump supporters (as did you) )in the “we” of your statement, it would go a long way to establishing peace within conservative ranks. Let all sides extend olive branches in like manner.

    felipe (023cc9)

  883. @865 I used to live in the mid-South – in Memphis, TN for much of my life and that friend I mentioned was (and is) around that region.

    Thanks Dave, I’d forgotten all about that saying.

    Tillman (d34303)

  884. So, when Barack Obama went off on the rich, time and again, then raised taxes on them, the tax law could have been blocked due to his obvious animus?

    Good to know.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  885. I was aware of this answer that was unresponsive to my question.

    I don’t think it is, and I have tried to explain why. If you want to make the entire question “did Trump literally boast about having enacted a Muslim ban?” then I gave you the answer long ago: I know of no evidence he did. So stop saying nobody has answered it. I have.

    If you want to dust off your hands and pretend that means that Trump said nothing after signing the first order to support the notion that he thinks he enacted a Muslim ban, that’s where you’re going to get pushback. Many have offered numerous such statements.

    This really isn’t that hard, BuDuh. I think you’re making it a lot harder than it has to be.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  886. No, it only works against republicans, e.g. w can be blamed for things he never said in public statements

    Narciso (cfe877)

  887. BuDuh quoted DRJ saying:

    He learned to talk about it in a different way but he also said We all know what that means. And we do.

    And replied:

    Do we?

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4653208/president-trump-signs-travel-ban-executive-order

    You are hearing things.

    BuDuh, do you admit or deny that Trump spoke those words when signing the executive order?

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?422913-1/president-trump-signs-executive-action-calling-extreme-vetting-refugees

    At 12’20 or so.

    Precisely as DRJ said.

    What does that rude comment “you are hearing things” mean??

    Patterico (115b1f)

  888. You expect sanity in idaho

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/suspect-in-boise-stabbing

    Narciso (cfe877)

  889. Meanwhile in germany they remove all doubt.

    Narciso (cfe877)

  890. So, when Barack Obama went off on the rich, time and again, then raised taxes on them, the tax law could have been blocked due to his obvious animus?

    Good to know.

    No, because as the Court did with this EO, it defwrred to the text of the Order and not the President’s campaign statements — as I think it should. Plus, it is Congress that raises taxes, not Presidents. Presidents are in charge of executive agencies, like the IRS that collects taxes.

    DRJ (15874d)

  891. BuDuh left.

    DRJ (15874d)

  892. Now Brett Cavanaugh as pointed out upthread, did have controversial opinions that preclude his selection

    Narciso (cfe877)

  893. Do you see the flaw in what you said? I think it is a compelling defense and some people agree with me, but you don’t. It is fine that you disagree but it would be nice if we could move on to why we disagree, instead of persisting with this “You won’t answer me” claim.

    DRJ is begging to have a conversation, and BuDuh won’t have one, it seems to me.

    You could talk to her about why she thinks Bored Lawyer was right, or to me about why I think a claim very similar to his is right. But mostly the time and effort I have spent to discuss the issue here has been wasted. Nobody has tried to summarize my position to my satisfaction. Nobody has responded to my bolded assertions. Mostly what has been offered is a series of distractions. Then you announce you’re so offended that I’m testing to see if you’re going to really talk as opposed to troll — and so far you’re refusing to truly engage, as in show your understanding of our position and respond to it — that you’re going to leave forever. (Only there keeps being an exception.) This is what I’m supposed to miss? It’s not conversation.

    I started to listen to a 3-hour podcast Sam Harris did with Omar Aziz. Aziz constantly changed the subject and refused to respond to what Harris was talking about. No matter how patient Harris is, there are some people who just can’t be reasoned with. It starts with a lack of charity and a refusal to respond to the other guy’s fair points. I think I’ve done that here. I don’t think BuDuh has.

    If you’re making people as good as DRJ and Beldar frustrated, stop and consider whether you are contributing to the problem.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  894. BuDuh left.

    His choice. If he’s not going to truly engage, it’s just as well.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  895. That’s weird about Boise, that the non refugee A-A peep targeted a 3 year olds birthday party, but I guess he could try an Uncle Ruckus defense.

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  896. Probably also some “anything but Black” mindset plus remnant anti semitism, more of Daddy LePen as opposed to the daughter/granddaughter LePens.

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  897. Beldar, in just a few posts, was calling BuDuh “intellectually dishonest”, and asking if he was a bigot.

    No, he didn’t ask BuDuh if he was a bigot, swc. You continually misstate what Beldar and I say to our detriment. Beldar said:

    But denying that genuine bigots do indeed take his statements as supportive of their bigoted position is common, and it’s intellectually dishonest. Whether Trump’s a bigot, or intends to appea[l] to bigots, no one who’s intellectually honest can reasonably doubt that real, undisputable bigots celebrate his statements. Are you one such person, BuDuh? I’m not pointing a finger, I’m asking.

    Beldar took care NOT to accuse BuDuh of being intellectually dishonest, instead making a claim about taking a certain intellectually dishonest position making a person intellectually dishonest. Then he asked BuDuh whether he is one of the people who takes that position — i.e. is BuDuh such a person who doubts that real bigots celebrate [Trump’s] statements.

    This is clear to me from context, but you recklessly accuse Beldar of directly calling BuDuh intellectually dishonest and asking if he is a bigot. I assert that Beldar did neither. And this is, again, part of a pattern you have of mischaracterizing other people’s statements — in particular from other commenters here like me and Beldar whom you seem to want to show up in some way. It makes a real conversation impossible. And you just keep doing it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  898. Except for his extensive criminal record, that would be true, like the grownup version of the sassy boondocks kid

    Narciso (cfe877)

  899. how can “abolish ICE” be a thing overnight while the hot and horny men and women of the slutty corrupt fbi have absolute inviolable 100% job security?

    there’s something really effed up about this

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  900. Because one is doing their job another is definitely not

    Narciso (cfe877)

  901. And they wonder why so many people don’t trust the media… https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NPR.png

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  902. I admit it was me playing the Festus character. Thought it would be amusing. Was too, though turns out it’s a pain trying to write like Festus talks.

    Anyway, it’s true I’m largely ignorant on how IP addresses work, and haven’t a clue how another commenter shares mine, but I assure everyone “Festus” is not a Colonel Haiku sockpuppet, and it would be a grave injustice to ban him based on my my actions.

    So, having, I hope, cleared the air on the matter, I’ll clear out. Patterico’s Pontifications has become decided unamusing…seemingly for most everyone involved.

    See ya. I don’t like sock puppets.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  903. Bier btw is on to another set of discredited talking points, stripping out all context,

    Narciso (cfe877)

  904. Never Trump can’t suck enough… https://pjmedia.com/trending/nevertrump-objectively-pro-democrat/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  905. Patterico,

    It’s not parallel because there are no stakes in your example compared to Trump. Everything he says is analyzed and is analyzed where his supporters interpret it one way and his antagonists interpret it differently.

    But the number one job of the president is to protect the people of his nation. A travel ban from hostile nations is a step in that direction. Pressure against the invasion on our southern border is another step.

    As for your remarks about understanding their position I don’t see how that is possible because, with the exception of DRJ, not a single person attempted to explain their position. They just used statements from the past that had zero bearing on the accusation made that Trump bragged to his base that he enacted a Muslim ban.

    I just don’t understand what you’re trying to say. And you have not tried to fairly summarize what I had to say. I mentioned the bolded language again and again and I think it has just been ignored. So I’m giving up.

    I tried.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  906. And they wonder why so many people don’t trust the media… https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NPR.png

    I don’t follow your point.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  907. They made it look like this multiple offender was some trump supporter

    Narciso (cfe877)

  908. Narciso (#924): I assume you’re actually referencing harkin’s comment on the post about Kennedy resigning, which in turn quoted Ben Shapiro’s evaluation of D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh. I don’t believe a single one of Shapiro’s criticisms is well grounded in fact, for reasons that Ed Whelan and Shannen Coffin have pointed out. Shaprio in particular owes Judge Kavanaugh a full-throated apology for mis-describing Kavanaugh’s position on the Chevron doctrine (under which the federal courts defer to agency interpretations of the laws the agencies enforce). Shapiro’s error is indefensible for a graduate of Harvard Law; he’s already been obliged to post a correction in boldface in his original post, but a correction is no apology, and Shapiro simply could not have been more wrong.

    Neither harkin nor Narciso is to blame for Shapiro’s error, of course, and without it, there’s nothing substantive left to Shapiro’s original trenchant criticism of Judge Kavanaugh.

    As well there should not be. The (paywalled) comment I left on Coffin’s article reads:

    Kavanaugh was put on the court on which he now sits for the purpose of developing the decade-plus record he now has.

    He’s no law professor whose experience on the bench is measured in weeks. He’s no state supreme court judge who rarely sees, and hence has rarely developed any track record on, issues of federal law and, especially, federal constitutional law.

    His court’s docket matches the docket of the SCOTUS more precisely by far than any other federal circuit’s; he has had countless chances to stumble and many years to drift; and he’s done neither.

    He’s the closest thing to a sure bet as exists in the universe. That’s not to say that there are no other excellent candidates on the list, or in discussion as being among the supposed final five.

    But he’s exactly the right choice, among others who are merely good choices and good bets.

    This is the guy with the decade-plus record you actually want, and in exactly the sorts of cases that mean the most for purposes of examining a record. I’ll still sing Trump’s praises so long as he picks someone from The List. But Kavenaugh is my own first choice.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  909. OT, but in case you wanted a brief “I thought it only happened in the movies” distraction: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/07/01/notorious-french-criminal-escapes-from-prison-using-helicopter-sparks-massive-manhunt-around-paris.html

    nk (dbc370)

  910. No, it’s not by Shapiro, it’s by the bezos died in darkness, now much of everything related to trump is criticized in tones which I read in drury and McCarty thirty years.

    Narciso (cfe877)

  911. festus was a Republican a lot of people don’t know that

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  912. Since Scalia stepped down there isn’t anyone with enough wit:

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/300855/

    Narciso (cfe877)

  913. Meanwhile in Toobizarreworld
    Stuttering John is using Avenatti as his lawyer when he will be questioned by the Secret Service.

    kishnevi (bec396)

  914. How to translate Dana Milbank. When he says “an explosion is coming”, he really means “liberals’ heads will explode”. And when he uses the useless and meaningless word “mandate”, he’s trying to justify the passage of Obamacare while dismissing Trump’s constitutional duty of appointing a Supreme Court justice. If Trump does indeed work off the Federalist Society’s list, then Democrats should probably squawk about it somewhat but they would be better advised to pick another battle. I don’t think this country has much patience for another borking by Democrat Senators, who screwed up in the first place by joining Harry Reid’s nuclear option.

    Paul Montagu (852677)

  915. Shapiro’s whole analysis sucked, in my opinion. He writes that Amul Thapar of the Sixth Circuit is “relatively new to the appellate courts,” which is true, and that “Thapar’s record is relatively thin,” which is not true: Thapar has been a federal district court judge since January 2008, when he was appointed to that bench for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Google Scholar, searching decisions just from that district court bench, returns 650 cases with his name in them. Did Shapiro read any of them? I don’t know. Does Judge Thapar have a less well-developed record on “hot-button” issues than, say, Judge Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit? Yes, of course, because federal district judges don’t write nearly as many published opinions. Is his short appellate court tenure offset by his superior understanding of trial court procedures? Maybe, in part. But my point is that there’s a lot you would want to know about Amul Thapar that I don’t believe Ben Shapiro has bothered to scratch the surface to learn.

    And by contrast, he doesn’t mention at all that Judge Amy Barrett’s total tenure as a judge on the Seventh Circuit — or on any other court — is eight months, prior to which she was a law professor. Has she written much on the Seventh Circuit yet? Her name appears so far, according to Google Scholar, in sixty cases from Seventh Circuit panels. Since it sits in panels of three, that suggests she might have written maybe 20 cases so far. Is that enough of a track record to base a SCOTUS nomination on? I’d rather not. So did anything she wrote as a law professor reveal anything about her suitability? Did Shapiro bother to find out that she even was a law professor? You certainly can’t tell from his work product.

    I thought it was a superficial analysis of the five judges about whom he wrote — clickbait prepared in a hurry and on a deadline.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  916. @ kish: Axios didn’t fake that picture. Bush appointed Kavanaugh, so of course he’s in the picture. He’s being sworn in by Justice Kennedy, for whom he clerked, so that’s no surprise either. As for the picture of him being hugged by Rove (which the Axios caption gets backwards): He was born in Texas himself, is married to a Texan who was Dubya’s personal secretary in the White House, and his confirmation was the culmination of a three-year struggle over D.C. Circuit nominations. Plus he was a co-author of the Starr Report. How could Karl Rove not hug a guy like that?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  917. Thomas had about as much experience and nearly as old as Barrett but he had run a federal agency, you can’t rely on the post to tell you the time of day.

    Narciso (cfe877)

  918. the one President Trump picks will be the best choice, superior to all the others

    we are very blessed

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  919. 939, in some cases there is overlap between the aims of Trump and the black ex-offender community esp. regarding immigration and Hispanic gangs.

    Speaking overlap (in Mickey Kaus opinion, anyway):Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) Tweeted:
    Whenever we as US citizens agree w/ military actions like weapons deals & air strikes, or when we hop on board with trade deals like NAFTA or the TPP, we should ask ourselves:

    “Are we prepared to deal with the people who will seek refuge in the US due to our actions?”

    /6 http://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1000461154504855552?s=17

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  920. The third broke girl* is no longer amusing, maybe they should switch her out with Zoe Saldana, fellow occupier fan.

    Narciso (cfe877)

  921. 938…”I don’t follow your point.”

    Patterico (115b1f) — 7/1/2018 @ 6:28 pm

    Suspect did NOT say or yell “MAGA”, but it was too good for NPR to check. Fake news.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  922. she’s dumber than sotomayor, and unredeemed by tasty fresh tortillas

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  923. Or rosario Dawson, saldana’s is,relatively sensible, who talked her into signing onto the losers, I’ll never know

    Narciso (ffa127)

  924. They just used statements from the past that had zero bearing on the accusation made that Trump bragged to his base that he enacted a Muslim ban.

    Bored Lawyer said “Then Trump brags to his base that he enacted a ‘Muslim ban’ when he did no such thing.” I think one problem we’ve had on this topic is that some people think that the only way to prove this statement is true is by showing Trump talked about a Muslim ban after he was President, when he enacted the travel ban. Campaign statements strike them as irrelevant, or as puffery, or political “lies.”

    Others, like me, think past statements show state of mind and are relevant to Trump as President.

    DRJ (15874d)

  925. Get down wit’ yo funky self! I know why teh caged bird didn’t sing… http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/06/academic-absurdity-of-maybe-all-time.php

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  926. holy america gonna go back here next week look at the menu

    this is the place i mostly go for cocktails cause their cocktail program is world class and for chicago that’s saying a lot

    the duck dog is amazing but i get that as an app and split it up

    but looks like lots of new adventures are await

    but wtf with the “chicken thigh” rice and peas for $29

    i think that’s a hard pass

    i have a chicken thigh place already

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  927. And Patterico, I don’t waaah about you posting your anti-Trump drivel as often as you waaaahhhh about Trump.
    And where’s the acknowledgement that I was not “Festus”?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  928. Normally I would not suggest this but that link was about NPR. Isn’t that government-funded, a little, through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? Would it be worthwhile to suggest a Congressional inquiry regarding NPR’s reporting practices?

    DRJ (15874d)

  929. Never mind… it’s really not important to me.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  930. 961… it would be if there were any true interest on the part of Congress, DRJ. But I wouldn’t expect miracles.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  931. That’s weird about your IP.

    DRJ (15874d)

  932. The Democrats don’t care but the Republicans still care a little about free speech. But I also care about how the government spends money.

    DRJ (15874d)

  933. He has gone light on the whole “kill PBS/NPR” jag that has been a Republican plank since the Contract with America Gingrich days. Will he keep the mediums funded but just purge the current staff at an opportune time?

    urbanleftbehind (e1ffa5)

  934. the way Mr. Hayward’s making sport of that guy’s death is kinda tacky Mr. Colonel

    i read it in HR and wondered why i even needed to know any of this – this wasn’t murder it’s just somebody what died (probably ghb-related)

    chicago had an awesome gay sex academic murder stabstabstabstabstab though

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  935. It does get old. They never say someone was wearing an Obama cap or shirt, even when they did.

    DRJ (15874d)

  936. Isn’t that government-funded, a little

    it’s HUGELY government funded

    it’s just that the government mostly slops local piggy stations, and they take that money and buy programming from NPR

    this way NPR gets to say that their subsidies are minimal

    but it’s basically giant a money laundering operation

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  937. ugh *a* giant money laundering operation i mean

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  938. To correct something I wrote earlier, re the religious affiliations of the members of the SCOTUS: I wrote that the current Court is either Catholic or Jewish. That was true until Justice Scalia died; Justice Gorsuch was raised as a Roman Catholic but before his elevation was attending St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado, with his wife and two daughters, leaving CNN muttering in its March 2017 headline, It’s complicated, but WaPo insists he’s the first Protestant on the Court in years.

    Much more significant, to me, was that before being elevated to the SCOTUS, he’d been on the Tenth Circuit long enough to have compiled a useful record regarding his views on religious liberties, free speech, and a host of other topics.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  939. Some Episcopalians call themselves Anglican Catholics. It is complicated.

    A man is being admitted into a Catholic hospital. The nurse asks him his religion. He says “None”. She writes down “Protestant”.

    nk (dbc370)

  940. harvard hates asians with a fierce passion

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  941. America really did have a Manchurian Candidate in the White House

    In the short year and a half that President Trump has been in office, he has put in place policy that has mitigated the damage that President Obama inflicted on our national security and on our allies. The speed with which Trump has been able to turn things around points to the diabolical depths the Obama administration went to in order to undermine our national strength and way of life. All Trump had to do was stop doing things that hurt America; America could then take care of itself. The results are plain as day. However, it will take decades for the Obama damage to be completely undone. The deviousness of the Obama sedition runs deep.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  942. And Patterico, I don’t waaah about you posting your anti-Trump drivel as often as you waaaahhhh about Trump.
    And where’s the acknowledgement that I was not “Festus”?

    I’ll take your word for it. If you think my blog is drivel I think you’d be happier at another blog. I don’t want you to suffer any longer.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  943. 964… very weird. I use my cellphone (sometimes have it up on the wifi) and my iPad. I don’t know how that would even be possible. But then I don’t have teh mad skillz.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  944. i like your posts where you agree with our president, President Donald Trump

    those posts are so tremendously powerful and resonant

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  945. Gee, and here I’d thought I had toned that down. You seem to have a need to chase people away.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  946. That’s weird about your IP.

    It is.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  947. You have an odd confluence with the Bas, though, Colonel, unfortunately.

    For example, this comment from the Bas has this hashtag: ca2d1a.

    the Bas (ca2d1a) — 6/22/2018 @ 6:25 pm

    And this comment from you has the same hashtag: ca2d1a.

    Colonel Haiku (ca2d1a) — 2/5/2016 @ 10:26 pm

    That’s because they have the same IP address.

    And it’s a different IP address from the one that the Bas admitted using for Festus — which he also shares with you. I don’t want to publish the IP addresses, but everyone can see the hashtags.

    The IP address you shared with the Bas in the past is not the same one you shared today, but it does have the same first three packets.

    But the fact is that you have shared two different IP addresses with him. That could be bad luck. It really could. But I have a question:

    Does the Bas post from your computer?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  948. Fvck no! Now you’re scaring me… I haven’t been up in the attic for years, will do now… if I’m not back in 15 minutes, something is up.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  949. OK, I’ll take your word for it. It’s weird — but in all honesty I will take your word for it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  950. measured out measured with coffee spoons

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  951. There are ways people can grab IPs. Most don’t apply but it could be exposed through your mobile phone, or if you’ve ever exchanged emails, or if you use a messaging app.

    DRJ (15874d)

  952. Do you have a password on your internet modem/service? Add one or if you have one, change it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  953. Your ISP’s customer service can help you do it if you aren’t sure how.

    DRJ (15874d)

  954. That Collins has a veto at all is unfortunate. Is it churlish to note that she would not have a veto had not some of Roe’s must vehement critics not caused the GOP to nominate Roy Moore and Todd Akin?

    too hilarious!

    let the blood of a billion fetuses flow like the wine jesus made out of water

    thank you nevertrump

    thank you for all you do

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  955. Okay… all clear. I still don’t understand how that is possible… how could it be the same IP?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  956. Yes I do, DRJ, and yes I will.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  957. on Sunday’s AM Joy, MSNBC contributor and Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin declared that Sarah Huckabee Sanders deserves a “life sentence” of being harassed publicly

    stay classy nevertrump

    we’re counting on you to stay classy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  958. It’s two IPs so it doesn’t sound like a coincidence. It could be something nefarious but (this is cra zy speculation) it could also be you have the same internet provider and it uses floating IP addresses. I also wonder if mobile phones are more at risk for spoofing or shared IP addresses.

    DRJ (15874d)

  959. For example, this comment from the Bas has this hashtag: ca2d1a.

    the Bas (ca2d1a) — 6/22/2018 @ 6:25 pm

    And this comment from you has the same hashtag: ca2d1a.

    Colonel Haiku (ca2d1a) — 2/5/2016 @ 10:26 pm

    Maybe there is a simpler explanation: the bas was commenting using the colonel’s name.

    felipe (023cc9)

  960. Hey, look, I’m DRJ and we share the same descriptor (023cc9)

    DRJ (023cc9)

  961. Bored Lawyer said “Then Trump brags to his base that he enacted a ‘Muslim ban’ when he did no such thing.” I think one problem we’ve had on this topic is that some people think that the only way to prove this statement is true is by showing Trump talked about a Muslim ban after he was President, when he enacted the travel ban. Campaign statements strike them as irrelevant, or as puffery, or political “lies.”

    Others, like me, think past statements show state of mind and are relevant to Trump as President.

    DRJ (15874d) — 7/1/2018 @ 7:48 pm

    And that is the crux of the issue. The accusation was made that Trump bragged to his base that he enacted a Muslim ban. Just looking for the bragging to his base that he did that. It doesn’t exist. So instead, we find penumbras and emanations to plausibly say, sure he didn’t actually do that, but he intended to. And non-lawyers just look at that and say, “no he didn’t.” That’s false.

    NJRob (b00189)

  962. I don’t remember exactly where I was or what I was doing when I first read Planned Parenthood v. Casey, soon after it came out in 1992. Things moved so slowly then — it might be days before I could get the full-text version after hearing about it on the news, instead of seconds.

    But I remember what I thought when I read this paragraph (citations omitted):

    Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Our cases recognize “the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Our precedents “have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

    I swear to God that in absolute disbelief, I started singing, out loud and off-key, my best imitation of Madeline Kahn in Young Frankenstein singing out, “Oooooooh, sweet mystery of life, at last I’ve found you!” And then I started making the noises that Frankenstein’s (rhymes with Rosenstein’s) Monster was making in response, but not for the same reason: I was not aroused, I was dumbfounded and outraged. I flipped to double-check who had written this drivel, which could not possibly be more untethered to the Constitution or American constitutional law, and said to myself, “Kennedy. Damn him, this is a disgrace that probably won’t be corrected until deep into the 21st Century.”

    Then I got to this, from Scalia’s dissent (citations again omitted):

    The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting. As the Court acknowledges, “where reasonable people disagree the government can adopt one position or the other.” The Court is correct in adding the qualification that this “assumes a state of affairs in which the choice does not intrude upon a protected liberty” — but the crucial part of that qualification is the penultimate word. A State’s choice between two positions on which reasonable people can disagree is constitutional even when (as is often the case) it intrudes upon a “liberty” in the absolute sense. Laws against bigamy, for example—with which entire societies of reasonable people disagree—intrude upon men and women’s liberty to marry and live with one another. But bigamy happens not to be a liberty specially “protected” by the Constitution.

    That is, quite simply, the issue in these cases: not whether the power of a woman to abort her unborn child is a “liberty” in the absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance to many women. Of course it is both. The issue is whether it is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. I reach that conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the “concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected—because of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed.

    I am quite sure that Justice Kennedy is a decent, smart, and hardworking man. I’m also quite sure that he doesn’t understand what constitutions in general are all about, because if he did, he wouldn’t ever be writing about the “mysteries of life,” sweet or otherwise, as a basis for pretending that the Constitution contains terms it plainly does not.

    This last week of his last Term of Court is useful in that it reminds us, or should, that most of the time, on most issues, Justice Kennedy was a relatively reliable and conventional legal scholar who found his way to a justifiable result; and he’s had some marvelous law clerks to help him; and he wasn’t a Souter or a Stevens or a Warren.

    But frankly, nothing Kennedy wrote after that “sweet mysteries” paragraph ever surprised me, and as a writer and interpreter of constitutional law on some of the very most important issues the Court faced, he was simply horrid. I look forward to him spending more time with his grandchildren, and I have been literally giddy all week at the prospect of the possibilities for the SCOTUS to become a better, truer vessel for its own constitutional responsibilities when it’s no longer dependent upon which side of the proverbial bed he gets up on every morning.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  963. ok, back to normal.

    felipe (023cc9)

  964. Well done, felipe. Do you recognize this comment, Colonel?

    There may be a pony in the pile!

    “Poll: 25% of federal employees would consider quitting if Trump becomes president.

    Colonel Haiku (ca2d1a) — 2/5/2016 @ 10:26 pm

    DRJ (15874d)

  965. No, because as the Court did with this EO, it deferred to the text of the Order and not the President’s campaign statements — as I think it should. Plus, it is Congress that raises taxes, not Presidents.

    1) Of course, but that is NOT what the Left is saying here. FOUR justices thought the text of the Order was meaningless eyewash.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  966. 2) Imagine a Bernie, going after the capitalist oppressors.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  967. I have 4 different IPs on this thread alone. I’m also all over the state and use my computer and phone to post. Constantly on the move. My phone will change IPs depending on from where the internet is being pulled. Also makes it difficult at times to respond in detail to comments.

    NJRob (b00189)

  968. Beldar (fa637a) — 7/1/2018 @ 9:42 pm

    Thank you for that comment, Beldar. I appreciate your bringing that to my attention.

    felipe (023cc9)

  969. That’s true, Kevin M.

    And we hit 1000 comments.

    DRJ (15874d)

  970. And you’re comment #1000, NJRob! Congratulations, ding-ding-ding!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  971. Beldar–

    That 14th Amendment “liberty” thing was pretty central to Kennedy’s entire line of decisions, right up to Obergefell. Sometimes it worked in our favor. He spent a lifetime jamming it into precedent. I wonder if he will live to see it weeded out.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  972. Jackpot. Thank you, thank you.

    Beldar, I agree 100% regarding Justice Kennedy.

    I truly hope we get someone that is humble enough to let the Constitution speak instead of themselves.

    NJRob (b00189)

  973. I do think my ISP uses floating IPs. I don’t know what’s up with that identical ISP, or if Bas has the same provider, but I will change the pw.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  974. You’re welcome, felipe (#1001).

    I have a follow-up question for you, sir, re your recollections from the post-9/11 conversation in #840, which affected me as DRJ said it affected her: Had you ever before, or since, had discussions with any of those people before or since in which the phrases “my people” and “your people” were used? Or was that a one-off?

    Beldar (fa637a)