Patterico's Pontifications

10/21/2018

Trump Celebrates Violence Against a Reporter, and These Two Reactions Are Emblematic

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:01 am

You probably know the story by now. At a recent rally, Donald Trump gleefully recounted how Montana Republican Congressman Greg Gianforte body-slammed reporter Ben Jacobs from the Guardian. This is an act that Gianforte pled guilty to and apologized for, but to Trump (who is, I am quite sure, a physical coward) it was something to laugh about and celebrate:

Listen to the mob howl in approval. (More about that below.)

In one of the funnier clips I have seen in a while, Corey Lewandowski, the Trump sycophant whose voice is just beginning to break (congratulations on hitting puberty, Corey!), tries valiantly to do his best imitation of how he thinks an actual decent person acts. Lewandowski mouths platitudes about how we should all reject violence, citing (to take one of many examples) obviously figurative but nevertheless poisonous rhetoric from Eric Holder about kicking people in response to attacks. The problem is, every time Cuomo asks Lewandowski to specifically criticize Trump for his actual celebration of the body-slamming of a reporter, Lewandowski can’t bring himself to do it.

It’s called a non-disparagement clause, Chris. It’s the reason this clown never should have been on your network to begin with. But I do give you props for exposing his behavior, even if you won’t tell the viewers why.

Watching this clip, it seemed to me that Lewandowski’s performance is emblematic of the GOP these days. With very few exceptions (and we’re about to get to one), GOP leaders across the board, and indeed a large Trumpist section of the GOP electorate, behaves as if they too have a non-disparagement agreement with Trump. They want to pose as decent people who have principles and aren’t utter hypocrites. Then you ask them their attitude towards something clearly immoral and disgusting like Trump’s behavior at this rally, and they spin like a top, dismissing it as a joke, or unimportant, or any spin they can possibly reach for.

Anything that allows them not to criticize Trump.

As a counterweight (of sorts) to that, we have Ben Sasse this morning:

I believe the First Amendment is the beating heart of the American experiment. We need to have a president who celebrates the First Amendment and not pretends that beating up a reporter is okay.

I call it a counterweight “of sorts” because even Sasse reflects the view of many of his constituents that the President is just being playful, and hey, what’s the big deal here? But even with his minimizing tone, he’s one of the few people actually willing to speak out against such nonsense.

Sasse can’t make anyone happy. The lefties are unhappy because he is still conservative and votes like a conservative. The Trumpists are unhappy because their only principle is Trump worship, and Sasse won’t come to church. Conservatives like me are happy, but we don’t count because there are 17 of us left in the entire country. You heard me: 17. I counted the other day. We’re meeting for pie this afternoon.

As a side note, I will say that even Sasse won’t address the real elephant in the GOP room. (SWIDT?) While Trump’s conduct is troubling, the real problem is the animals in his audience laughing at his antics. It is people like this who made him the GOP nominee, and it is people like this who are the core problem with this country. These degenerates are the reason politicians are scared to say anything about Trump. The laughing hyenas at the rally are not the people I still respect to this day: people who reluctantly voted for a man they believed to be flawed, but still better than Hillary. No, the moral reprobates yukking it up at Trump’s description of inexcusable violence are the people who actively applaud the worst behavior in our public life — just because they find it entertaining, and because its utter lack of morality doesn’t trouble them a bit.

Sasse, a politician, won’t blame any voters, ever — not even this obviously immoral subset of voters. But I will.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

446 Responses to “Trump Celebrates Violence Against a Reporter, and These Two Reactions Are Emblematic”

  1. This is as good a time as any to remind readers of the new commenting rules prohibiting personal attacks. I’ll be enforcing them aggressively on this post, and I will treat passive-aggressive violations the same as actually aggressive ones. A one-week moderation period for any comment that violates the rules is an extraordinarily likely minimum punishment. Fairly warned be thee says I.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. Maybe we’ll get to experience a Week Without Asshole Commenters. That could be interesting.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  3. This is one area where criticism of the argument can quickly devolve into personal criticism, and the subject matter makes people emotional. So, you’re triply warned. I won’t hesitate to wield the hammer.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  4. very very few of the people we call reporters or journalists actually do anything resembling reporting or journalism

    it’s kooky

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  5. Is that really the relevant issue here? To me, it’s quite obviously not. At all.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  6. That feels like a Khashoggi-style “blame the victim for being attacked” argument.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  7. Sasse won’t criticize Trump’s most ardent supporters because they’re part of his constituency and they helped vote Sasse into office. My guess is that he’s not secure enough to go far too against the grain without getting primaried by dyed-in-the-wool Trumpalista.
    As an aside, people like Sasse and Susan Collins are part of the reason why I rejoined the GOP, so I’m hoping that both stay in their jobs. Actually, I hope Sasse runs against Trump in the 2020 presidential primaries, but that would probably put his Senate seat at risk.

    Paul Montagu (f1c2b9)

  8. I’m afraid to ask any questions.

    mg (9e54f8)

  9. While Trump’s conduct is troubling, the real problem is the animals in his audience laughing at his antics. It is people like this who made him the GOP nominee, and it is people like this who are the core problem with this country. These degenerates are the reason politicians are scared to say anything about Trump. The laughing hyenas at the rally are not the people I still respect to this day: people who reluctantly voted for a man they believed to be flawed, but still better than Hillary. No, the moral reprobates yukking it up at Trump’s description of inexcusable violence are the people who actively applaud the worst behavior in our public life — just because they find it entertaining, and because its utter lack of morality doesn’t trouble them a bit.

    Sigh.

    NJRob (1d7532)

  10. Fitting that the new commenting policy needs to get brought up to start the comments. There’s a lot about that post that needs to be criticized.

    Dejectedhead (d94572)

  11. I think half the people of Trump’s audiences are paid to be there and to lead the rest in laughter and applause.

    nk (dbc370)

  12. Wouldn’t put it past the rally organizers to leak a little nitrous into the ventilation system, either.

    nk (dbc370)

  13. “Trump Celebrates Violence Against a Reporter…”

    Why? Because his marching orders come from the KGB. That’s why. And Putin smiled.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  14. nonono Mr. nk

    people camp out waiting to get in to these rallies

    you have to get there super-early to have any chance at all cause there’s always more people that show up than the venue can hold, so you should bring snacks

    it’s a wondrous phenomenon

    I’ve never been, but a lot of people really want to hear him and be a part of his movement i guess

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  15. You mean when trump supporters were attacked in Chicago, San Jose and other places how about the attacks on Peters Scalise and rand Paul, also the two incidents in minnesota.

    Narciso (25002e)

  16. Sasse said, “I believe the First Amendment is the beating heart of the American experiment. We need to have a president who celebrates the First Amendment and not pretends that beating up a reporter is OK. What you hear from Nebraskans who also tune out most of the rallies is that there’s a short-term, long-term thing going on and feel that the president’s rhetoric is short-term playful. I don’t think it’s OK, but I think most people tune most of it out.”

    i never thought of it that way before

    that President Trump’s maybe just being playful

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  17. Round us up, Comrades.

    mg (9e54f8)

  18. @15

    It’s possible for 2 things to be bad Narciso

    Davethulhu (5cc577)

  19. Now blaming the victim like chosing 9/11 to lecture on palestine, which haven’t been given citizenship or even work permits.

    Narciso (25002e)

  20. I more or less took Johnny Strong’s side at the time and I thought it was funny, more than it was anything else, for a middle-aged Congressman to be behaving like a Goodfella, so I can’t really say anything.

    nk (dbc370)

  21. All Trump peaceful gatherings end up in reality being a target rich environment for the gonzo left.

    mg (9e54f8)

  22. In the meantime, twitter and other leftist platforms continue to ban all dissenting commentary in typical communist fashion.

    https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/twitter-permanently-bans-gaypatriot-bruce-carroll-cites-kafka-for-precedent/

    NJRob (1d7532)

  23. I’m reminded of the quote “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.”

    The dark night of violence is always descending on the right and yet only lands on the left.

    Munroe (c87974)

  24. Anything that allows them not to criticize Trump.

    Even withholding criticism might not be enough for Trumpalos. I’ve seen writers being scolded for failing to praise Trump in blog posts.
    The faithful have internalized Trump’s own belief that the most important basis for judging other people is whether they express admiration of Donald Trump, and that he should get away with what others cannot.
    Recently a radio host described Trump, without irony, as being like a “messiah.” But if you point out the ways their unconditional reverence for Trump is cultlike, the faithful will get angry, or say things like “Hey, what about Obama?”

    Radegunda (c321ae)

  25. I think you mean 16. I won’t be able to make it for pie.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  26. That waa gunther grass, I had attributed that line, to jean Jacques revel.

    narciso (d1f714)

  27. “(who is, I am quite sure, a physical coward”

    Oopsies, your blatant bigotries are showing again. You should tuck them in before you go out and everyone notices.

    tom swift (73487a)

  28. So an attempt on two senators, a congressman in the Hampton’s,

    narciso (d1f714)

  29. Fitting that the new commenting policy needs to get brought up to start the comments. There’s a lot about that post that needs to be criticized

    Go nuts. Criticize the post all you like.

    But do not criticize me personally.

    Patterico (bc5701)

  30. I don’t understand the comment about how it’s “fitting” that I decided to remind people about the policy. That said, if you can’t explain it without criticizing me personally, I don’t want an explanation.

    Patterico (bc5701)

  31. NJRob,

    Sigh all you like, but I chose those words deliberately. That’s how I feel about people who laugh at jokes about violence to reporters.

    Patterico (bc5701)

  32. I’m afraid to ask any questions.

    Don’t be afraid to ask questions that go to the substance of the post.

    Do be afraid to say things that sound like a personal attack on me.

    Simple!

    Patterico (bc5701)

  33. 30. I think the whole point of criticising this post is that the Trump humpers will accuse you of making personal attacks in it while not allowing them in the comments.

    Gryph (08c844)

  34. #2 Sasse is sanctimonious. I despise the sanctimonious on both sides. I dislike myself sometimes when I got up on my high horse and made an ass of myself. Sasse (and Trump) never take a moment to stop, reflect, change.

    here’s the sanctimony party never trumper dream ticket:
    Sasse President
    McMullin VP

    Comey AG

    steveg (a9dcab)

  35. #6

    I’ve been “blaming the victim” a lot.
    The guy flaunted the law of his land. A land full of barbarians. I gave him a Darwin Award

    Doesn’t mean he wasn’t murdered in a barbaric fashion, just that it was entirely predictable.

    His killers should be dealt with by the laws of Saudi Arabia… which probably involve a promotion

    steveg (a9dcab)

  36. #30. Well, I have to delicately dance around it because I can be banned at any moment. Basically, it looks like a policy implemented to force agreement and reduce dissent. It’s how you build an ideological bubble.

    Dejectedhead (d94572)

  37. 36. Except that’s not what it is at all. If you can’t stand the heat, you don’t belong in the kitchen.

    Gryph (08c844)

  38. 30. I think the whole point of criticising this post is that the Trump humpers will accuse you of making personal attacks in it while not allowing them in the comments

    That would be:

    1. A personal attack on me and
    2. A bad argument, because I am demonstrating no inconsistency because the rules allow attacks on public figures or events, just not on commenters here. I attacked no commenters in the post.

    That is really the final word, and in a way I am sorry you brought it up, because anyone who argues with me that I am wrong is making a personal attack on me and will be dealt with accordingly. It will be a back-door way to accuse me of bias and that is a personal attack and I will not tolerate it. Period. I make the rules and I interpret them, and my interpretation is fair and correct and I am supremely uninterested in hearing an argument to the contrary. Because any argument to the contrary will accuse me of being personally unfair rather than a criticism of my arguments. And I am not going to have that discussion and will punish anyone who tries.

    The slightest hint of whining about that will be sanctioned. I am very serious about this.

    Criticize the arguments in the post all day long. The days of personal attack son me or other commenters is over.

    Patterico (bc5701)

  39. Dejectedhead,

    You have a week to think about the fact that you are attacking my motives in direct contravention of what I said here very clearly.

    I have said multiple times that I welcome dissent. But if the only dissent you can think of is the “you are a dirty NeverTrumper!” variety then yeah, I can do without you. (The “you” in that sentence is the general you and not you in particular.) I want dissenters who can figure out ways to disagree without being disagreeable and making personal attacks.

    You failed today, by questioning my motives, which is a personal attack. So you are object lesson number one. Complain about in a way that shows you are not even trying to understand what I am saying and take it to heart, and I will consider making it permanent.

    Please don’t make me do that. I don’t want to. I have nothing against you. I like you. But I was clear about the rule.

    Patterico (bc5701)

  40. Turns out when I say something many times it is a hint that I mean it.

    I took extra special care to warn people about this post because it’s the type of post that usually excites the type of commenter who turns immediately to the personal attack. So I wanted to be incredibly clear so that I know that’s people who still violate the rule are doing so willfully.

    Patterico (bc5701)

  41. Sometimes a “no personal attacks” rule is especially hard to follow. Some of you might think that means I should be more lenient at such times. In fact, I believe exactly the opposite. I am going to use an occasion like this to pay close attention to who can follow my simple and very necessary rule. I believe it has improved discussion here, and I am not going to sacrifice the rule, even for (especially for) posts that are most likely to bring the personal vitriol to the fore.

    And in most cases, the moderation will last only a week, barring flouncing (and flouncing is a sign of a commenter who is not going to last anyway, so it’s like pulling off a Band-aid quickly). So in that week we get to see if things are better or worse, and that is an experiment worth having in any event.

    All of which is to say, one-week moderations are going to get handed out like candy to anyone who wants to try me on this, and if it seems like a house-cleaning, it is — but you guys will be selecting yourselves to be part of it, by your own choices and behavior.

    Patterico (bc5701)

  42. For the record, I am going to be quite cautious going forward in my criticism of Trump supporters here. And I will do so for exactly the reasons Pat has outlined here. I fully expect myself to be held to the same standards as anyone else here, and I know I have not always been temperate in my own criticisms.

    Gryph (08c844)

  43. We know exactly how to create an ideological bubble and it doesn’t happen by stopping specific personal attacks on people who disagree with you. Bubbles form when you encourage personal attacks on people you disagree with. Examples are what we see when Maxine Waters incites her followers, or the way Trump talks at his rallies.

    Serious question for any reader and commenter: Should people cheer when Trump praised Gianforte for body slamming a reporter? If so, why?

    DRJ (15874d)

  44. Gryph,

    Good. Thank you.

    Meanwhile, DejectedHead is in moderation making exactly the argument I already refuted in 38: that I am a giant hypocrite because I criticize others (non-commenters) and yet require commenters not to criticize me .org commenters personally. It makes me despair that he will never understand the distinction between refraining from personal attacks on public figures and participants in public events, and criticizing me or commenters here personally.

    So his week-long moderation may become permanent. Maybe “despair” is the wrong word for my feeling. Because I don’t need people who cannot understand that very, very simple distinction.

    Patterico (bc5701)

  45. 43. Should they, is one question. The fact of the matter is that they do. And this is a very telling, sad commentary on the modern American body politic.

    Gryph (08c844)

  46. Look at some of the websites that are ideological bubbles. I think they got that way because mobs of commenters were able to personally attack other commenters, and the minority left. Some of those websites support Democrats and some support Trump. Maybe there are other conservative websites that host all views and try not to let that happen, but this is the only one I’ve seen.

    DRJ (15874d)

  47. Trump, a physical coward? Why, who can forget the savage beating Trump inflicted upon that CNN logo?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  48. There is peer pressure in a group, Gryph. The value of a blog like this is it gives us time to think about what should happen or what we would do, so we are ready if it happens to us.

    DRJ (15874d)

  49. @ DRJ, who asked (#43):

    Should people cheer when Trump praised Gianforte for body slamming a reporter? If so, why?

    Mark me down as answering “no” and “n/a.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  50. Trump thinks he would win a fistfight against his critics. We’ll never know for sure since he has Secret Service protection during his Presidency and for 10 years thereafter, and he will probably hire private security after that as he did before he was President.

    DRJ (15874d)

  51. I do have one question for DejectedHead: what was the criticism of this post you wanted to make?

    Patterico (bc5701)

  52. It’s also about context. What else was going on literally at the same time? The Kingdom finally admitting they murdered a journalist, where Trump had bought in, or agreed to sell, the other two stories that were flatly ridiculous, before the third, still ridiculous but at least admitting the guys now dead. After he picked a fight with 15 people, was strangled, then chopped up, you know, as you do.

    Colonel Klink (b75b44)

  53. I don’t think cheering attacks on the press sends an effective message to the press, but it does send a clear message to Trump that he should keep saying things like that.

    I wish his supporters would cheer for ending ObamaCare and sanctuary cities, and building a Wall. Those are messages that resonate with many Americans that the media might listen to.

    DRJ (15874d)

  54. DejectedHead says in moderation that he is banned. He is not. He is moderated for a week.

    Also, I almost always give amnesty to people who issue sincere apologies, show they understand the nature of their transgression, and promise not to do it again.

    Patterico (bc5701)

  55. Apparently, Trump cannot help himself. He needs to set a better example.

    Colonel Haiku (311cb7)

  56. Good point, Colonel Klink. Some leaders care more about stopping criticism than about accomplishing things. It’s easier and better for their governments.

    DRJ (15874d)

  57. If the Guardian reporter is the typical Guardian reporter, he most likely took one for the team.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  58. I watched that Corey Lewandowski clip. Talk about your NPCs! “I have one of a kind items, your gold is welcome here!”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  59. Or maybe: “Tinker, tinker, tinker! Strong bored!”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  60. Now to be fair, Mary beard a decent classicist said something equally stupid after 9/11 in the London review of books along with a swedish artists

    Narciso (d1f714)

  61. I do have one question for DejectedHead: what was the criticism of this post you wanted to make?

    Never mind, I see his argument in moderation. It’s a combination of the previously mentioned “you’re a hypocrite” argument combined with calling my post pearl clutching.

    Pretty much what I figured.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  62. If the Guardian reporter is the typical Guardian reporter, he most likely took one for the team.

    Again, to me, a focus on the reporter seems off base here.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  63. We’re meeting for pie this afternoon.

    Sorry, something came up at the last moment and I won’t be able to attend.

    But that means more pie for the other 16 of you!

    Dave (9664fc)

  64. Oopsies, your blatant bigotries are showing again. You should tuck them in before you go out and everyone notices.

    Just noticed this. For you, tom swift, we’ll make it a lifetime ban.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  65. 62. I think that Trump’s focus on the “enemedia” does a big disservice in the sense that it distracts his supporters and gives them something to complain about when there are equally or even more important factors to worry about.

    Gryph (08c844)

  66. I’ve been “blaming the victim” a lot.
    The guy flaunted the law of his land. A land full of barbarians. I gave him a Darwin Award

    Doesn’t mean he wasn’t murdered in a barbaric fashion, just that it was entirely predictable.

    steveg,

    If Ayaan Hirsi Ali were murdered the way Theo van Hogh was, would you say the same things?

    How about Salman Rushdie?

    Which one would not be predictable?

    Is that really the salient point, though?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  67. I’ve seen only one response to DRJ’s question above:

    Serious question for any reader and commenter: Should people cheer when Trump praised Gianforte for body slamming a reporter? If so, why?

    And that was Beldar’s, answering no. (I sentiment with which I entirely agree, which I think is already obvious).

    Is there a non-embarrassing argument to be made that the answer is yes? Nobody is trying, although I get the sense that not everyone would answer “no” if forced to answer.

    When you can’t offer an argument in favor of your position, it’s often wise to re-think your position.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  68. 66. Not sure how much bearing this has on the issue, but Hirsi Ali, Van Gogh, and Rushdie all spoke out against Islam. Does Khashoggi’s history as an Islamist have any bearing on your feelings on this matter? Muslims kill muslims all the time for being in the wrong group and/or in the wrong place at the wrong time. Occurences like Khashoggi’s murder aren’t all that unusual. What is unusual is the media’s focus on Khashoggi.

    Gryph (08c844)

  69. I watched all of Sasse’s interview and enjoyed it as always. I have ordered his new book as an audiobook: Them: Why We Hate Each Other – and How to Heal (affiliate link). He narrates it himself.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  70. Should people cheer when Trump praised Gianforte for body slamming a reporter? If so, why?

    I’ll play Devil’s Advocate.

    People who are in favor of seeing reporters assaulted should cheer, as opposed to pretending to disapprove of something that they actually approve of.

    It allows us to conclude, with confidence, that there is a significant segment of the population who approve of such authoritarian behavior, and to confirm who their political leaders are, so we can oppose them.

    Dave (9664fc)

  71. Not sure how much bearing this has on the issue, but Hirsi Ali, Van Gogh, and Rushdie all spoke out against Islam. Does Khashoggi’s history as an Islamist have any bearing on your feelings on this matter?

    Good question. First, let’s talk about the specific comment to which I was responding, by steveg. His point was that Khashoggi’s death was predictable. Well, sure. But so was van Gogh’s. My point was that the mere fact that a death is predictable does not, in and of itself, make it right to dismiss its importance, as steveg seemed to be doing.

    As for my “feelings on the matter” I assume you’re asking a deeper question than is implied by my response to steveg; namely: do I care more about van Gogh’s death, or find it more distressing? Would I feel the same about Rushdie or Ali? The answer here is yes. I greatly admire Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I can’t say the same about Jamal Khashoggi. He had many more opinions than Ali with which I deeply disagree, regarding Islamism, the value of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, and so forth. I would never read a book by him in a million years; I have read “Infidel” and have another of Ali’s on the shelf.

    So it depends on how broad your question was.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  72. 71. That’s a satisfying answer. Thank you, Pat.

    Gryph (08c844)

  73. People who are in favor of seeing reporters assaulted should cheer, as opposed to pretending to disapprove of something that they actually approve of.

    It allows us to conclude, with confidence, that there is a significant segment of the population who approve of such authoritarian behavior, and to confirm who their political leaders are, so we can oppose them.

    Interesting argument, but I can’t agree. “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart — and through all human hearts.” I would rather live in a society where people who harbor some evil thoughts, as many people do, feel constrained not to voice them, knowing that they would suffer social scorn as a result. (This tendency should be restricted to truly evil thoughts, of course, and political correctness means that too many non-evil thoughts are punished because they are deemed evil by a reflexive and determined group of activists. That does not mean that social disapprobation for truly evil thoughts is a bad thing but rather that it is a weapon to be used carefully and sparingly.) It is when people feel unconstrained, and feel free to voice truly ugly sentiments because they are part of a mob that shares their nasty predilections, that we are at greatest risk.

    That’s my take, anyway.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  74. Should people cheer when Trump praised Gianforte for body slamming a reporter? If so, why?

    of course they should, if that’s their honest reaction

    how else will people be able to understand the full measure of contempt in which the “journalism” profession is held if people aren’t honest about how they feel

    you have to be honest

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  75. I thought we were talking about “degenerates”.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  76. I feel like it’s just the 17 of us here talking. Doesn’t anyone want to offer a non ad hominem attack on the arguments of the post, or answer DRJ’s question in the affirmative?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  77. Name an honest reporter in the MSM

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  78. I thought we were talking about “degenerates”.

    I was, in the post. That is my view of the laughing hyenas in the crowd. None of whom are commenters here, to my knowledge.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  79. 76. Things would get awfully boring here in a hurry if I pointed out every time I agreed with a post here just for the sake of agreeing with it. 😉

    Gryph (08c844)

  80. Ever the showman. In the end, he’s about  ‘winning.’ Very Roy Cohn. Our Captain knows his audience and they know the show: all that jazz– call and response. A salute w/a laugh at the repeated ‘nudge-nudge-wink-wink’ routines, just like loyal Python fans a/t Hollywood Bowl then a side chortle at those in the back w/t cameras, not in on the fun, who take them and the show ‘seriously.’ And that is serious.

    It’s theater.  Bad theater, but theater all the same. Remember this?—

    “The Battle of the Billionaires” — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkghtyxZ6rc 

    Is Trump a ‘physical coward’?!’ Is wrestling ‘theater?’  He knows his voting audience base well. The real questions: Are they/we/you not entertained?  Have they/we/you tired of it yet? Is this a smoke alarm going off or merely alarming ‘noise’ to tune out?

    The cablers who helped ignite this fire to make a buck aren’t covering these gatherings ‘live’ as much; ratings are flattening w/t same act over and over.  Saturation programming. And anecdotal evidence suggests attendance is down. Watching through the straw-eye of a television lens may magnify reality. Trump didn’t create this carnival era, but he excels at exploiting it; building upon a stage crafted by an experienced, Jack Warner trained thespian, his actress wife and his media-savvy team.

    “How can a president not be an actor?” — Response by Ronald Reagan when asked by a reporter “How can an actor run for President?” during the presidential campaign (1980)

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  81. hey you’re using all the slashes

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  82. Name an honest reporter in the MSM

    We could have that discussion, but as to this thread, what does that have to do with Donald Trump celebrating the body-slamming of a reporter by a congressional candidate? I’m still puzzled about that.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  83. The “degenerates” in the audience you write of… I’d cut ‘em a little more slack. There are reasons a guy like Trump won in 2016. Many of his most ardent supporters are the folks that – as we read in the center-to-right media – not just think but believe their wishes, dreams, needs have been given short-shrift by the mainstream politicians for years now. They are probably as dismissive of the rough treatment of a “journalist” as the majority of journalists are of “flyover country”.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  84. Name an honest reporter in the MSM

    Tapper
    Kelly
    Hume

    The second no longer does hard news, the third is retired, and they both worked at FoxNews, so maybe they don’t count.

    I believe Tapper, while not perfectly neutral in viewpoint, is honest.

    My turn: name an honest president in the White House

    Dave (9664fc)

  85. It’s theater. Bad theater, but theater all the same. Remember this?—

    “The Battle of the Billionaires” — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkghtyxZ6rc

    Is Trump a ‘physical coward’?!’ Is wrestling ‘theater?’ He knows his voting audience base well. The real questions: Are they/we/you not entertained? Have they/we/you tired of it yet? Is this a smoke alarm going off or merely alarming ‘noise’ to tune out?

    The cablers who helped ignite this fire to make a buck aren’t covering these gatherings ‘live’ as much; ratings are flattening w/t same act over and over. Saturation programming. And anecdotal evidence suggests attendance is down. Watching through the straw-eye of a television lens may magnify reality. Trump didn’t create this carnival e

    In Sam Harris’s most recent podcast, he and Matt Taibbi (lefty Rolling Stone reporter) discuss how the presidential election cycle has increasingly resembled reality TV for the last several cycles; Trump just took advantage of that. They also compare his insulting act to the behavior of the “heel” in pro wrestling matches — behavior that often gets a cheer from the crowd for many of the same reasons people cheer Trump.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  86. Occurences like Khashoggi’s murder aren’t all that unusual.

    It is not usual for a legal American permanent resident and asylum recipient to be murdered and dismembered in the consulate of an American ally.

    I know we live in the new world order of norms being for “losers”, but this is far beyond an American journalist being killed in a war zone, or a Mexican journalist being murdered by the cartels, this is done in a consulate of a national government, not even the half-assed version of deniability the Russians use in their British assassinations. This is not the behavior that an administration should minimize for a fake $110B arms deal.

    That is actually $4B in signed contracts, and MOU’s for $12B post 2023, and an additional $8B in probable sales. All current contracts actually predate the current administration. We’ve proposed lots of other sales, but there is zero (0%) chance that $110B will be spent before 2040 by the Kingdom, that would be almost double their entire annual defense budget, and new hardware acquisition will never be more than 20% of that, and they just can’t afford to surge spending for a decade, their economy isn’t big enough.

    I don’t see any argument that a rational person can make that says actually physically attacking journalists is good in any possible way. The Constitution exists in America, some say it’s the foundational document for the Union.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (2e7066)

  87. There is no defense of Trump’s behavior.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  88. Tapper is a jackalope. Hume and Kelly were Fox News. MSM doesn’t consider them to be part of their clique, why should we?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  89. Matt Taibi? C’mon, man!?!?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  90. President Trump did a good job Mr. Colonel – he did a good rally and everybody was smiling and happy

    people forget the voters in montana looked at all the facts very carefully and decided to elect Mr. Gianforte – in a special election no less – and that tells you that in montana what Mr. Gianforte did isn’t considered a super big deal

    and that’s ok

    people are different in different places, and in Montana if a couple guys mix it up a little that’s not the same as if it happens in other places

    (especially when nobody gets hurt)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  91. 86. I didn’t say it was good; I said it wasn’t unusual. And the constitution does protect journalists in America, which is precisely why it is very germaine that Khashoggi died on sovereign Saudi soil.

    I think all right-thinking individuals should be gravely concerned about Khashoggi’s murder. I also think this should force a long and hard examination of the criteria we use to determine who are our “allies.” It won’t, but it should.

    Gryph (08c844)

  92. Who’s Kelly?

    mg (9e54f8)

  93. kelly’s that girl on nbc i think

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  94. They also compare his insulting act to the behavior of the “heel” in pro wrestling matches — behavior that often gets a cheer from the crowd for many of the same reasons people cheer Trump.

    I have watched pro wrestling as a child. I always booed the heal. The crowd always booed the heal. We booed the heal because of a common understanding of honor and virtue.

    The crowd that cheered Holder’s comments and the crowd that cheered Trump’s comments have a common understanding as well, but I do not think it has anything to do with honor and virtue. I think it has to do with pride and prejudice.

    felipe (023cc9)

  95. I might have gone with: “prejudice and vengeance.” with pride as an obstacle to dialogue.

    felipe (023cc9)

  96. They also compare his insulting act to the behavior of the “heel” in pro wrestling matches — behavior that often gets a cheer from the crowd for many of the same reasons people cheer Trump.

    Obviously, this is what people voted for.

    Remember during the campaign Trump was openly encouraging his cultists to “beat the crap” out of protestors at his rallies and promising to pay their legal expenses if they did.

    Lewandowski himself, taking a page out of Trump’s playbook, brutalized a female reporter during the campaign and his boss backed him up all the way.

    Dave (9664fc)

  97. The “degenerates” in the audience you write of… I’d cut ‘em a little more slack. There are reasons a guy like Trump won in 2016. Many of his most ardent supporters are the folks that – as we read in the center-to-right media – not just think but believe their wishes, dreams, needs have been given short-shrift by the mainstream politicians for years now. They are probably as dismissive of the rough treatment of a “journalist” as the majority of journalists are of “flyover country”.

    Thanks for this. Personally, I think these people are the problem, but your effort to portray them as humans with human reasoning and impulses is appreciated. Of course, one could humanize some of the crazies on the left in a similar way… the bottom line, however, is that all understanding aside, crazies on both sides need to stop acting crazy. I don’t have a magic solution, but I see the problem.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  98. Who’s Kelly?

    The one who Trump tried to insult with a crude reference to her menstrual period.

    Dave (9664fc)

  99. #metoo guy, fired by a Persian billionaire behind the intercept, he did predict trump would win, so did Pope Francis new bff Michael Moore,

    Narciso (3e0f49)

  100. I have watched pro wrestling as a child. I always booed the heal. The crowd always booed the heal. We booed the heal because of a common understanding of honor and virtue.

    I guess times have changed?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  101. Matt Taibi? C’mon, man!?!?

    I didn’t listen because it was Matt Taibbi. I listened because it was Sam Harris. And I said he was a lefty. But he was right. What do you want from me? Am I supposed to pretend a correct observation is incorrect, or never cite it, if it comes from a lefty?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  102. Catherine Herridge is by far in my opinion the best her profession has to offer. And has been the best for a decade. Everyone else has agendaitis.

    mg (9e54f8)

  103. Am I supposed to pretend a correct observation is incorrect, or never cite it, if it comes from a lefty?

    Frankly that seems to be what is expected in certain quarters, these days. It’s the flip side of non-disparagement against Trump; non-acceptance of anything that comes from the other side.

    I e-mailed you a scientific study on just this subject a month or so ago…

    Dave (9664fc)

  104. I have watched pro wrestling as a child. I always booed the heal. The crowd always booed the heal. We booed the heal because of a common understanding of honor and virtue.

    That’s the problem, there is now a “leader” that has the understanding of America at the same level as a child, and that allows a tiny minority to be a vocal echo chamber to that childish and uninformed viewpoint.

    There is a difference between having voted for Trump, and not being a conservative that fights the cultural Trumpinationalism, there doesn’t have to be a binary choice of you’re either for Trump 100% or against Trump. Personally, I’m for America, Trump’s behavior is not helpful, but we’ll survive, the primary will be interesting in 2020, because the choice won’t be Trump or Hillary this time out, it, so I’d not plan on being the second worst candidate in the history of the nation this time around. Although I don’t really see a Democratic candidate, there are lots of solid Republican alternatives to Trump, as long as 16 don’t run and split the adult vote.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (2e7066)

  105. the primary will be interesting in 2020, because the choice won’t be Trump or Hillary this time out, it, so I’d not plan on being the second worst candidate in the history of the nation this time around. Although I don’t really see a Democratic candidate, there are lots of solid Republican alternatives to Trump, as long as 16 don’t run and split the adult vote.

    I’ll make you a gentleman’s bet: I contend that Donald Trump will, without a doubt, be the Republican nominee in 2020.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  106. 105. Hell, I think he’ll go all the way and win another term. He’ll do it without my vote, but he won’t need it.

    Gryph (08c844)

  107. Oh, I agree: he will win.

    People underestimate the basics: typically, one side gets 8 years, then the other side gets 8 years. Yes, it can vary, but not usually.

    We blew our 8 years, largely.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  108. LOL… having read a lot of Taibbi’s stuff, the best that can be said for him is that even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then

    Colonel Haiku (311cb7)

  109. I e-mailed you a scientific study on just this subject a month or so ago…

    I overlooked that email at the time — sorry! — but am looking at it now. Interesting.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  110. Yes sir. Times have, indeed, changed. The pendulum continues to swing as it has always has.

    The USA will endure their desert for many generations. Alas, I will not make it to the other side with you, but I will, I hope, be able to intercede on your behalf.

    felipe (023cc9)

  111. LOL… having read a lot of Taibbi’s stuff, the best that can be said for him is that even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then

    Yeah, I don’t think he comes across as all that bright on Sam Harris’s podcast. You’ve read him more than I have (I have barely read him if ever).

    Patterico (115b1f)

  112. The USA will endure their desert for many generations. Alas, I will not make it to the other side with you, but I will, I hope, be able to intercede on your behalf.

    ?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  113. lol “as it has always has.” Time for my nap.

    felipe (023cc9)

  114. My metaphors always fail because they assume too much.

    felipe (023cc9)

  115. I don’t think “we’ve” blown anything yet.

    Colonel Haiku (311cb7)

  116. I’ll make you a gentleman’s bet: I contend that Donald Trump will, without a doubt, be the Republican nominee in 2020.

    I wouldn’t make that bet, I’d pledge to console ourselves with a couple bottle’s of Pappy’s, I prefer the 13 rye to the others, especially for the price of the 23. Just look at the folks who ran against Trump in 2016, described him as basically the father of lies, and are in his admin now, or are begging for his help now (Cruz, Perry…). I’d actually lay odds on it being more likely that he doesn’t run again for any number of reasons, than the party backing someone else, as sad as that is.

    I would bet that if he’s the nominee, then he loses though. I don’t put any belief that the Democrats will nominate a fiscally conservative moderate, basically Kasich, because I’m not sure they really exist anymore. It looks like they are focusing on Senators since the last winner was a Senator, but that has not been, historically, a successful strategy. If they want to win, someone like Hickenlooper is probably the best candidate, at least today, again, other than Kasich. Trump has managed to solidify his base but lose almost all the independents. In these midterms, people are going to be proxy voting on Trump, but still, for someone that isn’t Trump, in 2020, it will actually be Trump, I don’t see any way he picks up the B1G states again, and probably lose a couple of the SEC states this time around.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (2e7066)

  117. I wouldn’t make that bet, I’d pledge to console ourselves with a couple bottle’s of Pappy’s, I prefer the 13 rye to the others, especially for the price of the 23.

    Even though my brother in law is a bourbon connoisseur, I never had any Pappy’s until I splurged on a $25 shot (still not a bad price I think) in Santa Barbara recently.

    Smooooth!

    I envy anyone who has tasted multiple varieties and has had enough to form opinions.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  118. I think that people who criticize Islam and barbaric leaders need to be extra careful where they go. Rushdie had bodyguards for years. Certainly you do not go into the belly of the beast, where things become predictable. However much outrage I may have over the murder, it is mitigated by a deference to the laws of the land of their citizenship… laws I find disgusting, appalling and desperately in need of major reform

    I was reading an article where Saudis in Saudi Arabia were being interviewed about the Khashoggi murder and they had to be very very circumspect in what they said because they don’t have the First Amendment rights we have and punishments often involve loss of body parts. A big problem though is that they don’t want a western system of law and punishment. They want to go by the Koran.
    Is it our business to force change upon them? Will it work or just cause more resentment?

    In the meantime vocal critics of Islam need to watch their backs, be brave, not stupid.
    Khashoggi was dumb to go into the consulate and blundered into precipitating the incident. What the hell type of hubris made him go in there?

    I can tell you don’t like how much I’m minimizing his death, but he really got himself into a mess that threatens to ruin the approach of incremental reform. Change in Saudi Arabia right now depends on a strong Prince… one whose edicts are the will of Allah. The subjects will bitch and moan, but not much because the laws don’t allow for that and they will do what the Prince says or else. There is a huge chasm between Islamist view of law and the view of the West and this gruesome murder illustrates that.

    I think this murder should be investigated and the perpetrators punished to the full extent of the laws of their country.
    As noted before I’m fearful that the laws on the books in Saudi may dictate a promotion for ridding the world of a subversive. Hopefully the Prince can find a solution that mollifies the west while maintaining internal credibility and power in order to continue on a path of incremental reform.
    The blame the Saudi government bears is obvious but Khashoggi and the Saudi “forensic team” shambolic threatens the whole region. Right now the winner is Iran, and yes it was a self inflicted wound.

    Moving on from blame, how do we fix this? We have a vested interest in the balance of power. The Iranians are financing and arming proxies on the southern border of the Saudis. The Iranians are entrenched in Iraq and Syria. The Iranians clearly want to be a nuclear power. Why? What is their end game in the region? We have a problem that is bigger than Khashoggi and the answer/ punishment for his murder can’t weaken the Saudis military position in the region without the potential for deep consequences

    steveg (a9dcab)

  119. I think felipe is talking about the afterlife.

    DRJ (15874d)

  120. Lewandowski himself, taking a page out of Trump’s playbook, brutalized a female reporter…..

    Better inform Palm Beach County, they said grabbing her arm after being told twice to stop touching Trump did not justify criminal charges.

    harkin (adce92)

  121. I think the only argument for Trump’s comments is that it shows he is a fighter. Unfortunately, it also shows that many people don’t care about or understand how our laws and/or our Constitutional rights work. And why should they? The schools don’t teach these concepts anymore and no one seems to care about explaining or applying our rights/the laws equally — especially journalists. They should care, though. It’s their country, too.

    DRJ (15874d)

  122. It used to be that you could use self-help to abate a trespass as long as the force you used was reasonable. It also used to be that if a person were trespassing, and refused to leave when asked to, it was defined as assault. It further seems to me that all Gianforte may have been guilty of was using excessive force in self-defense (or in defense of real property) against an initial aggressor.

    What if Johnny Strong had not body-slammed The Guardian? What if had only grabbed him by the scruff of his neck and the seat of his pants and given him the bum’s rush out of the office?

    And waddabout that time when that little old lady in Crawford, Texas ordered a peripatetic Dane off her lawn at gunpoint, while President 43 was vacationing down the street?

    nk (dbc370)

  123. “The schools don’t teach these concepts anymore and no one seems to care about explaining or applying our rights/the laws equally — especially journalists. They should care, though. It’s their country, too.”

    All too true. And it’s a damned shame. They don’t teach much history, either and what they do teach is revisionist.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  124. Qatar has been the player, who sponsors militias from Pakistan to Niger, (recall a little incident about a year ago) they have taken up the slack, in funding mosques in the uk and france and germany,
    their tabloid arm, middle east eye has pushed the saw in anchorage, narrative that sasse swallowed whole hog,

    narciso (d1f714)

  125. #s 43, 76, 83. I will try to respond to DRJ’s question. No, I don’t think we or anyone should cheer when Trump celebrates body-slamming a reporter, or anyone else. But I think Col. Haiku is on to something. I don’t celebrate violence and try never to engage in personal attacks or indulge in the ad hominem fallacy. But there’s a part of me (I am white, male, 64, a mix of conservative and libertarian, and maybe 5% of the time agree with the left on something) that is profoundly tired of the tone in this country where people would say it’s OK to discount me or my views just because of who or what I am. I wouldn’t do that to anyone else and never have.

    So, there is a part of me that I’m not proud of that does want to cheer when Trump says something to stick it to the (falsely) moralizing media class. It’s the same part of me that cheers when the middle linebacker on a team I support knocks down a ballcarrier. Does having these impulses make me a moral degenerate? I don’t want to actually hurt anyone or see anyone get hurt (but am OK with others doing it for me? maybe that would be a fair criticism).

    My bottom line — maybe a bit more empathy from everyone for everyone is in order. I doubt many of the people cheering at Trump rallies are really moral degenerates, but then neither are many of the fill-in-the-blank leftists who are so easy to attack (not even all the media moralizers). I applaud Patterico for trying to enforce civility and reasoned argument here — it’s a shame there have been enough abuses that he has to. But we’re all going to need forgiveness at some point, even (again, fill in the blank) and I hope we all get it.

    RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa)

  126. Back from a wonderful day in the city, having dim sum with friends. Enjoying a musical performance by both of my sons. Both events really lend perspective.

    Patterico, I think it is great that you are imposing and enforcing your rules on your blog which you pay for and which you work very hard, for free, so that others can enjoy and learn. Your blog, your rules.

    You asked about DRJ’s question:


    “Should people cheer when Trump praised Gianforte for body slamming a reporter? If so, why?”

    I’m happy to directly give my answer, which seems quite obvious:

    No, people should not cheer when Trump praises Gianforte for body slamming a reporter.

    Period. That’s all. It’s not hard to write, or say.

    Obviously, if you praise violence in one direction, how can you oppose it in the other?

    And it would cost DJT *nothing* to say that violence toward one’s political opponents is always wrong.

    But I believe that DJT is surfing on a wave of resentment felt by many people in this nation. Many people have a right to feel that resentment. And that resentment could be harnessed in productive and positive ways…or used to promote sloganeering and bad behavior (both of which are used by opponents to gin up “their” base).

    Where does all this nonsense originate? It comes from “otherizing” one’s opponents, and being narcissistic about one’s own beliefs. That is, if you are smart and well informed, and someone disagrees with you, why, that other person must be stupid and ignorant. We see this every day in the media. The people who get called such names by the Clerisy of politicians, entertainers, educators, and the like become angry and resentful about the labeling.

    So they react. By doing the same thing, right back. Which encourages their opponents to up the ante. And the cycle continues. This reminds me of my late father’s joke about the bird flying in ever smaller circles until it flies up its own anus. That’s our politics, in a nutshell (whoops, bad metaphor).

    And it can start in odd ways. Insulting people you disagree with using infantile names. Overstating objections to a given politician (sometimes by making things up). Valuing snark and “making points” over real discussion.

    Basically, saying and acting in ways you would never do face to face. Because then you would see that the “other” person is indeed a human being. So the fake tough internet warrior arises.

    That’s not so bad, I suppose. But it creates a basement where that kind of thing is acceptable. And then it amplifies and increases, to the point that some commenters here have actually made comments about politicians with whom they disagree dying.

    And I know for a fact that many of the people—here and elsewhere—would never dream of seriously talking that way about others. It’s thoughtless reflexive responses, born of the resentment I described above—and the weird perceived safety of the internet.

    Which can lead to good and decent people cheering Trump supporting a bully’s violent actions. And, to my mind even worse, justifying it.

    I look forward to reading Sasse’s book, Patterico. Thank you for the recommendation. Notice how often Sasse has been sneered at here. Yet his voting record is pretty darned reliably conservative. So when he votes differently on one issue than some folks would like, he is instantly Maxine Waters, or a RINO, or some other negative, usually with a childish nickname or insult.

    So the point of this thread is clear to me, Patterico. It’s wrong to joke about violence, especially from a government official. Particularly from the President. But DJT is riding that wave of resentment. He could direct it toward things that might help our nation, or he could use it like professional wrestling.

    Truth is, I find Trump to be a symptom, not a disease. The Clerisy really are a problem that needs to be addressed. So I look forward not to hearing who is an awful politician, but who are good politicians. Instead of the mudslinging slapfight we all seem to be engaged in now, both here and nationally.

    As for the 18 conservatives comment? I didn’t get my invitation! Must have been lost in the mail.

    I think there are far more people sympathetic to your goals than you think. They just don’t care to be smeared. We shall see come election day.

    Simon Jester (a6712e)

  127. so who’s pushing for a boycott of Saudi enterprises, an outfit headed by omar sultan, an ohio based hamas and awlaki fanboi, I know you’re shocked,

    narciso (d1f714)

  128. So well stated, RL!

    Simon Jester (a6712e)

  129. Hi DRJ…

    You wrote:

    “…I think the only argument for Trump’s comments is that it shows he is a fighter. ..”

    I see this a lot. But I don’t see DJT as a fighter. I see him too often as a bully. And remember, this man truly understands popular media, probably more than anyone else in politics.

    His act is a choice.

    Simon Jester (a6712e)

  130. “Should people cheer when Trump praised Gianforte for body slamming a reporter? If so, why?”
    DRJ (15874d) — 10/21/2018 @ 11:58 am

    Answer: No, though I wouldn’t attend a Trump rally in the first place, for the same reason I don’t put a bullseye on my back.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/03/ugly-bloody-scenes-in-san-jose-as-protesters-attack-trump-supporters-outside-rally/

    If I had attended a Trump rally and had been brutally attacked, or had witnessed supporters being attacked, I suppose it might provoke a different perspective on the issue.

    Munroe (9700fc)

  131. I wrote a post about Trump praising Gianforte and how I believe it’s become an ugly stain on the GOP that this side of the aisle cannot equally condemn Trump’s praise of a violent act with as much fervor as the GOP does with the Democrats. In it, I said:

    Good and decent people simply condemn the behavior, loudly, and without hesitation. No matter from which side of the aisle it comes. The worst thing any of us could do would be to laugh away, or deny the incendiary rhetoric and unacceptable behavior because we believe that party loyalty supersedes everything else. Even our principles. All of it needs to be condemned, from beginning to end, no matter from whose mouth the words come, no matter at whose hands the violence occurs. And most importantly, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.

    Dana (023079)

  132. “If I had attended a Trump rally and had been brutally attacked, or had witnessed supporters being attacked, I suppose it might provoke a different perspective on the issue.”

    Excellent point! And that reminds me… was there ever any honest reporting by the MSM of the harassment and worse (e.g., beatdowns) of Trump supporters back during campaign season? No?

    They were as honest about that as as they were about Tea Party rallies and alleged harassment of/and spitting on black members of Congress.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  133. So, there is a part of me that I’m not proud of that does want to cheer when Trump says something to stick it to the (falsely) moralizing media class. It’s the same part of me that cheers when the middle linebacker on a team I support knocks down a ballcarrier. Does having these impulses make me a moral degenerate?

    I like it when Trump says something to stick it to the media. I like it when my team does something good in football.

    I do not like Trump cheering the criminal non-self-defense body-slamming of a reporter. And I see you agree.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  134. I just edited the previous comment, which originally said RL formerly in Glendale had not addressed the body-slamming question, which of course he had. (The wrong version was up about two seconds.)

    Patterico (115b1f)

  135. The next step, though, is recognizing that sticking it to the media does not make you a moral degenerate, and cheering your football team winning does not make you a moral degenerate, but laughing at the cheering of body-slamming a reporter (IMO) does. So as long as we’re accurate about what I said makes you a moral degenerate, we’re all good.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  136. I applaud Patterico for trying to enforce civility and reasoned argument here — it’s a shame there have been enough abuses that he has to. But we’re all going to need forgiveness at some point, even (again, fill in the blank) and I hope we all get it.

    This thread is an improvement over what a post like this would have generated in the past, and I think that ruthlessly enforcing the “no ad hominem” rule has been critical to that. It limits who is commenting — DejectedHead got tossed for a week, mg is scared to ask questions, and so forth — but the commentary that remains is much better and I think it has improved the behavior of many who remain.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  137. All the way around.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  138. We know there are people who cheered Trump’s praise for body-slamming a reporter. Is there something different about people who attend a rally that makes them cheer that kind of talk, while others would not? Or are they just more willing to cheer because they are part of a crowd, while “cheering” online requires people to “identify” themselves (even if only online)?

    DRJ (46c88f)

  139. DRJ (15874d) — 10/21/2018 @ 3:43 pm

    DRJ is correct in thinking my comment was about the afterlife.

    felipe (023cc9)

  140. This thread is an improvement over what a post like this would have generated in the past, and I think that ruthlessly enforcing the “no ad hominem” rule has been critical to that.

    I agree. Enforcing the rule is critical. So far the rule has been enforced fairly and evenly – even with the sliding scale, which is really nothing more than justice.

    felipe (023cc9)

  141. Well, I have to delicately dance around it because I can be banned at any moment. Basically, it looks like a policy implemented to force agreement and reduce dissent. It’s how you build an ideological bubble.

    The way to build an ideological bubble is how they did it at RedState, where they kicked out most of the writers and banned commenters who disagreed too frequently with Trump.
    This thread is getting a little Bizarro World here. It’s really not hard to engage and disagree with another person’s arguments without attacking the other commenter personally. It’s as easy as saying “your comment is full of s**t” instead of “you’re full of s**t”.

    Paul Montagu (7b9e3b)

  142. “Part of a crowd.”

    You can read about the 101 Reserve Police Battalion in WWII, if you have the stomach. These were German police officers, over the age of 30 which made them ineligible for the Wehrmacht. Law-abiding, solid civil servants who would not drop a gum wrapper on the sidewalk. They were sent to the Eastern Front to kill Jews. And they did. Hundreds of thousands of Jews. And I don’t mean by putting them into cattle cars to ship them to Auschwitz. I mean while wearing galoshes in knee-high pools of blood by shooting them with pistols at point blank range.

    nk (dbc370)

  143. i think “Your comment is wrong because …” makes more sense, Paul. It takes more effort but doesn’t feel as personal as “Your comment is full of sh!t.”

    DRJ (15874d)

  144. Yes ohlendorf he was in the last Bernie Gunther I referenced, kinsman in sentiment to Islamic state, guess who was celebrating them as late as July 2014?

    Narciso (d1f714)

  145. Serious question for any reader and commenter: Should people cheer when Trump praised Gianforte for body slamming a reporter? If so, why?

    I would rephrase the question to this: Should people cheer when Trump praised a GOP candidate for committing misdemeanor assault against a fellow American for the “offense” of asking that candidate a question? Either way, the answer should be “no” and those who did cheer should be ashamed for endorsing this kind of violence.

    I like it when Trump says something to stick it to the media.

    Me, too, but not when he says that the mainstream media is the enemy of the people.

    Paul Montagu (7b9e3b)

  146. It takes more effort but doesn’t feel as personal as “Your comment is full of sh!t.”

    I didn’t say it was a good argument, or even an argument, but at least it attacks the comment and not the commenter.

    Paul Montagu (7b9e3b)

  147. DRJ, I have long feared what is happening. This because I have been a fan of Eric Hoffer’s work for a long, long time.

    Have you read “The True Believer”?

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

    Just a couple of quotes relevant to the thread:

    Rudeness is a weak imitation of strength.”

    We lie loudest when we lie to ourselves.”

    And our world in a nutshell:

    It is remarkable by how much a pinch of malice enhances the penetrating power of an idea or an opinion. Our ears, it seems, are wonderfully attuned to sneers and evil reports about our fellow men.”

    Simon Jester (a6712e)

  148. Not to mention this very appropriate quotation from Hoffer:

    It is by its promise of a sense of power that evil often attracts the weak.”

    It’s a bipartisan broadside.

    Simon Jester (a6712e)

  149. So, blaming Palestine for 9/11 was one thing, I guess this from July 2014 also has to be contextualized:

    The beheading of the Regime’s soldiers by ISIS and its portrayal of the media after the storming of the 17th Brigade is brutal but an effective military tactic, the group knows what they are doing.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  150. Fair enough, Paul 147, plus it is pithy and symmetrical. I like symmetry.

    DRJ (15874d)

  151. I haven’t read that, SJ. Thanks for sharing it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  152. Wrong. Mr prez is wrong.

    One question I’ve not yet seen the media ask is, why? Why are they hated?

    They don’t ask because they don’t want the answer; they know they won’t like it.

    We are a strange species.

    Puggle (f00366)

  153. If you’ve seen Andy garcias the golden city, (a labor of love, like his cristero pic, for the glory) you get a glimpse of the real che (not entirely because he hated blacks, Mexicans and gays in due course) this is whose visage is emblazoned on tea shirts even in Dade county Florida.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  154. That is an excellent excellent movie, narciso! Would love to see that one again.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  155. Another reason things like this matter to me is that it gives us an idea about what Trump thinks about what is allowed and/or the limits of power.

    Would he order the military to stop the caravan of migrants at our border, even if it means using force? Would he order the military to shoot women and children? Would Americans support him if he ordered that and if the military followed those orders?

    DRJ (15874d)

  156. ‘I think “Your comment is wrong because …” makes more sense, Paul. It takes more effort but doesn’t feel as personal as “Your comment is full of sh!t.” ‘

    Funny stuff!!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  157. Walt Kelly approves this post.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  158. I remember reading something somewhere recently where the person goes “Finally this time Trump went too far” and then he sees the reaction of Trump’s opponents and says “but maybe I’m okay with that.”

    Even when Trump steps over the line, and here he exercised bad judgment again, it’s hard not to feel better when you see his opponents’ reaction.

    lazlo toth (f1fe96)

  159. Maybe just a more diplomatic, “Here’s what I think regarding your comment,” and then just say your piece. You don’t even have to say you disagree or that their comment is wrong. It’s less confrontational and therefore, may actually inspire engaging in discussion rather than someone feeling like they have to fight back. I’ve noticed that when pride is at stake, the point of the argument is pushed aside and almost becomes secondary to defending one’s sense of rightness.

    IMO, it is ridiculous that Patterico has to go to such lengths just to make sure we have civil convos here that attack the argument, and not the commenter. I say that because I’m reasonably sure most people here would not behave in such a negative, immature and insulting manner if face to face. But perhaps I’m giving too many the benefit of the doubt.

    Dana (023079)

  160. What’s troubling to me is that, for those who really believe that Trump was “joking” about Gianforte or that he’s just talking tough, why do you have so much invested in him that you feel compelled to defend him at every turn when you know perfectly well that if that were Obama doing that, you would be dragging him left and right for the same thing. Is there any tipping point at all for you??

    Dana (023079)

  161. “Would he order the military to stop the caravan of migrants at our border, even if it means using force? Would he order the military to shoot women and children? Would Americans support him if he ordered that and if the military followed those orders?

    I would answer no to all but then I would have said same about the DOJ, Ruby Ridge and Waco.

    harkin (adce92)

  162. “Would he order the military to stop the caravan of migrants at our border, even if it means using force? Would he order the military to shoot women and children? Would Americans support him if he ordered that and if the military followed those orders?”
    DRJ (15874d) — 10/21/2018 @ 6:14 pm

    The dark night of brutal military force is always descending with Trump and yet only lands with a Bush.

    Munroe (f18031)

  163. I love the scorn that President Trump has for the media.

    It’s very healthy for us as a polity, and he does a good job modeling this thinking for people who are too lazy or unimaginative to look at our diseased and corrupt media with fresh and perspicacious eyes.

    This may very well end up being one of the more profound beautiful and lasting aspects of his legacy.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  164. Just like they are pulling the gosnell film, nick searcys passion project, despite how well it did, and Twitter (that’s Dorsey ‘free speech, so funny” and prince tall has banned Bruce Carroll for a years old comment about Bradley manning, they see 1984 as a how to manual

    Narciso (d1f714)

  165. I would. Order the military to stop the caravan of immigrants at our, even if it means using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Order the military to shoot women and children if they tried to force their way across the border and the non-lethal means at hand were inadequate. Support Trump if he did that. It is the President’s duty. FTW! (And I don’t mean “For The Win”.)

    nk (dbc370)

  166. *at our *border*

    nk (dbc370)

  167. Every single reporter that you tout so heavily had their copy vetted by Hillary campaign and that would have remained a secret except for Wikileaks and six years before they discovered the journalist, I believe Jacobs was part of that, which was used to create an illusion of concensus.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  168. Dana #160: you are of course correct. No one acting all tough and snarky and filled with macho certitude would actually speak that way in person. Only from the safety of a phosphor screen.

    That’s why I tend to think of the comments section like Patterico’s party.

    1. He sets the rule of HIS party. Not the party-goers.
    2. If Patterico has rude and obnoxious people at his party, either Patterico will clean it up, or if he doesn’t mind the obnoxious stuff, other party goers can decide to leave.
    3. Honestly, the way that some people communicate here would lead to fistfights in real life. So it’s more Keyboard Kommando nonsense.

    I sincerely hope that Patterico’s new approach will lead to less obnoxious name calling and snark, and more actual discussion.

    My best guess is that some people will need reminders. I have seen things start smoothly after Patterico speaks up and then degenerate too many times. But I would be delighted to be wrong.

    Simon Jester (a6712e)

  169. Apparently I’m not done yet as it’s just so pathetic that commenters are unable to distinguish between the attack of an argument vs. the person making the argument. And for those struggling, why on earth do you demand that professional politicians or journalists or Democrats in general be held to account when you yourselves object to it (judging by your personal attacks on the host and/or commenters with which you disagree)? This. Just. Isn’t. Hard.

    Dana (023079)

  170. Twitter is a maggot farm. It had the chance to be “the word of mouth” alternative to a distrusted news media, but blew it without an adequate way to block trolls who infest tweets like maggots on a piece of hamburger left out in the open.

    nk (dbc370)

  171. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

    Simon Jester (a6712e)

  172. Ok, I think this is the wrong way to “punish” rude behavior, I don’t care what anybody says. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/dad-punishes-son-rude-mom-wearing-pretty-black-dress-bus-stop-165643013.html

    I don’t believe in hitting kids so I would probably not have given the kid a swat across the mouth, but I would have maybe taken away his smart phone and given him a Firefly with only three numbers for emergencies. I would not have worn a dress in public and considered it a punishment of the kid.

    nk (dbc370)

  173. nk, I think that father watched “Uncle Buck” too many times. John Candy’s character told his niece that if she didn’t act politely, he would walk her to high school class in his pajamas.

    That was funny. The story you linked to made me sad.

    Simon Jester (a6712e)

  174. I am about halfway through Steven T. Usdin’s brand new book, Bureau of Spies: The Secret Connections between Espionage and Journalism in Washington. Usdin spends a lot of time, of course, on American spies and fellow travelers of the Soviets (extremely pervasive, extremely successful) and the Nazis (comically ineffective for the most part) in the years before the outbreak of WW2. But the two chapters on intra-U.S. operations of the British Intelligence Service between Dunkirk and Pearl Harbor are worth the purchase price all by themselves, both in terms of general manipulation of American public opinion and politicians from both major parties, couples with carefully targeted push-back (and worse) against particular American isolationists, including meddling in key primary campaigns.

    Usdin points out that Fake News is hardly a new invention of Vladimir Putin or any other 21st Century figure. I am not one to minimize the threat of Russian interference; I’m one to emphasize the threat from them and everyone else, including American “friends” (i.e., countries with whom we share common interests).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  175. Sample from the book linked in #175:

    [Moderate 1940 GOP presidential candidate Wendell] Willkie was probably unaware of the attention and resources BSC devoted to smoothing the path for him to gain the Republican nomination. The Brits wanted Roosevelt to win, but they hedged their bets by trying to ensure that if a Republican replaced him the White House wouldn’t be home to an isolationist. Part of the strategy was to marginalize Republican leaders who wanted to cast the GOP as the “peace party.”

    On June 25, the second day of the GOP’s national convention, the New York Herald reported that a poll found that three-fifths of the delegates supported helping the allies “with everything short of war.” The result was a surprise given the strong isolationist streak in the Republican Party. The story reported that the poll had been “conducted by Market Analysts, Inc., an independent research organization.” It didn’t reveal that Market Analysts had organized and phrased its questions in a manner that was designed to make the case for intervention and to exclude the possibility of opposing increased assistance to Britain. For example, delegates were asked “If you think we are endangered, do you favor our helping the Allies with everything a) short of war; b) would you declare war now; or c) send navy or air force units to Europe.” While the Herald positioned the results as a strong show of support for aiding Britain, in fact the majority picked the answer that was least interventionist. They were not given the option to suggest that the United States withhold assistance. Market Analysts didn’t reveal the premise of the question, or that only 0.7 percent of those surveyed favored a declaration of war.

    In fact, contrary to the Herald story, Market Analysts was anything but independent. It was run for the [British Security Coordination organization, a front group for British Intelligence in the U.S.,] by Sanford “Sandy” Griffith, an American who had worked for British intelligence since the late 1930s….

    The results of this poll were used effectively to marginalize the more isolationist candidates, and contributed to Wilkie’s surprise win as a dark horse.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  176. Remind me we’re there any sanctions after neda sultan was executed in the streets of Tehran

    In Iran, retirees join truckers, shopkeepers, teachers on strike agains the mullahs
    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/in_iran_retirees_join_truckers_shopkeepers

    Narciso (d1f714)

  177. Now it’s a crazy notion, maybe we can address how Russia violation of IMF treaty requires withdrawal from said pact.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  178. 157:

    Funny stuff!!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/21/2018 @ 6:14 pm

    Why?

    DRJ (15874d)

  179. Adam Sandler (amused):”Julia Gulia,” heh, that’s funny.

    Julia’s fiancee'(in serious tone): Why’s that funny?

    Adam Sandler (smile melting): I don’t know.

    felipe (023cc9)

  180. Nothing funny about Julia Gulia

    felipe (023cc9)

  181. The volume has been set to eleventy. You can’t continuously tell people that the end is near without some of them thinking that….gosh…the end is actually near. That then means that bad behavior is justified….and your team must fight back….or the country will be destroyed.

    Should these people know better? Yeah, but what part of our society/culture is strenuously pulling people back to the civil and reasonable middle? Media? “News analysis” has overwhelmed journalism…we get 23 hours of spin to hear 1 hour of actual news. Social Media? Yeah right. Twitter….it’s stuff that used to stay in our head because we would be embarrassed….mortified…..to actually say it to someone’s face….or where other people might hear it and judge us. The entertainment industry? Like the addict, they keep increasing the shock value…..oh, and don’t even get me started on reality TV….and the mental pudding that it is creating.

    We have a reality TV President…he understands what the average citizen is like and wants. They want to cheer for their side and against the other side. The media is 95% of the time the other side….so anything…ANYTHING….that takes them down is appropriate with the volume set to eleventy. This is wrong….but we will keep seeing more violence…and rationalization of it…until we as a society say enough. I don’t see anything pulling us back….so something will need to break before we ditch our current path. People love hating “the other”…we will need to have our Soylent Green moment…and it won’t be pretty.

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  182. I think this example of civility might trip the filter:

    Narciso (d1f714)

  183. It was claire foy, working herself into a narrower niche after first man exploded on the pad.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  184. “Would he order the military to stop the caravan of migrants at our border, even if it means using force? Would he order the military to shoot women and children? Would Americans support him if he ordered that and if the military followed those orders?”
    DRJ (15874d) — 10/21/2018 @ 6:14 pm

    You’re edging into a fantastical situation, DRJ. Let me explain why:
    1) The President is forbidden to use standing military on US soil short of an invading armed force. He may use the National Guard, but only in a support role. Most members of the NG do not have powers of arrest, and therefore may not apprehend illegals. Only the Border Patrol can do that.

    2) Even if the military- Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Air Force- were to be ordered to shoot, that CinC had very well better be prepared for the consequences. Not just impeachment and removal, but with Nuremburg ever in focus on such a thing, there’s some very likely legal ramifications.

    3) I doubt Americans would support him- at least the majority. I know damn well I wouldn’t, I don’t care who the CinC is. Finally, all soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are bound by the UCMJ to refuse such orders for the simple reason that such an order would be illegal.

    That’s my take on your question, anyway.

    Bill H (383c5d)

  185. 179… ‘I think “Your comment is wrong because …” makes more sense, Paul. It takes more effort but doesn’t feel as personal as “Your comment is full of sh!t.” ‘

    It was not meant to be funny, it just struck me as funny, DRJ. Just my sense of humor. I still laugh after reading it for the 7th time.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  186. Two southern ladies are sitting at the country club by the pool. The first southern lady says, “When I had my first child, my husband bought me a diamond ring”. The second lady says, “Well, bless your heart”.

    Then, the first lady says, “When my second child was born, my husband took me on a cruise.” The second lady says, “Well, bless your heart”.

    The first lady continues, “When my third child was born, my husband took me on a trip around the world.” And the second lady says, once again, “Well, bless your heart”.

    The first lady asks, “Well, what did your husband get you when your first child was born?” The second lady replies, “My husband sent me to finishing school”. The first lady asks, “Well why did he do that?” And the second lady says, “So I could learn to say ‘Well, bless your heart,’ instead of ‘S**t, ya’all!'”

    nk (dbc370)

  187. Is it fantastical?

    My first two questions focus on what Trump thinks, Bill H, and we have an idea of what he thinks based on what he says. (He thinks it is fine for a politician to body slam a reporter over ideas.) My third question involves how the public would react, and we also have an idea what some of them — his supporters — would think if he ordered violence. (They think it is fine to praise a politician who body slams a reporter, so they don’t seem offended by violence used to accomplish a goal they like.)

    It may seem fantastical to you but the question is really about what Trump and his base think is justified. They also think it is fine to body slam reporters they don’t like. How fantastical is that?

    DRJ (15874d)

  188. OK, Haiku, but I think nk’s comment is a lot funnier than mine.

    DRJ (15874d)

  189. Yes, a great film that andy Garcia spent 15 years trying to bring to the screen, he did substandard work like godfather 3 even oceans 11, in order to bring Cabrera infantes vision (bill Murray I’d the authors perapective) I think there were seven theatres in the country that showed it. The cristero film got a little more distribution.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  190. It was a joke, drj, now what tester did to admiral Jackson, that would have occasioned the need for a duel in the golden days,

    Narciso (d1f714)

  191. Or did that go down the memory hole, like that post reporters memories about 9/11.

    Just like khashoggis statements of support for Islamic state when they were only killing Syrian soldiers.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  192. 189… don’t be too sure, DRJ… it’s 8 for 8 now on the Laugh-O-Meter…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  193. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

    My grandmother always said that. She also liked to say:

    “The things you see when you don’t have a broom”

    harkin (93c406)

  194. “It was claire foy,”

    Her work in Wolf Hall was tremendous.

    harkin (93c406)

  195. When you have a civil war or a revolution, which is often led by the middle class. It often splits families so it was in the golden city with Tomas milian (whose often played heavies in JFK equalizer) plays the patriarch and his sons Marciano joins the rebels and Garcia the casino owner holds to the establishment.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  196. Yes that was a great production, the fellow who played Cromwell conveyed great bathos,

    Narciso (d1f714)

  197. I would. Order the military to stop the caravan of immigrants at our, even if it means using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Order the military to shoot women and children if they tried to force their way across the border and the non-lethal means at hand were inadequate. Support Trump if he did that. It is the President’s duty. FTW! (And I don’t mean “For The Win”.)
    nk (dbc370) — 10/21/2018 @ 6:39 pm

    I really hope that this is not a common way of thinking. There is a vast difference between a people wearing a suicide vest trying to kill you and people at least fleeing poverty to improve their lives, and at most fleeing terror and rampant murder, with their children.

    I would hope that no one that wears a uniform of this nation would follow an order like that, I don’t care if it’s from the president on down to a new boot private. I can foresee no RoE that would allow for such an action. It might earn you an article 88 or 91, possibly a few others, but it would also violate about 30, and be subject to the dreaded article 134.

    We are not Saudi Arabia, we do not plan on murdering civilians as policy, we need at least a finding to target active terrorists, a lady carrying her kid across the border wouldn’t fit. Sure people die in war, but this isn’t that, and not knowing the difference is a giant red flag on why this type of attitude is a problem.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (a57af6)

  198. 199. I can tell you with an almost utter degree of certainty that it’s not a common way of thinking. I can also tell you that I believe it should be.

    10,000 people advancing on our border waving another nation’s flag is not immigration; it’s an invasion and should be treated as such.

    Gryph (08c844)

  199. OK, I’ll play. First, there are way more than 17 conservatives who care about decorum and (lost) traditions of fair play. But the number is way lower than it should be, and these “true conservatives” should reflect upon how they have approached social matters over the last few decades. Even conservative universities are on the verge of a PC/SJW takeover, including ones in conservative states. How did that happen? Maybe decorum isn’t the best weapon when fighting Schumer or Soros.

    No, it is not good that Trump said that. For that matter, I thought it was bad that Reagan joked about bombing the USSR. There is a fine line when being playful, and this crosses it. But there is a minor defense in that it is not the end of the world. Many NeverTrumpers act like the world has gone to Hell. Why?

    Next, it is obvious that the media are considered practically the enemy by a significant percentage of the public. And the feeling is mutual. The elites, most definitely including Republican and business ones, do not care for us. So Trump is the symptom, not the cause. He is an entertainer performing to an audience. Reminds me of Reagan, and Bill Clinton.

    Anyway, none of us here gets to choose the audience. They have all the major and minor sins. We don’t get to elect a new citizenry, though the Democrats are trying. And a lot of the public eats up stuff like “Crooked Hillary” and does not care at all about Cruz memorizing the Constitution. They want a leader, not a scholar.

    Deplorable (c00a79)

  200. Sasse is wrong for another reason. Beating people is wrong, and yes, that means even reporters. But the first amendment is irrelevant to this question, and I’m disappointed that someone of Sasse’s erudition would cite it as if it gives reporters some sort of special status and protection. It is not more wrong to beat reporters than other people. On the contrary, if we were to make one exception to the no-violence rule, it would probably be for reporters.

    And that brings me to my point of disagreement with you, Patterico. It’s perfectly possible to deplore violence, and yet cheer when someone is the well-deserved victim of it. Cf Psalm 137:8-9, or Fathers 2:6. And I think that is behind Trump’s speech as well as the crowd reception. Sure, hitting people is wrong even if they’re reporters, and that’s why Gianforte was right to apologize and plead guilty, but it’s like beating Code Pink or the Phelps family; morally and legally wrong, but still satisfying.

    milhouse (a81aba)

  201. the wrong journalist are the ones beaten up. anybody here have problem with rachel madcow being bit*h slapped?

    lany (a6795c)

  202. DRJ,

    Your questions are the wrong ones. Trump isn’t going to order troops to fire on women and children, especially when the whole thing is likely a provocation from the usual Soros-affiliated crowd. There will be cameras everywhere. Moderate female voters would hate it, as would GOP politicians. And, in the spirit of this whole page, Trump is about giving the people what they want. They want sausage, and don’t want to see it made. They want toughness, but no blood.

    So it is more likely that he would offer something to the Mexican authorities to have them restrain the immigrants. He would certainly take a negative view of the existing governments who allowed this to happen, and they would get hurt by his revenge. In other words, it is government by PR that you should dislike, not government by jackboot.

    Deplorable (c00a79)

  203. Sigh all you like, but I chose those words deliberately. That’s how I feel about people who laugh at jokes about violence to reporters.

    Suppose a commenter here was in that crowd, and participated in the laughter. They might take these words as a personal attack, and feel it unfair that they can’t reply in kind. Of course they can reply without personal attacks, by pointing the issue out and complaining about it.

    The same might also be true of those who weren’t at this rally but would have laughed had they been there. They may also take your words as a personal attack. Or, since you’ve made it clear how you feel about someone who would do so, they may be afraid to say that they fall into this category.

    Or put it another way: suppose a commenter were to express themselves the way you did, about people who do such-and-such, or who think thus-and-so, and you then reveal that you fall into that category. Would you take what they’d written as a personal attack, and put them in the penalty box? Or would you read an implied “Present company excluded” into such general criticisms, and expect them to do the same?

    milhouse (a81aba)

  204. That reporter pushed it too far and deserved that bodyslam

    WompWomp (493b9b)

  205. 66. Not sure how much bearing this has on the issue, but Hirsi Ali, Van Gogh, and Rushdie all spoke out against Islam. Does Khashoggi’s history as an Islamist have any bearing on your feelings on this matter? Muslims kill muslims all the time for being in the wrong group and/or in the wrong place at the wrong time. Occurences like Khashoggi’s murder aren’t all that unusual.

    Exactly and Kashoggi supported them when the victim was the kind of Moslem he doesn’t like.

    We want the Price to make the reforms he’s recently been making, and that inherently means we want him to put down the opposition to those reforms, because they’re impossible without it. In addition, any time a Brotherhood operative is eliminated the world is a better place.

    milhouse (a81aba)

  206. I don’t see any argument that a rational person can make that says actually physically attacking journalists is good in any possible way. The Constitution exists in America, some say it’s the foundational document for the Union.

    And it doesn’t say one word about journalists. I don’t underst

    milhouse (a81aba)

  207. I don’t see any argument that a rational person can make that says actually physically attacking journalists is good in any possible way. The Constitution exists in America, some say it’s the foundational document for the Union.

    And it doesn’t say one word about journalists. I don’t understand why so many people seem to think the mere fact that Khashoggi had some opinion pieces published in a newspaper makes his elimination worse than if he had not done so.

    milhouse (a81aba)

  208. Gryph, #91:

    And the constitution does protect journalists in America,

    No, it doesn’t. No more than it does anyone else.

    milhouse (a81aba)

  209. #135. Thanks for the clarification; I did not mean to misstate your point, which I agree with. To continue with the football analogy, it’s OK to want to see the opposing ballcarrier get leveled, but not OK to want to see him get hurt.

    But, sort of along the lines of milhouse’s point (#202), people who are usually decent can have not-so-great impulses. I don’t want to see right-wingers duke it out with Antifa in the streets, but if I’m being honest have to admit that if that happens I’d want the righties to win. I don’t like that in myself and have to battle against those types of thoughts. The words we say in church — “I have sinned in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do” — seem more real with each passing year. It’s a struggle (for me) sometimes to remember that we’re all fallible human beings and not caricatures and that there’s good in just about everyone, even unreasoning Trumpsters or Antifas or any other group I don’t like.

    RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa)

  210. I think that people who criticize Islam and barbaric leaders need to be extra careful where they go.

    But Khashoggi didn’t have that problem. On the contrary, he was firmly with Islam and barbaric leaders, so he thought he was safe.

    milhouse (a81aba)

  211. Unfortunately, it also shows that many people don’t care about or understand how our laws and/or our Constitutional rights work. And why should they? The schools don’t teach these concepts anymore and no one seems to care about explaining or applying our rights/the laws equally — especially journalists.

    Is there evidence that “the schools don’t teach these concepts anymore”?

    That is a commonly recited narrative, but I’m skeptical.

    Looking at the webpage of the high school in the town I just moved out of, where two of my friends’ kids attended, it certainly looks like US History and Government features prominently in the curriculum. They have mentioned taking such classes.

    The sample 2018 AP US Government exam includes questions on extended quotations from Alexander Hamilton and Milton Friedman(!)

    It is probably true that nowadays some time is spent on topics involving women and minorities that were ignored when we went to school. In moderation, that is a good thing, I think.

    Dave (9664fc)

  212. Thank you, milhouse. Always a good read.

    mg (9e54f8)

  213. I should add that I think the home, rather than school, is the primary venue where civic and other values should be (and historically have been) learned.

    Dave (9664fc)

  214. You’re welcome, mg. I’m getting sick of the toxic commenters at LI. But I don’t always have time to follow a blog comment section.

    milhouse (a81aba)

  215. No, it doesn’t. No more than it does anyone else.

    It kinda does.

    “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the freedom of the press”

    Together with clergy, journalists have occupational protection from government interference that is not extended to farmers, inn-keepers, blacksmiths, teamsters, school-teachers or anybody else.

    Dave (9664fc)

  216. Is it fantastical?

    My first two questions focus on what Trump thinks, Bill H, and we have an idea of what he thinks based on what he says. (He thinks it is fine for a politician to body slam a reporter over ideas.) My third question involves how the public would react, and we also have an idea what some of them — his supporters — would think if he ordered violence. (They think it is fine to praise a politician who body slams a reporter, so they don’t seem offended by violence used to accomplish a goal they like.)

    It may seem fantastical to you but the question is really about what Trump and his base think is justified. They also think it is fine to body slam reporters they don’t like. How fantastical is that?

    DRJ (15874d) — 10/21/2018 @ 9:08 pm

    I’ll dial it back a bit. “fantastical” may have been too strong a word, but my brain just couldn’t come up with another. So, sorry on that score.

    However, I think my point stands. The reason being that you asked some pointed questions which I tried to handle.

    Getting on to your larger point: no. Manhandling a reporter and the President laughing about it later to the whoops and hollers in the audience isn’t acceptable behavior. There is a reason to fear that just as much as Maxine Waters’ incitements. Then again, I am neverTrump. Some of his policies may well have helped the nation as a whole, but I’m having a really tough time dealing with the servile childishness.

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: Most Trump voters didn’t want a President. They wanted revenge.

    Bill H (383c5d)

  217. Khashoggi had the same First Amendment protection as Larry Flynt, Alex Jones, Stormy Daniels, Stephen Hawking, Fred Phelps, David Duke, and any PTA mom passing out notices about the upcoming bake sale. The legend that journalists are untouchable is an informal one like killing a cop — other journalists or other cops will not give up until he is avenged.

    nk (dbc370)

  218. Great comments, Milhouse !!

    Bendover (1b807d)

  219. yes yes there’s certainly no reason an assault on a “reporter” or a “journalist” should meet with greater censure than an assault on normal regular non-elite american people for example the women who sell the shoes at payless shoesource (forgotten women)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  220. The line to see President Donald Trump speak Monday night in support of Sen. Ted Cruz’s re-election bid at Toyota Center began taking shape more than 24 hours before the rally was set to begin.

    he’ll waltz right through the door

    just like he’s done before

    and wrap their hearts around his little finger

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  221. and all that money wasted on a

    fake mexican fake mexican that boy’s not even a teensy bit mexican

    lol fake mexican stole your money

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  222. Like wendy Davis adopted brother, played by Mark goesselar on an episode of saved by the bell.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  223. Those who will not learn from history will continue to make the same mistakes. Our present thinking about the press and the 1st Amendment is quite different from the way the press was treated in past years. Read some Mark Twain stories when he was a reporter to understand the difference. Violence was common if a story displeased the subject or anyone else.

    Michael Keohane (947544)

  224. On top of everything khashoggi denied the provenance of Joseph’s shrine in Nablus, heck Yemen is mentioned in the old testament but the large part of Arabia is not.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  225. You don’t kill people in diplomatic enclaves. And it should not have taken fifteen of them.

    It’s not complicated.

    nk (dbc370)

  226. When the Spartans murdered Xerxes’s ambassadors, they knew they had committed a grave sin. To atone, they sent three young Spartan men for Xerxes to kill. Xerxes sent them back unharmed. Then he killed 2,300 of them at Thermopylae. Later, Poseidon leveled Sparta with an earthquake and killed about 20,000. (Fifteen years later, but time is different for gods and humans.) It’s the same principle.

    nk (dbc370)

  227. And herodotus didn’t blame the invasion on the anabasis expedition a generation earlier, the Iranians actually tried to blow up the Saudi ambassador, this was before the 5th round of Yemen, Obama sent them a fruitbasket.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  228. So were relying on two publications either directly or indirectly tied to the sultans family as the definitive word how wise is that in a country where they have arrested shot or otherwise silence 900 journalist.

    As for this keystone crew, they should have byos (bring your own scorpion) Rowan Pope would have killed everyone invilved.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  229. Turkish legation in Germany per se are espionage centers and akp propaganda posts, I know quelled surprise,

    Narciso (d1f714)

  230. The Anabasis expedition was 110 years later. Xerxes’s invasion was to avenge his father’s defeat at Marathon ten years earlier, and to continue his (father’s) policies. Kind of like Iraq War I and Iraq War II.

    nk (dbc370)

  231. I’m not that crazy about the border issue, except my family came here legally 5 years for myself, 9 years for my grandfather, 12 years for my father (both through third countries) but foreign policy was a big issue.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  232. Alright but we must have done something to provoke xerxes, perhaps a disrespectful scroll, some unwarranted expedition in Asia minor.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  233. On to another travisham

    https://mobile.twitter.com/RealSaavedra

    Narciso (d1f714)

  234. It was Darius, Xerxes’s father, who was provoked, partly because the Athenians, who belonged to the Ionian tribe, were aiding the Asian Minor Ionians in their resistance to the Persian Empire, and partly at the instigation of the Peistratid Hippias, The Last Tyrant, who had been exiled by the Athenians, and wanted to rule again as a Persian satrap, an offer Xerxes also made later to Leonidas at Thermopylae to which Leonidas replied “Nuts!”.

    nk (dbc370)

  235. Patterico —

    As a side note, I will say that even Sasse won’t address the real elephant in the GOP room. (SWIDT?) While Trump’s conduct is troubling, the real problem is the animals in his audience laughing at his antics. It is people like this who made him the GOP nominee, and it is people like this who are the core problem with this country. These degenerates are the reason politicians are scared to say anything about Trump. The laughing hyenas at the rally are not the people I still respect to this day: people who reluctantly voted for a man they believed to be flawed, but still better than Hillary. No, the moral reprobates yukking it up at Trump’s description of inexcusable violence are the people who actively applaud the worst behavior in our public life — just because they find it entertaining, and because its utter lack of morality doesn’t trouble them a bit

    You blame “the people” for following a bigoted, violence endorsing, leader. Problem is that a lot of people the folks who are offered up as a leader. Is the person to blame John Q. Foam-at-the-mouth, or the Tucker Carlsons and Bill O’Reillys and Limbaighs who offered up this up as a leader to be followed.

    Appalled (96665e)

  236. I’m stretching the parallel to a ridiculous extent, I’m sure the Roman’s must have done something to incur the wrath of carthage,

    Appalled did you forget who you voted for in 08,

    Narciso (d1f714)

  237. OK, I gummed that last one up.

    My thesis is this. Patterico blames the raucous people in the rally supporting Trump. Lots of people in politics are easily led. I am inclined to blame the people who trained them to be this way. Fox News. Limbaugh. Tucker Carlson. Heck, MSNBC and CNN for all the free Trump promotion.

    Elites had to fail before Trump could get his chance.

    Appalled (96665e)

  238. Narciso:

    I know a John McCain Presidency would have pleased you.

    The foaming mob isn’t the product of Obama, even if his tendency towards executive action created some precedents that Trump has happily used.

    Appalled (96665e)

  239. 239. What kind of dupe believes that Trump isn’t an elite? He may not have come up as an elected official, but he played all the right games and greased all the right palms. If you can’t see that about him, I can’t help you.

    Gryph (08c844)

  240. No, I didn’t realize what a fraud he was then, had he won he would have thrown the huntress under the bus at first opportunity.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  241. As compared to a fraction that could raise 1. 2 billion dollars who had the support of practically every outlet of most enterprises of the legal and entertainment guilds

    Narciso (d1f714)

  242. I didn’t think much of tucker back in 2009, when he proposed what would become the daily caller at Cpac, I had even less opinion of o’Reilly, after that election

    Narciso (d1f714)

  243. I didn’t know of the journalist existence, but my spidey senses were tingling over a certain commonality of viewpoint.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  244. The Daily Caller
    @DailyCaller
    AP Changes Headline After Liberals Complain About Describing Illegal Caravan As ‘Army Of Migrants’

    harkin (93c406)

  245. I’d like French Apple Pie at the meetup. I’m tired of bitter rhubarb pie. Also, Eugene and Orin said they can’t make it.

    JRM (c80289)

  246. milhouse 205:

    If people agree with Trump, then they should be able to explain why without getting personal. You offered an (Old Testament) explanation without invective.

    DRJ (15874d)

  247. But I agree with what I think is your feeling that it isn’t only a few people at Trump’s rallies who support his rhetoric. I think a lot of people do, including here.

    DRJ (15874d)

  248. Gryph 200, I agree it is an invasion. That’s why I hope our President has thought about what he would do and should do.

    DRJ (15874d)

  249. 251. Trump promised he would close the border and use the military if necessary. I don’t think he’ll keep his word.

    Gryph (08c844)

  250. The Rule of Law is what protects journalists and everyone from body slams, not the First Amendment. The rule of law is a basic concern in the Constitution and our nation’s founding. Our nation is a government of laws, not men or monarchs.

    Students used to learn these concepts in school, Dave. They don’t now, as is evident in these comments, in reading online and watching news, listening to politicians at political rallies, and observing society.

    DRJ (15874d)

  251. I have no clue what he will try to do, or if the military would comply if he tried. I don’t think he will think it through based on his travel ban and similar decisions.

    DRJ (15874d)

  252. 254. Actually, the first amendment does protect journalists. Not from body slams, but from malicious prosecution by people like Donald Trump.

    Gryph (08c844)

  253. What kind of dupe believes that Trump isn’t an elite? He may not have come up as an elected official, but he played all the right games and greased all the right palms. If you can’t see that about him, I can’t help you

    The GOP elite did not want Trump as their candidate in 2016. Trump as billionaire certainly qualified as a member, but he did not appeal to his fellow members. Now the current elite certainly is doing its best to make its peace with the Donald. (It’s been a repulsive process.) And by 2020, barring major indictments, Trump will be the 2020 GOP establishment, and his acolytes will be the RINOs in charge.

    Appalled (96665e)

  254. Are we still revisiting that chestnut again, that very modest plan was perfectly legal and proper but the bureaucracy and the resistance wants no barrier at all.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  255. I understand, Gryph. That’s why I specifically said the First Amendment does not protect journalists from body slams. But given the state of our knowledge, it is fair to remind us all about what our founding documents say.

    DRJ (15874d)

  256. 229… that Obama… sending a fruit basket… always gotta be about him with that guy!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  257. The GOP elite wanted Trump far more than they wanted Ted Cruz, and they have supported him since he was elected. To me, that makes him their guy.

    DRJ (15874d)

  258. 239… that comment is appalling. You choose to castigate the Right and what you perceive to be a PT Barnum-inspired Right media, while ignoring the half-truths, outright lies and smothering of stories by omission because they will put Democrats in a bad light/at a disadvantage by 99% of the media that is totes in the bag for the Dems.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  259. Really Paul singer wanted him, now he does want our basengi aspirant to desantis seat, who really doesn’t have a clue how to respond to sodeberg.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  260. Did you realize appalled that Abrams was playing you over the voter lists.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  261. History used to be taught in our schools… now not so much. And what is has been revised and all SJW’d up.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  262. The first part was a question, re the sea island conference, and we now know the first of the fusion GPS contract.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  263. 257… this is what sickens me and the Left – from top to bottom – is rife with it: http://milnenews.com/2018/10/21/man-who-abused-9-11-widow-identified-and-fired-from-job/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  264. We don’t yet know who got in, while the 9th circus was debating Angels on a pin, while the DHS was hiding at least one detainee from iraq

    Narciso (d1f714)

  265. Haiku:

    Context matters in evaluating content. And if you are talking about people cheering the body slamming of journalists at a Trump rally, I don’t think the latest nonsense from the Daily Show, Colbert and the gang of unfunny comics has much to do with their depravity.

    Appalled (96665e)

  266. narc:

    Link please?

    Appalled (96665e)

  267. Emphasis is mine…

    “Every big U.S. election is interesting, but the coming midterms are fascinating for a reason most commentators forget to mention: The Democrats have no issues. The economy is booming and America’s international position is strong. In foreign affairs, the U.S. has remembered in the nick of time what Machiavelli advised princes five centuries ago: Don’t seek to be loved, seek to be feared.

    The contrast with the Obama years must be painful for any honest leftist. For future generations, the Kavanaugh fight will stand as a marker of the Democratic Party’s intellectual bankruptcy, the flashing red light on the dashboard that says “Empty.” The left is beaten.

    This has happened before, in the 1980s and ’90s and early 2000s, but then the financial crisis arrived to save liberalism from certain destruction. Today leftists pray that Robert Mueller will put on his Superman outfit and save them again.

    For now, though, the left’s only issue is “We hate Trump.” This is an instructive hatred, because what the left hates about Donald Trump is precisely what it hates about America. The implications are important, and painful.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-real-reason-they-hate-trump-1540148467?mod=hp_opin_pos1&fbclid=IwAR3p2dY69CNP1LE7mhLlB78dsSAopIbmXix-2rzhE6m3mKXNViMHY_ziQSc

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  268. While Trump’s conduct is troubling, the real problem is the animals in his audience laughing at his antics.

    His antics are often very amusing. And speaking of animals: sacred cows make the best hamburger*. Trump knows this, as did Bush and Obama. Hillary knows this too but comes across and clunky and scripted when she does venture into the strange and unfamiliar depths of hilarity.

    You don’t have to think much of the man’s character [or lack thereof], or the ways in which he conducts himself, or the positions he holds on Issues A-X, to see a lot of what he does as funny, particularly when it comes to his body language.

    Should the President be making such jokes?

    Yeah, maybe not. I agree it’s a little too cute and roughing up the press shouldn’t be played for giggles, especially when it wasn’t so long ago that the White House condemned Erdogan’s security detail when it beat up protestors outside the White House.

    The idea that there isn’t something funny about Trump’s gesticulations or his appreciable sense of the absurd is another matter.

    *Re: Salman Rushdie. He hasn’t really been in the news lately. But yes, people have made jokes about threats on his life.

    JP (8e8f6f)

  269. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

    “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

    NJRob (1d7532)

  270. Where is the Main Stream Media on this tragic incident?

    https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/10/21/mainstream-media-ignores-death-of-jewish-journalist-who-died-from-alleged-hate-crime-in-new-jersey

    The is such a DOUBLE STANDARD in the Main (Lame) Stream Media, that there are virtually NO STANDARDS in the media or journalism – anymore. Too often today Media = Propaganda. Hence FAKE NEWS.

    The examples are legion. Providing a few.
    JOURNALISTIC FRAUD: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted (2003)- https://www.amazon.com/Journalistic-Fraud-Distorts-Longer-Trusted/dp/B000685KVK ;
    COLORING THE NEWS: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism (2002) –
    https://www.amazon.com/Coloring-News-Political-Correctness-Journalism/dp/1893554600 ;
    LIFE THE MOVIE: How Entertainment Conquered Reality (1998) – https://www.amazon.com/Coloring-News-Political-Correctness-Journalism/dp/1893554600 ;
    AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (1985) – https://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/014303653X .

    So before blaming Trump and “the real problem is the animals in his audience laughing at his antics”, and “These degenerates”, and the “The laughing hyenas at the rally”, you might want to first direct your attention and concern at the two (2) major parties, journalism/media, the law/law schools/the judiciary and academia – because these institutions long ago jettisoned almost all regard for morality, truth and integrity – and they are responsible for creating the situation where we ended up with candidates Clinton and Trump.

    Trump Celebrates Violence Against a Reporter, and These Two Reactions Are Emblematic? Take a look at this case U.S. v. Edwin P. Wilson, 289 F.Supp.2d 801 (USDC-SD, TX 2003)- https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/289/801/2430886/
    And recall this post? http://patterico.com/2013/06/11/experts-say-snowdens-claims-are-absurd/ – and see comment #12.

    To quote USDC Judge Lynn Hughes, “Honesty come hard to government.” GLZ.

    Gary L. Zerman (ab669e)

  271. The people directing this invasion have committed an act of war against the United States.

    NJRob (1d7532)

  272. I expect our military to extinguish the soros funded march of the crimaleins. We don’t need no stinking crimaleins.

    mg (9e54f8)

  273. Curiously how some have forgotten about that, Jo, the vote match I posted that some time ago.

    narciso (d1f714)

  274. My thesis is this. Patterico blames the raucous people in the rally supporting Trump. Lots of people in politics are easily led. I am inclined to blame the people who trained them to be this way. Fox News. Limbaugh. Tucker Carlson. Heck, MSNBC and CNN for all the free Trump promotion.

    Elites had to fail before Trump could get his chance.

    Appalled (96665e) — 10/22/2018 @ 5:58 am

    Your comment removes agency from grown adults responsible for their own choices and any subsequent actions in the same way Trumpers excuse Trump’s bad behavior and praise for Gianforte for attacking a journalist who Trump views as his enemy. With that line of thinking, it would stand to reason that Antifa can’t help themselves because Waters, Booker, Clinton and Holder trained them to behave that way with their own instructive rhetoric.

    Dana (023079)

  275. @ Dave, who wrote (#217):

    Together with clergy, journalists have occupational protection from government interference that is not extended to farmers, inn-keepers, blacksmiths, teamsters, school-teachers or anybody else.

    I don’t agree with that at all, not even a little bit, sir. My rights to freedom of religion don’t require a clergyman’s involvement in any way, shape, or form, and no clergyman has any more or better or different right to freedom of religion than I do as a non-clergyman. As for “the press,” I’m doing that right this instant, as I type this, and if I were employed by MSNBC it would not give me one iota of additional protection under the First Amendment than I already have. This idea of special constitutional rights for special people is a very, very pernicious one, and I reject it absolutely and emphatically. I don’t need even a single other adherent to validate my practice (or non-practice) of religion, and I need not own a printing press or have a sweet TV gig to validate my speech. I hope you’ll reconsider this view: It leads in very short order to a different society in which one’s constitutional rights depend on the membership card in one’s wallet, and those who have the power to issue the membership cards have all power.

    @ Womp Womp (#206), who wrote:

    That reporter pushed it too far and deserved that bodyslam.

    I believe this is an example of deliberate trolling and encourage our host to consider it as such. This is literally an encouragement of criminal conduct. I’m surprised to see it pass unremarked, but I choose to remark and condemn this comment.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  276. Oh more civility from so called comedy central, courtesy of the basilisk.

    narciso (d1f714)

  277. What are we up to seven attacks of congressional and other figures leave out candace Owens for a moment.

    narciso (d1f714)

  278. What invasion? Which people?

    Paul Montagu (7b9e3b)

  279. narc:

    Since you won’t link the “you’re being played” meme on Abrams (Georgia governor campaign), I will. From Snopes, which describes the situation well:

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-black-voter-registration/

    For those who prefer the sumamry case of the pro-narciso case, here is a decent one:

    https://www.mdjonline.com/opinion/rep-bert-reeves-abrams-manufactured-the-voter-registration-controversy-herself/article_3767e050-ce4f-11e8-bd0a-6faf44950811.html

    Basic thought — if Kemp wins by not many votes, he, because he is Secretary of going to State, and is responsible for the lack of audit trail for the Georgia voting machines, is going to be accused of stealing the election.

    (By the way, I would vote against Kemp anyway. He is a Trumpier than thou candidate, who I find repellent.)

    Appalled (96665e)

  280. @ NJRob (#274): There is a difference between even concerted, intentional criminal activity — which this mass attempt to violate American immigration laws surely is — and an “act of war,” even by non-state actors. When they start floating balloons with bombs across the border, as Hamas is doing at the Israeli border along the Gaza strip, we can begin to parse more carefully, but until then, I respectfully suggest that your comment is hyperbolic, and not in a way that encourages calm and rational discourse, but rather in an intentionally inflammatory and overblown way.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  281. You think this is genuine Beldar, or a deliberate provocation.

    narciso (d1f714)

  282. Dana:

    I live in a place where, some 100 years ago, lynch mobs were fairly common. In the Leo Frank case (Atlanta’s contribution to lynching), people were ginned up by a repulsive newspaper that was owned by one of the local political bosses.

    Who is responsible, in a case like this? The politician, who instead of instructing and guiding his supporters, brings out the their worst instincts? The honest folk of the town, who just sort of let things happen, but don’t really dirty their hands? Or the person who, with encouragement from above, lets their bad old self out, and bloodies their hands?

    I think, here, we’ve got a diluted version of the same situation. We have folks who, form somewhere, got the idea that it’s ok to beat up a reporter. Is it their low character? Or did someone they trust or look up to tell them it’s ok? Or is it some combination?

    People have agency for their own actions. And politicians, leaders, and the like should not be allowed to escape agency for their incitement of bad acts.

    And, since you ask, I do think folks who explicitly endorse the in your face tactics we’ve seen in 2018 (I am thinking Maxine Waters, but there may be others) do bear some responsibility for the results.

    Appalled (96665e)

  283. Also frank, isn’t that a bit much:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/EmreUslu

    narciso (d1f714)

  284. #284:

    I look at your links, you can look at mine.

    Appalled (96665e)

  285. Thnopeth! For. Teh. Win.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  286. The attempted insertion of dozens (hundreds?) of terrorists and/or spies is an act of war. Guatemala says they thwarted such a plan although it is unclear if this specific caravan was to be used in the process.

    The question is who sponsored that operation and who is sponsoring this caravan? Bad actors all. If a sponsor knowingly supports a terror or spy operation, they have committed an act of war, imo. We are well past the day that war can be made only by State actors.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  287. The attempt on.congressman peters resembles that directed against bolsanaro a month ago.

    narciso (d1f714)

  288. On Donner… on Blitzen… c’mon, Beto!!! https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2018/10/21/abc-reporter-gushes-beto-youre-rock-star

    They just can’t help themselves…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  289. On March 31, 1990, my then-wife and I found ourselves unexpectedly in the middle of the Poll Tax Riots, in which an estimated 200k protesters provided cover, wittingly and un-, for a much smaller group, still numbering in the thousands, of looters and violent attackers (of police, of innocent bystanders less fortunate than us, and of each other). We ran to avoid being hurt by rioters; we ran to avoid the smaller, but still substantial, chance of being hurt by riot police. At the end of the day, though, it was very, very clear that the Bobbies had prevailed, that order had been restored, and that London was not in a new state of ongoing and open warfare, but rather that it had experienced a violent spasm of popular protest that included criminality and violence at its margins, with hundreds of injuries and hundreds of arrests, but — and this may be quintessentially British — no deaths. The Poll Tax Riots nevertheless contributed significantly to the political fall of Maggie Thatcher, but not of the Conservative Party government (which John Major took over) the following November.

    If downtown London can survive 200,000+ rioters, I’m quite certain the United States can survive an attempt of mass criminality (not an act of war, and not, I submit, an “invasion” within the meaning of Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution) by 5000 or so displaced and resourceless refugees attempting to violate U.S. immigration laws.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  290. There is a difference between even concerted, intentional criminal activity — which this mass attempt to violate American immigration laws surely is — and an “act of war,” even by non-state actors. When they start floating balloons with bombs across the border, as Hamas is doing at the Israeli border along the Gaza strip, we can begin to parse more carefully, but until then, I respectfully suggest that your comment is hyperbolic, and not in a way that encourages calm and rational discourse, but rather in an intentionally inflammatory and overblown way.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 10/22/2018 @ 8:16 am

    I disagree. The constant invasion from our southern border that has continued unimpeded for decades has been about remaking America into a more corrupt and compliant version of South American socialist states. That you don’t agree with it, doesn’t change what is happening.

    Who is supplying these invaders with food, water, travel, medical supplies? They are an act of war against the USA. They are encouraging more to join the invasion and overwhelm our defenses. They are Cloward-Piven in action.

    NJRob (1d7532)

  291. @ Ed from SFV: If someone breaks into my car, have they committed an act of war? I agree that defining “war” is much harder in the case of non-state actors. But with due and genuine respect, sir, your definition — which, if I understood you correctly, means we’re now “at war with” Honduras — is overbroad and has abandoned any effort at distinguishing war from criminality. I don’t accept that definition, and I think it’s genuinely unhelpful to employ that terminology.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  292. Was it like the people vote referendum that the German minister foolishly touted, may back sliding on brexit actually more like a moonwalk, the possum congress retreat on obamacare.

    narciso (d1f714)

  293. Being angry is no excuse for being weak-minded.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  294. The real question, from all of this kind of thing, is cui bono?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  295. The consensus of the hive mind, is they think they will, stating the name of keyser soyse seems to beside the point.

    narciso (d1f714)

  296. As one of the “animals” who found Trump’s remarks funny, I find the Faux-Never Trumper outrage over this even more hilarious.

    First, can we start with the description of what the congressman did? He pushed the reporter to the ground and struggled with him – after the reporter refused to leave when asked and refused to remove the camera he stuck in the congressman’s face.

    To characterize that as a “Body Slam” or “Beating up” a reporter is absurd.

    Second, the 1st Amendment gives the press the right to print/televise stuff, it doesn’t make individual reporters into Gods that walk the earth, or sacred beings who are free from criticism or even mild physical abuse. No violence has been done to shut up a reporter, the violence was due to the reporter rudeness, and jack-ass behavior.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  297. 295… true, NJRob… the strategy is to overwhelm the system… to break it and everything around it.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  298. Who are you calling weak-minded, Beldar?

    DRJ (15874d)

  299. Hopefully, Sasse “the pious” will resign and not run in 2020. Like many never-trumpers he seems more upset at Trump than at the Democrats.

    I don’t need to hear a R Senator attack Trump, I get that 24×7 from every news channel except Fox, and almost every newspaper and magazine in the USA.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  300. 304… yes, indeed.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  301. In the Leo Frank case (Atlanta’s contribution to lynching), people were ginned up by a repulsive newspaper that was owned by one of the local political bosses.

    Leo Frank was a convicted murderer. He was lynched because many leading citizens were afraid the Governor was going to give him a vastly reduced sentence due to Northern Pressure (aka bribery).

    Its another one of these cases, where people don’t know the facts, and don’t want to know them, because they’re using it to make a political point.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  302. People can and should criticize Trump. He is not a monarch.

    DRJ (15874d)

  303. 239… that comment is appalling. You choose to castigate the Right and what you perceive to be a PT Barnum-inspired Right media, while ignoring the half-truths, outright lies and smothering of stories by omission because they will put Democrats in a bad light/at a disadvantage by 99% of the media that is totes in the bag for the Dems.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/22/2018 @ 7:03 am

    The kernel of truth that baited Trumps fans often is indeed, how dishonest the media is. With built trust, and a lot of passion and anger, they feel an affiliation. The truth is, a lot of the media do not realize they are lying. They are so convinced of their righteousness. Our brains work that way. And it’s not like the Trump supporting media, which is freaking enormous and not in any respect an underdog, is also very convinced of its righteousness. Same thing here. Patterico, me, Trump’s critics… we recognize lies or terrible decisions and are convinced we are right. It shades how they, the other they, and we all see the world. And it’s so easy to assume the worst, that all the other factions are just liars, because we can see where they keep pounding the table and saying things that are objectively untrue.

    But moving a step beyond that, we keep lowering the damn bar. OK Maxine Waters was cool with thugs. Now the President is cool with it. Trump shouldn’t be praising attacking journalists, and he should find some kind of consequence for Saudi Arabia that preserves the alliance we need. he should also be attempting to find a way beyond dealing with the devil, even if we never get the opportunity. But to a Trump fan, this is probably just Trump being goofy and sloppy, and to his critics he’s a damn thug. All I know today, the day I’m early voting straight line Team R despite being disgusted with the GOP, is that very very few people are listening or giving the other side a break. We’re getting nowhere on how divided this nation is.

    With respect to the middle east, the real underlying issue with this freedom of speech debate, in an ideal world, Carter was right. We shouldn’t be loyal friends with the Shah. The problem is when the mullahs take over. The problem is that we aren’t in an ideal world, and it’s this kinda devil vs that actual satan devil. It’s why George W Bush was ultimately a hero for trying to export democracy, and why it’s to our nation’s shame that we let that fail with the Obama administration. We talk around the purpose of Iraqi freedom, about WMDs and Code Pink and the evils in war, but the long term truth is that there is only one way to get the middle east stable, and it’s democracy. That generation long struggle to get that culture reading, thinking with more self interest, voting, and yeah, journalism that doesn’t always say what we want… that’s what it takes. There is no other way, short of hundreds of miles of glass parking lot. The people recognizing how critical it is that we fix the root issue aren’t naive that the issue exists, and that we make deals with devils.

    If only Mccain had won in 2008 the world would be a profoundly different place. We gave up the fruit of the whole war effort. I don’t think a lot of Trump’s support really appreciates this, even though I definitely think Trump’s supporters love the USA and want democracy to succeed everywhere.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  304. And it’s not like the Trump supporting media, which is freaking enormous and not in any respect an underdog, is also very convinced of its righteousness.

    Extremely poorly phrased. I mean that these guys generally believe what they say.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  305. 308… are you implying this election will be a binary choice, Dustin?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  306. There are only 17 Never-trumper’s who think like Patterico for a reason. The world has not “Gone mad” The Left and the Democrats simply DO NOT care what Sasse or Patterico think or say. So, their finger wagging has ZERO effect on the Democrats or the Liberals.

    Meanwhile, people on the Right are tired of the one-sided moralism and demand that we fight like Gentlemen, or scream abuse at anyone that doesn’t behave like Little Lord Fauntleroy.

    The Never trumpers make it clear in November 2016, that they simply did not CARE about Hillary becoming President or what damage that would do to the USA. They were more concerned with emotions and style.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  307. One good thing about Trump is he’s smoked out all the #FAKECONS. People like Kristol, Boot, Rubin, Burt Stehpens, and Frum have made it clear they are no longer Republicans or even Conservatives. And people like George Will haven’t gone that far, but are wishing Trump and R’s are destroyed in the upcoming elections.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  308. Who is supplying these invaders with food, water, travel, medical supplies?

    this is something the sleazy corrupt Chris Wray FBI should be investigating instead of sniffing around for the punchline to Christine Ford’s latest haha rape joke

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  309. Not 308… 309.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  310. Invasion of teh Treasury Snatchers…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  311. What rcocean said. All of it.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  312. rcocean 302, do you support violence against everyone who you think is rude or a jackass, or just liberal reporters who annoy Trump?

    DRJ (15874d)

  313. Same question to Skorcher.

    DRJ (15874d)

  314. The Never trumpers make it clear in November 2016, that they simply did not CARE about Hillary becoming President or what damage that would do to the USA. They were more concerned with emotions and style.

    rcocean (1a839e) — 10/22/2018 @ 9:19 am

    It is possible that people who do not support Trump or Hillary have other concerns. Can you think of any?

    DRJ (15874d)

  315. Beldar (fa637a) — 10/22/2018 @ 8:11 am

    I understand and respect your points.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think your position is that the two relevant clauses are there to protect the spoken word (“speech”) and the printed word (“the press”). I agree.

    Likewise, I absolutely agree that it is the religious observance of individuals which is protected and that no clergy is required for that.

    Nevertheless, I still believe that clergy and people engaged in creating and disseminating the printed word (journalists, and also authors of books, pamphlets and other media like blogs) are protected from government interference in the practice of their profession in a way that other professions are not. No “membership card” is required, it is the actual practice of the protected activity which is protected.

    Imagine the Bill of Rights contained a clause protecting “freedom of baseball”. Such a clause would presumably protect anyone playing baseball, from the most casual pick-up game on the sandlot to the World Series. But I think would it be fair to say professional baseball players had protection in their profession that most other professions do not enjoy, under such a clause.

    Dave (9664fc)

  316. rcocean,

    There is controversy about Leo Frank but his lynching happened after his death sentence was commuted, not before.

    DRJ (15874d)

  317. rcocean:

    Is it fair to believe that:

    1. You think the comment about the reporter by Trump was no big deal; and that

    2. Given the circumstances in Georgia in 1912, you think the lynching of Leo Frank was understandable, because the governor was toying with using his pardon powers, because of the influence of Yankees.

    Appalled (96665e)

  318. Haiku, that caravan is childs play compared to if the Dodgers win the World Series.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  319. #325 — My 323 reflects a failing memory on some of the details of how the Frank case played out. (It’s been a few years) But the basic question to rcocean remains.

    Appalled (96665e)

  320. ULB… excellent point.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  321. Watts and Detroit had riots, too, but a border falls under a different jurisdiction. Plus, now children can’t be separated from adults/parents so jail is not a viable option. Trump needs to focus and come up with a plan now, and work to implement it. Maybe he has but he isn’t someone who believes in planning.

    DRJ (15874d)

  322. Nikki Haley at the Alfred E. Smith dinner the other night:

    “In our toxic political life, I’ve heard some people in both parties describe their opponents as enemies or evil. In America, our political opponents are not evil.

    In South Sudan, where rape is routinely used as a weapon of war, that is evil. In Syria, where the dictator uses chemical weapons to murder innocent children, that is evil. In North Korea, where American student Otto Warmbier was tortured to death, that was evil.

    In the last two years, I’ve seen true evil. We have some serious political differences here at home. But our opponents are not evil, they’re just our opponents.”

    I should say, having described Donald Trump as evil many times, that I do not do so because of his political views, but because of his personal deeds.

    Populism is not evil. Protectionism is not evil. Nationalism (as long as it does not involve denying others their rights) is not evil.

    If Trump repented of his evil behavior and made a sincere attempt to be a better person, I would support him (while disagreeing with many of his policies).

    Dave (9664fc)

  323. if the Dodgers win the World Series.

    I expect that’s part of what they were promised for agreeing to lose last year.

    nk (dbc370)

  324. The foaming mob isn’t the product of Obama, even if his tendency towards executive action created some precedents that Trump has happily used.

    I always hear this stated like it’s a fact, so let’s see if it’s true. Executive Orders are a key way to measure it, as they are distinct and official.

    All Presiden’s through Reagan averaged slightly less than 1 EO per year.

    GHWB averaged 41.5 per year.
    Clinton averaged 45.5.
    GWB averaged 36.4
    Obama averaged 34.5
    Trump is averaging 47.8

    I thought that narrative sounded wrong, and it is. The truth is that as Congress has refused to accept their duty as a co-equal branch of government, the other two have increasingly usurped those responsibilities.

    You may remember that one of the primary complaints about the GWB years was the unitary executive, and one of the reasons Trump was such a fan of Kavanaugh, regardless of his actual conservative bona fides.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (abc493)

  325. 327, if the caravan makes it into the “Mexican Midwest” i.e. the states N and W of Mexico city that many of us see referenced on bumper stickers, pickup truck back windows and the restaurant/supermercado strip, we might be back to the “one good Cartel” calculation of Fmr. Mexican President Calderon, though they would be answering to U.S. command and in doing so subverting the other half of the border control plank.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  326. 308… are you implying this election will be a binary choice, Dustin?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/22/2018 @ 9:17 am

    hahaha, touche’ sir, touche’.

    It’s so difficult because I really do think the strident partisanship is the actual mechanism that created most of our big problems. I think the binary choice is evil. On the other hand, I’m so frustrated by, as one example, the dismissal of due process and the lynch aspect of judicial confirmation hearings. And that’s just one example. The way Obama took the fruit of success in Iraq and made it so Bush would lose that legacy… that was also evil. I doubt Trump ever does anything quite so bad, but to be honest, it’s exactly that sort of pettiness that makes me dislike him.

    The Never trumpers make it clear in November 2016, that they simply did not CARE about Hillary becoming President

    No no no no no, man. Seriously you’re not understanding the point of view. Of course Hillary would have been terrible, and of course conservatives who didn’t support Trump do not want terrible.

    It’s a bit more complicated than that. I really thought Hillary and Trump would govern the same. In most ways, I was right. Trump’s nominations were good, but his spending is horrible, and the world does not respect us, and our foreign policy is quite poor… for example with Trump’s copy of the Clinton mistakes in North Korea.

    I would rather the democrats be the democrats than the republicans be the democrats. I would rather we have a choice instead of win by posing as liberals, which is, in many ways, how Trump governs. Yes, he’s bellicose towards the left, but that doesn’t change the budget numbers. Yes, he outrages MSNBC and Comedy Central, so in that way he is the other sports team of politics, but the nation has moved so far to the left thanks to the 2016 election. It’s powerful. Left vs right is no longer discussing balancing the budget or reducing the size of this government. It’s now discussing Kamala’s idea of a monthly socialist wage for everybody vs Trump’s huge deficit government.

    I’d rather the democrats hold the left line and the republicans hold the right one.

    At any rate, it was a very hard choice for the general election, but an easy one for the GOP primary. I feel we had lost when we nominated Trump and kinda just gave up on the GOP. Nominating that man over the great alternative was the real point, where I feel a lot of voters didn’t care about the real consequences. That said, I’m not crazy. I realize Trump’s voters thought they were helping the country. It’s unfortunate if you can’t see the same of the people who aren’t Trump’s voters.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  327. This must be a typo?

    All Presiden’s through Reagan averaged slightly less than 1 EO per year.

    Graph (from 2014)

    Dave (9664fc)

  328. do you support violence against everyone who you think is rude or a jackass, or just liberal reporters who annoy Trump?

    Same question to Skorcher.

    No. Not everyone. Not even to those who make passive aggressive attempts to mischaracterize someone else’s arguments. I personally would not behave in the manner in which Mr. Gianforte behaved. I don’t agree with it. But I do find it understandable when someone comes on to someone else’s turf and behaves rudely and aggressively. That’s kind of a significant difference. While I don’t think it was “right”, I’m not gonna wet my pants over it. Anymore than I’m gonna get upset because somebody bombed a “baby-milk” factory which should not have been bombed for all the wrong reasons.

    The real world is a very messy place. To judge people on their reactions to situations that they did not create themselves, long after the fact, especially something that appears to be a one-off, as if such an incident defines not just them but all of their supporters no matter to what degree, would be wrong as well. Real life does not take place in some court room where people can take all the time they wish, because they charge their clients by hundreds of dollars an hour, to deliberate. People who quite often abuse the meaning of laws do far more damage to society financially than was done by Mr. Gianforte physically. Once upon a time situations such as this would not have occurred because people like the reporter understood that the threat of such a response, and quite often much worse, could reasonably be expected. Societies have rules, laws, expectations of behavior and such as a means of heading off physical altercations, and worse. But we should not forget that those rules, laws, etc. ultimately work because the physical threat is there. Pretend otherwise and just like this reporter, you will find yourself at the wrong end of a beat down. Mr. Gianforte himself understood this as he confessed and paid a price for his misbehavior. Had Mr. Gianforte not reacted physically with the reporter, I am quite certain the reporter, like most rude pushy reporters, would have paid no price whatsoever. Thus his rude behavior. In his mind (before the beat down) it was a win-win to behave as he did. Again, I don’t condone what was done but to some degree I think the reporter will behave a wee bit more respectfully toward such people in the future.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  329. Hmm, the Wikipedia entry says differently too, so I stand corrected.

    The gist is that it’s actually been a much larger problem in the past, so the truism that Obama is worse than Trump isn’t true, and historically neither are very bad in comparison.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (abc493)

  330. @ Beldar 297 I was careful to not claim a State was a party to these goings on. I’m certainly open to that, but I do not have any evidence of it today.

    An intentional and organized breach of the borders, and thereby the sovereignty of a State, is to war against that State. It is quite literally an invasion.

    Not all wars demand a DEFCON 1 response, to be sure. Hello, Grenada! We can have a pretty great conversation as to the catalysts and responses. However, that is not possible without an acknowledgment that the use of force in preventing any given soul, let alone a caravan, is entirely justified and appropriate. I am sure you, Beldar, agree.

    Posse comitatus
    is absurd. That this concept is accorded the same status as Brown is a reflection of the insanity of the Left. If you present a threat to my borders that I can not well handle short of using military assets, you can and should expect a robust military repelling you.

    Death by a thousand cuts is still death.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  331. Col Klink:

    You turn my more broadly stated and broadly meant term “executive action” for the more specific term “executive order”, which has a definite and precise meaning and does not encompass all the non-Congressional law making and treaty making the President can do. For example, I don’t believe the infamous “Iran deal” was an EO, nor, per Wikipedia, was DACA.

    Appalled (96665e)

  332. UGH – “…let alone a caravan, from attempting to enter a State without permission, is entirely…”

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  333. yes yes without knowing what the provocation was it’s hard to get excited about so i’m loathe to judge Mr. Gianforte without knowing more

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  334. yes yes without knowing what the provocation was it’s hard to get excited about so i’m loathe to judge Mr. Gianforte without knowing more

    happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/22/2018 @ 11:00 am

    There’s the blog called Patterico.com, you may have heard of it. It helps to see that Gianforte was convicted in a court of law, confessed, admitted he wasn’t provoked, and apologized without qualification for this serious mistake. You should become familiar with this blog.

    It was easy to find this link since it’s the first one in the post you are commenting on.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  335. 327. DRJ (15874d) — 10/22/2018 @ 10:02 am

    Watts and Detroit had riots, too, but a border falls under a different jurisdiction. Plus, now children can’t be separated from adults/parents so jail is not a viable option. Trump needs to focus and come up with a plan now, and work to implement it. Maybe he has but he isn’t someone who believes in planning.

    Trump’s plan is to pressure other other countries to prevent a crisis on the border. Obama did this successfully, but that may not work any more.

    Trump’s trying to use this thing for political advantage, fulminating at the courts and the Democrats in Congress (who don’t have the courage to say let them in, or offer to liberalize immigration in anyway – so much so that they are losing Hispanic pro-immigration votes – but don’t support enforcement either.)

    He can fulminate all he wants but it won’t change his problem.

    He’s dealing with a march a la Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King.

    That is,it is a strategy is to force a government (that is unwilling to be immoral) to enforce its laws by massive civil disobedience and willingness to be arrested. The government can’t win.

    This confrontation may be put off for awhile but such a massive confrontation is almost inevitable in the next few years if things go on the way they are.

    Police state measures will eventually stop working.

    Europe did significantly limit the migration but only immorally: Turkey now shoots people trying to cross the Syrian border, regardkless of who they are, and they pay off Libyan authrorities to take people back and they take steps to prevent people from rescuing people drowning at sea.

    And what’s our problem here? 100,000 people maybe in end trying to assimilate into an economy consisting of 350 million people? And mostly of a similar religion and alphabet?

    Of course there are some interesting question the media are not going into. Like why people are not coming from Venezuala. They are leaving the country but mostly for places like Columbia, Ecuador and Brazil. There was an organized migration from Ecuador but a country,mayeb Costa RIca was persauded to stope letting them pass.

    Or who is aying for this. I think on the caravan are being charged. Many of the people on the convoy have gven up everything – sold their farms etc- to be included, so it’s not easy for most of them to turn back.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  336. Mr. Dustin i just think Mr. Gianforte deserves the benefit of the doubt cause he’s so friendly looking

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  337. We’ll probably need to sacrifice some soldiers. Put some on the front line with strict orders not to use deadly force, and when the mob beats them to death, the second line 100 yards back can open fire.

    nk (dbc370)

  338. That’s been our strategy in Korea for 66 years so why not?

    nk (dbc370)

  339. 199. Colonel Klink (Ret) (a57af6) — 10/21/2018 @ 10:08 pm

    I would hope that no one that wears a uniform of this nation would follow an order like that, I don’t care if it’s from the president on down to a new boot private.

    They won’t, and Trump’s bluffing anyway.

    He’s threat to use the military doesn’t mean anything.

    What he may try to do is close the Mexican border to all ordinary trafficand then hope the government fo Mexixo solves his problem some way. he may expose incoherence of Democrats but that’s about it.

    Even if this is stopped, it’s ready to start again any time. And one day the fovernment of Mexico or of some central american country may openly assist them. Once they do they won’t reverse themselves.

    What can happen to them? Lose a war to the United States? You know what hapepne to cpountries that lose awar to the United States? It gets rich. Only corrupt politicians and entitled elites in those countries will oppose this. That can go a long way, but the worm turns.

    I hear that Trump’s National Security Adviser and Chief of Staff were arguing with each other when the National Security Adviser accused the Secretary fo Homeland Security of beinbg incompetent, She;s really not – there’s no way to win if the organizers of the caravan play their cards right.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  340. What mob is there in Korea?

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  341. You turn my more broadly stated and broadly meant term “executive action” for the more specific term “executive order”, which has a definite and precise meaning and does not encompass all the non-Congressional law making and treaty making the President can do. For example, I don’t believe the infamous “Iran deal” was an EO, nor, per Wikipedia, was DACA.

    Sure, but you cannot use math to measure some of this, and as the Wikepedia entry shows, some periods have had 250X more EO’s.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (abc493)

  342. @ DRJ: I did not call anyone weak-minded; if I had, you wouldn’t need to ask. I believe any argument that we’re “at war” with the 5000 or so in this convoy is a weak-minded argument, though, in that it fails to distinguish between war and criminal behavior (specifically, violation of U.S. immigration law).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  343. Col:

    But math isn’t the entire answer, but what part of a President’s accomplishments are just made by executive fiat. Obama, in his second term, moved to change things in ways not requiring Congressional involvement. (Again, two of the best examples of that in Obama’s term ARE DACA and the Iran deal. Neither are EOs)

    Trump also takes actions that aren’t EOs, but are consequential. For example, all his pulling out of International Agreements, and his Travel Ban does not qualify as EOs.

    Appalled (96665e)

  344. Given the circumstances in Georgia in 1912, you think the lynching of Leo Frank was understandable, because the governor was toying with using his pardon powers, because of the influence of Yankees.

    I’m against lynching people.

    However, people often talk about Frank’s lynching and somehow think its in the same category as Black Lynchings in the Old South. In the case of blacks, they brutally lynched before any trial for crimes like Rape and sexual assault. OTOH, Frank had been convicted of rape/murder after an extremely long expensive trial AND a defense team that was extremely skilled and well-paid.

    He’d been sentenced to death, and then a corrupt Governor, commuted the death sentence. Quite rightly, people knew that Frank’s “Life Imprisonment” was not going mean that – and that further sentence reductions were to be expected. Had Frank not been lynched, I doubt he would’ve served 15-20 years of his “life sentence”. Especially since Northerners were working on his behalf.

    That’s why he got lynched.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  345. Order the military to shoot women and children if they tried to force their way across the border and the non-lethal means at hand were inadequate.

    I would hope that no one that wears a uniform of this nation would follow an order like that, I don’t care if it’s from the president on down to a new boot private.

    They may not follow an order like that, but when put in life threatening situations where combatants hide in and among non-combatants, it has happened far more frequently than polite society is comfortable believing. Given the scenario described, if an armed enlisted man is standing his ground and he gets overwhelmed/surrounded by a mob such that he feels threatened for his life or the lives other men in his unit, it would be extremely unreasonable to expect him to hold his fire. Yes, real world scenarios like this that get press attention result in court marshaling, etc. but based on much of what I have learned they happen far more frequently and are excused/forgotten of. Except possibly for the psychological torture the enlisted man may put himself through the rest of his life.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  346. @ Dave, who wrote (#321):

    I still believe that clergy and people engaged in creating and disseminating the printed word (journalists, and also authors of books, pamphlets and other media like blogs) are protected from government interference in the practice of their profession in a way that other professions are not.

    I don’t agree at all. Who is to judge who the membership in the “professions” that you claim get special protection?

    No, sir, the rights recognized or created by the Constitution are for everyone, each individual, who may (or may not) choose to engage in the practice of religion, or the practice of speech, or the practice of widely distributed speech. We are each of us his or her own newspaper editor, each of us his or her own priest, and each of his or her own speaker or writer or cake decorator. Rachel Maddow and Archbishop Timothy Dolan don’t have a single First Amendment right beyond that which I have as plain old Beldar as a legal resident within the jurisdiction of the United States of America. (I’m also a member of the militia, by the way.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  347. @ Ed from SFV (#336), who I disagree with on this issue but certainly would never call “weak-minded,” and who I don’t even think is particularly angry:

    “Use of force” is not the same as “war.” We use force all the time, every day, to combat crime. One person illegally entering the U.S., in violation of our immigration laws, is a lawbreaker, but not an “invader”; and what’s headed north from Honduras is just a very large aggregation of lawbreakers, not an invading army whose intent is to challenge and defeat our military, occupy our soil, and overthrow our civil government. Using terms like “war” to describe this is hyperbolic and dangerous, even in the post 9/11-era in which we’ve been forced to recognize that some aggregations of particularly well organized and dangerous individuals, “non-state actors” like al Qaeda, should be treated like state actors.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  348. 353. How can you make that determination, Beldar? If it WAS an invading army whose intent was to challenge and defeat our military, occupy our soil, and overthrow our civil government, what would they be doing differently? It only took SIX MEN, with no weapons brought in from outside our country to kill over 3000. When are we going to stop giving these “bad actors” the benefit of the doubt? How many more lives will it take?

    Gryph (08c844)

  349. @ Skorcher, who wrote (#334): “Again, I don’t condone what was done ….”

    Yet that’s exactly what your comments here do: They condone, they tend to justify, they minimize the wrongful character, of a physical assault that was not committed in self-defense, was not committed on a trespasser, and that had no justification other than, as you term it, “rude” behavior, a value judgment that roughly half the country would disagree with you about (they think it was Gianforte who’s “rude,” by which they mean, a Republican).

    Gianforte strayed outside boundaries prescribed by law. As you correctly point out, his act of violent criminality was out of character, which factored into his very light punishment after he quite correctly pleaded guilty to breaking the law. Trump encourages us to ignore the law and substitute instead some soft of mob justice in which violent attacks are commendable. Hence, our host’s post; hence, my agreement with it; hence, my conviction that Trump is a consistent and potent and dangerous opponent of the Rule of Law, despite his sworn oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution that is its foundation.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  350. @ Gryph: Re-read what I’ve written, please, in which I describe the caravan as comprising self-intended criminals. When and if they in fact break American law (by attempting to enter the U.S. without legal permission), they should be treated as criminals, which may include their apprehension (by force if necessary) and punishment. Comparing them to the 9/11 hijackers, as you did, is hyperbolic and unwarranted; it is a weak-minded comparison. Those people aren’t coming to kill thousands of Americans. They’re coming to try to cross the border and disappear into the economic prosperity of the American interior, a criminal act when committed without compliance with U.S. immigration laws, but not the waging of “war” unless we dilute the meaning of the word “war” to the point of silliness.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  351. was not committed on a trespasser

    AIUI, he was asked/told to leave. He was there uninvited. He did not leave. If that’s not legally trespassing, we have a whole other problem. Either way I do not condone it. I said I would not (or would like to think I would not) act that way, and to be clear I do not think it is correct to act that way. He was punished by the legal system and I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the pretending that the rude behavior, instigation by the Guardian employee was not a very important factor. As for Trump encourages us to ignore the law and substitute instead some soft of mob justice in which violent attacks are commendable, I think this is a mischaracterization of the situation. We have real mobs attacking and abusing members of Trump’s cabinet and conservatives in general. If Trump was truly encouraging such behavior, I would think we would see it going more the other way around. But who actually is encouraging this behavior and yet pays no price for it? The likes of Pelosi, Waters, HRC, etc. This situation was a one-on-one between Gianforte and the Guardian employee, not the actions of a mob.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  352. If it WAS an invading army whose intent was to challenge and defeat our military, occupy our soil, and overthrow our civil government, what would they be doing differently?

    But it’s not. If wishes were fishes and all that.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  353. It’s not, says who ?

    Invasion of the Country Snatchers… an American International Film, directed by Robert Rodriguez

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  354. @ Skorcher: Gianforte did not argue that he was using lawful force to eject a trespasser; to the contrary, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault, thereby waiving any and all defenses, including that one, if there was a factual basis for it. Jacobs was not charged with trespassing. Jacobs, like other press members, was considered a “business invitee” on the premises until permission was withdrawn, and then he had to be given a reasonable opportunity to peaceably depart. If Jacobs had continued his civil claims against Gianforte, Gianforte’s guilty plea would have been collaterally estopped him from contending in the civil courts that he was privileged to use force in ejecting someone who’d gone from business invitee to trespasser. So no, that won’t work — and yes, that’s just more condoning of violence.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  355. @354

    It only took SIX MEN, with no weapons brought in from outside our country to kill over 3000.

    What are you talking about? You ought to check out some 9/11 facts, you may learn that there weren’t SIX MEN, or were you talking about a different attack killing 3k people.

    If you were talking about the north tower, then it was 5.
    If you were talking about the south tower, then that was another 5.
    If you were talking about the Pentagon, that was another 5.
    If you were talking about flight 93, then that was another 3.

    Plus another few hundred in the planning and funding.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (ab0951)

  356. If it WAS an invading army whose intent was to challenge and defeat our military, occupy our soil, and overthrow our civil government, what would they be doing differently?

    Leaving their kids at home, for one.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  357. 356. I got that part. And I disagree with it. America’s standing policy should be to enforce existing immigration law, which means stopping those “caravans” of WHATEVER by any and all means necessary, up to and including military force to [temporarily] shut down border crossings [for as long as they need to be].

    My fear is that all of Trump’s bluster is nothing but that: bluster. Last time I checked, border crossings were proceeding apace and unchecked while Trump humpers continue to talk about how wonderful it is that he talks tough.

    SMDH

    Gryph (08c844)

  358. It’s not, says who ?

    Invasion of the Country Snatchers… an American International Film, directed by Robert Rodriguez
    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/22/2018 @ 12:29 pm

    You can, let’s go to the video.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (ab0951)

  359. 362. Yeah. Cause no army in the history of war has ever used child soldiers./

    Gryph (08c844)

  360. dirty smelly typhus army

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  361. If it WAS an invading army whose intent was to challenge and defeat our military, occupy our soil, and overthrow our civil government, what would they be doing differently?

    How are these people challenging our military? They don’t even appear to be organized enough to do any more than getting in a long line, walking isn’ the most effective military strategy to invade anything, where are the ships, trucks, planes, you know, the logistics of what an actual army does. Marching hundreds of miles without any support hasn’t been an invasion for a couple hundred years.

    How are these people trying to occupy our soil, other than living here, or is that a bit of the “blood and soil” crap?

    Overthrow the civil government, how?

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (ab0951)

  362. In other ‘showbiz’ news, MSNBC is airing video of Texans who literally ‘camped out’ overnight in Houston– to see a New Yorker come to town and do his act for ‘Beautiful Ted.’

    Love it. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  363. they’re probably all infected with smallpox or rabies or something

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  364. 368. What do you think is going to happen when our nation consists of a critical mass of foreign nationals who have no intent on following our laws or otherwise assimilating to our culture, Klink? History is replete with examples of battles won without firing a single shot when the agressors were smart enough, and the defenders were too dumb, to know just what was going on!

    We don’t need another law. We don’t need more walls along the border. What we need is a populace with the will and the intelligence enough to see what is right before their eyes and act accordingly. Given that our populace elected Trump, I won’t hold my breath…

    Gryph (08c844)

  365. @ Skorcher: As I said above, if this caravan starts launching balloon bombs across the American border, get back to me. If they start strapping dynamite vests to their children to blow up our Border Patrol agents, get back to me.

    At some point — a conspicuous example of which is happening right now along the Gaza Strip — it does become legitimate to begin treating non-state actors, in sufficient numbers and organization, as if they’re states making war, within the meaning of the Constitution, against the United States. But we ain’t there yet. We’re not remotely close to that yet — and pretending that we’re at war would be as wrong, as misguided, as likely to lead to serious errors in judgment through fuzzy language, as pretending that these people aren’t trying to violate American law.

    Instead, let’s be realistic and accurate in our speech, and firm in our resolve to see the law followed, whether that’s by a Honduran emigrant or a Montana candidate for Congress.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  366. 372. God save us one and all. By the time the lawyers and politicians accept that we are at war, it will be simply too late.

    Gryph (08c844)

  367. Gianforte did not argue that he was using lawful force to eject a trespasser; to the contrary, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault, thereby waiving any and all defenses, including that one, if there was a factual basis for it.

    I’m going by the news reports at the time. I have neither the time nor the inclination to dig into what transpired in court or dig into an analysis of legal strategies. There are numerous reasons, as I am sure many lawyers are aware, for someone to plead to a lesser charge to get the issue over with and move on rather than expose oneself to more risk, legal or financial. That being something else that I do not condone but I do understand. According to the news reports, this person was asked to leave and did not. According to the news report that I read, while he did not continue to act in what the witness thought was a physically threatening manner he did not leave after being told more than once to do so. He had also, IIRC, intruded on meeting or such with a Fox reporter who was the witness. Again, Gianforte did not create this situation and it could very well have been diffused had the person left as he was asked to do. And as I said above, it is the threat of force that gives our laws and/or customs meaning. Pretend that the threat of force is not there, at some point you will encounter it. Which Gianforte himself understood.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  368. Has this reporter recovered? Or is xe still in therapy?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  369. are you mocking a reporter

    why do you hate the constitution

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  370. What do you think is going to happen when our nation consists of a critical mass of foreign nationals who have no intent on following our laws or otherwise assimilating to our culture, Klink?

    To what are you referring? What is “our culture” that they are going to replace? How are a tiny minority of people going to replace the culture of the United States, you know, the country of 340 million people? Is all of Central America and Mexico moving north, and isn’t the reason they’re moving here is because of the culture?

    You should check out this highly educational historical document on how America deals with immigrant populations.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (ab0951)

  371. As I said above, if this caravan starts launching balloon bombs across the American border, get back to me. If they start strapping dynamite vests to their children to blow up our Border Patrol agents, get back to me.

    And as I said above, if the enlisted man is surrounded in such a way that he feels that is life or that of those in his unit are threatened, don’t be surprised if he reacts with deadly force. One does not need balloon bombs or dynamite if one has no fear of walking up to a soldier and physically assaulting them or taking their weapons or such. Look at how the mobs have pushed police around in the UK. Have you ever been amongst a mob of people who you have good reason to believe could turn hostile? A large mob forms and comes across out border, why must we wait until they do us harm? Both scenarios you describe give them the first shot. Will you volunteer to be the first victim of a balloon bomb or a dynamite vest? Or more simply, a knife to the gut? Once they cross our border illegally, they have already made the first move. This sort of thing has been understood by civilized people for 10,000 years. Why at this point in time is it so hard for some people to understand?

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  372. We’re not at war with the people in that caravan, Glyph. That’s a weak-minded comment.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  373. I’m thinking of my dad and his service in the Pacific during WW2, and the amount of mockery he would heap upon your comment, Glyph, if he were still alive.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  374. Skorcher & Glyph: Are you ready for us to nuke Tegucigalpa? If not, why not? Wouldn’t that at least shorten “the war”?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  375. 381. That is precisely the kind of mischaracterization of one’s views that Pat has warned us about here. God bless your late dad, but at least he had the benefit of being able to fight a uniformed enemy. I hope that our collective national naivete does not lead to another 3000 dead, but I’m beginning to wonder if such an act on our soil again isn’t a practical inevitability.

    379. Pat? You there? Does that count as a personal attack? Sure sounds like one to me…

    Gryph (08c844)

  376. 377. Historically we’ve dealt with immigrants by assimilating them into our unique American culture. Now? We let them build mosques and find people who can teach them in their native languages. Way to be inclusive, America!

    Gryph (08c844)

  377. Now? We let them build mosques and find people who can teach them in their native languages. Way to be inclusive, America!

    That’s a nice blood and soil meme, not true, but if you keep repeating it, maybe the rubes will just go along. As long as you don’t know anything about history or current events, these seem like they have some truthiness, but are still not.

    The most self-separated group in the United States is the Hasidic Jewish communities in Kiryas Joel, New Square, and Kaser, New York.

    The Anabaptist denominations of Christendom would be larger, albeit not a growing population, and also not actively trying to subvert local, state, and federal laws.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (ab0951)

  378. A rather belated entry to the debate, but upon reading the post and familiarizing myself with the situation I think the sentence that struck me most was the final one:

    “Sasse, a politician, won’t blame any voters, ever — not even this obviously immoral subset of voters. But I will.”

    What I would ask is what “blaming” these voters amounts to, in terms of practical action meant to discourage the behaviour of laughing at the victim of a crime because one finds that victim highly unsympathetic — of publicly indulging, in other words, in schadenfreude.

    Immoral as willful schadenfreude is in itself as a reaction (and I will stipulate that it is), it is also unfortunately so widespread as to be next to universal (and I will also stipulate to having indulged in it myself), so attempting to shame people for it is unlikely to yield appreciable results, especially when the victim has already contributed by his and his ilk’s actions to the disrespect that made this schadenfreude popular. The criminal action has already been confessed and punished by a system in which no formal corruption has been claimed; we can disagree with the outcome but we cannot claim that the system did not function within its requirements and parameters.

    And while it’s reasonable to fear that trivializing partisan violence, whether anti-First Amendment or anti-Democrat in general, will lead to more of it, there is such a thing as counterproductive purity and diminishing returns. We can agree that an off-colour joke at a rally is, for all its apparent triviality, on the same unacceptable spectrum as explicit and serious calls for partisan aggression — but a curious effect occurs when we take minor offenses on a spectrum and try to rouse the same level of outrage and indignation over them that the major offenses do: very often what occurs is a decreased overall investment, in much the same way that cultural public indignation over sexual assault drops significantly when people are asked to treat a grope at a party with the same moral outrage as a vicious penetrative rape in an alley. (Note that I do not defend this response, I merely point out its inevitability as a pattern of human reaction and suggest that it must be tactically taken into account.)

    It is perfectly legitimate to criticize the behaviour of one’s co-partisans, even in public if one is trying to encourage others to do so as well. But if the concern is to genuinely improve that behaviour, then one has to take some thought for what is likely to work as well as what is morally obligatory, and doing what the Bible advises — reproving one’s brother in private for his sins first, before one calls for his expulsion from the church — may yield better results. (And telling people to stop making jokes about what they find funny almost never works. Just my own observation, there.)

    Stephen J. (f77922)

  379. I don’t agree at all. Who is to judge who the membership in the “professions” that you claim get special protection?

    The same people who have enforced the First Amendment’s guarantees for centuries, I’d imagine.

    The Supreme Court has established rather onerous criteria that the government must satisfy before entangling itself in religion, or the regulation of speech (to include the printed word) construed as privileged under the First Amendment.

    But the protections are not based on any membership.

    Rachel Maddow and Archbishop Timothy Dolan don’t have a single First Amendment right beyond that which I have as plain old Beldar as a legal resident within the jurisdiction of the United States of America.

    Not as individuals, no. Anyone who engages in a protected activity is protected. My baseball analogy should have made this point abundantly clear.

    But clergy (not members of any club, but people who actually do what clergy do) are in the business of engaging in one of those protected activities, and journalists likewise are in the business of engaging in another one of them.

    Both practice a protected activity professionally, and that, to me, means their professions are protected in a way that most other professions do not enjoy.

    Dave (9664fc)

  380. @ Dave: We’re going to have to agree to very fundamentally disagree about this. I wish I could talk you out of this view, but obviously I can’t. All I can say is: Your way — which has shifted now from being a member of a profession (the clergy, an editor, a MLB player (does that include the minor leagues?)) — even if it’s revised to focus on the “engage[ment] in a protected activity” — inevitably ends with someone saying, “But you’re not on the list, and you don’t get this right.”

    Our right to free speech exists even when we choose to be silent. I can’t put it any more plainly than that. It doesn’t spring into existence when we “engage” in it, and it doesn’t disappear when we stop.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  381. Do Rachel Maddow’s constitutional rights get stronger the more she’s paid, Dave? I don’t think you think that, but I think that’s the result of your focus on “professions.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  382. @ Gryph: If I’d written, “You’re such a fool that you’re probably ready to nuke Tegucigalpa,” that would have been a personal attack on you. But I didn’t write that.

    What I did was ask an open-ended question. I’m reassured — indeed, thrilled — that you appear to have the decency (note well: a compliment, not an attack!) to be embarrassed by the inference you drew — which was that I intended to suggest that the answer to the question is “yes,” such that this open-ended question could only be interpreted as a thinly disguised personal attack.

    Instead, I suggest to you, and to anyone else who’s reading, that this was an example of a rhetorical question. And you’ve actually validated my expectations (and hopes) that you would answer in a way which demonstrates your ability to distinguish between Tegucigalpa 2018 and Nagasaki 1945.

    I encourage you, in your further comments about the nature of our “war” with this caravan, to draw ever-finer distinctions. Is that another personal attack, as you see it?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  383. If we have to disagree, then so be it, but I don’t think we fundamentally disagree.

    Do Rachel Maddow’s constitutional rights get stronger the more she’s paid, Dave? I don’t think you think that, but I think that’s the result of your focus on “professions.”

    No I don’t think that, and I don’t see how it follows.

    I am not “focusing” on professions, I am saying that – in practice – certain professions have protections that others do not. These protections are not based on membership, they are a consequence of doing something that the government is forbidden to interfere with.

    If the Bill of Rights forbade the government from “abridging the freedom of baseball”, don’t you agree that professional baseball players would have certain protections that, for instance, professional basketball players did not?

    (For the sake of argument, assume that the Supreme Court has not held that basketball is an “emanation” or “penumbra” of baseball…)

    Dave (9664fc)

  384. Mr. Dustin i just think Mr. Gianforte deserves the benefit of the doubt cause he’s so friendly looking

    happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/22/2018 @ 11:12 am

    Props to him for the actually decent apology, as well as for his guilty plea. That said, there’s no need for doubt about it after the guilty plea and apology. That’s the point of those things… to eliminate doubt. That doesn’t mean the guy isn’t a good person. Good people can do bad things when they enter fight or flight… particularly people who aren’t used to adversarial stress, because of how the amygdala goes out of control (this is something I’ve spent a lot of time discussing and thinking about for unrelated reasons). They are still bad things, and we still have to take responsibility when we lose control of our temper.

    Allllll that aside, why is Trump praising bodyslamming reporters? It wasn’t funny or clever. It is actually really bad when you consider the big picture. This is the reason a lot of ‘classic liberal’ conservatives, the principles guys, the ones who care about our liberty, can’t sign on to screamin’ eagle Hannity’s president. If you paint those Tienanmen Square tanks red white and blue, it’s still a tragedy, right? If our president likes smashing reporters, it’s still wrong.

    Obviously if John Mccain or Barack Obama were saying this, you and I would be in agreement.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  385. Open your doors for the diseased riddled crimaleins if you need to be compassionate. Share your house, car and anything else you want ruined. Ill keep watch and will warn them when in range.

    mg (9e54f8)

  386. To take a more realistic (and darker) example, doesn’t the constitution – as currently interpreted in the form of Roe v. Wade – protect abortionists?

    To get past the fact that most of us disagree with that interpretation, would the answer be any different if the Constitution were amended to say “Reproductive privacy, being necessary to the liberty of a free people, the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy shall not be infringed.”

    Dave (9664fc)

  387. 332… first thing that came to mind, Dustin. Good news, though.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  388. Early voting here in Texas, in Williamson county, was absolutely packed. There’s always plenty of voters, but this is the most I’ve ever seen.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  389. @ Dave: Everyone is, potentially, a speaker, a publisher, a priest, and a baseball player. Or not, as they choose. When they choose not to be a speaker, publisher, priest, or baseball player, they don’t lose any constitutional rights. When someone else is paid to be a speaker, publisher, priest, or baseball player, they don’t gain any constitutional rights as compared to those still on the (metaphorical or, in the case of baseball, literal) sidelines. When someone else is a genuinely world-class speaker, publisher, priest, or baseball player, they still have the same constitutional rights as Beldar, so long as we’re within the jurisdiction of the United States. Claiming to be a “professional” at something neither adds to nor detracts from the constitutional analysis, which goes: Is this (a) a person (b) within the jurisdiction of the United States?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  390. Open your doors for the diseased riddled crimaleins if you need to be compassionate. Share your house, car and anything else you want ruined. Ill keep watch and will warn them when in range.
    mg (9e54f8) — 10/22/2018 @ 2:25 pm

    Ick, sigh….

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (744849)

  391. “Freedom of the press” doesn’t mean “Freedom of the profession that practices journalism.” “Press” is used metaphorically as a stand-in for all means of communicating more broadly than through one person’s speech from atop the proverbial soapbox in a public park. The “press” is not a protected class; we don’t decide any constitutional rights based upon whether one is or isn’t a member of the press. Ditto the clergy. Every person within the jurisdiction of the United States shares these exact same constitutional rights, regardless of cards in their wallets, regardless of job titles, regardless of college diplomas, regardless of their number of Twitter followers, and regardless of whether they’ve ever actually engaged in the practice of speech, press, or religion. Me, Rachel Maddow, Archbishop Dolan, and José Altuve — lo mismo, even though only one of us can bunt consistently for a base hit.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  392. I wish Trump had said:

    How about that Gianforte, huh? He lost his temper and his good judgment during the stress of the campaign, and he broke the law back in 2016 when he body-slammed that reporter. But he promptly manned up and admitted his guilt, took his medicine, and took his sincere repentance before you voters here in Montana, and you did the right thing when you elected him! Compare his decency and maturity, in the context of the rest of his contributions as a public servant, to the mobs of partisan Democrats who’re hounding Republican politicians and their families with hatefulness and obscenities. Which example do you want your children to follow, Montanans?

    But instead we have President World-Wide Wrestling Federation, President Reality TV, President Irresponsible-and-PROUD-of-It.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  393. I won’t begin to get into an argument with the learned Beldar as to the legal term of art, “war.”

    There are most certainly common sense elements that must be met before we regard a “war” to have broken out. The scale of the act(s) being primary. A family seeking a better life and illegally crossing the Rio Grande illegally does not constitute a war nor a threat to sovereignty. 10 million souls doing that most certainly does.

    In practical terms, it is beyond question that we should have been handling this invasion with an aggressive criminal justice approach. Yet and still, other than duration, how different is it to detain and return all that different from creating POW camps with the very same end result? Non-citizens have no constitutional rights, beyond basic human rights. Do not allow them into the system. The UCMJ would do just fine. Either you have legal status or you do not. For those who do? Instant release to enjoy said status.

    To close on a note honoring the OP…DJT is about as interested in having the conversation we are having in this thread as he is in actually enforcing the immigration ban he instituted against the several muslim nations. Have y’all heard of the first instance of denial due to the “extreme vetting” allegedly implemented in our consulates? It’s all bluster and it’s dangerous.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  394. If only Mccain had won in 2008 the world would be a profoundly different place. We gave up the fruit of the whole war effort. I don’t think a lot of Trump’s support really appreciates this, even though I definitely think Trump’s supporters love the USA and want democracy to succeed everywhere.

    Agree that the world would have been better off with a President McCain and his appreciation for deterrence and collective security in the face of hostile authoritarian regimes. The world is still recovering from the best foreign policy team post-Bush Washington could buy. Who would have thought that campaign bus drivers and failed creative writers would bring so much to the table.

    Anyway. I do admit some concern that a lot of Trump’s support base isn’t particularly interested in what goes on beyond America’s shores.

    JP (75576b)

  395. Claiming to be a “professional” at something neither adds to nor detracts from the constitutional analysis, which goes: Is this (a) a person (b) within the jurisdiction of the United States?

    I never said, or meant to suggest, that the rights originate in professional status. You keep arguing as though I had, even though my baseball analogy made the opposite point as explicitly as I know how.

    Nevertheless, I maintain that if the government is forbidden to interfere with what your profession does, you have a degree of protection – in practice – not enjoyed by someone whose profession does something the government is free to interfere with. That any particular individual could choose to change professions is immaterial.

    Under the “freedom of baseball” amendment, a professional basketball player could have their livelihood strictly regulated, or even outlawed, at the whim of a bare legislative majority. A professional baseball player presumably could not. Thus they are not equally protected in practice.

    Dave (9664fc)

  396. We’re clearly arguing past each other at this point, Dave. The Constitution you have in your head seems to differ from the one in mine. Mine’s not about protecting professions, which of necessity would require someone deciding who is a member of the protected profession — and more importantly, dangerously, who’s not. That’s all I have to say, and all I choose to say further and in conclusion, on this subject today. Thanks for the reasonable and good-humored discussion, even if it doesn’t seem to have been productive for either of us. (Perhaps it was for someone else reading it.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  397. Skorcher:

    Not even to those who make passive aggressive attempts to mischaracterize someone else’s arguments.

    I assume you are directing that at me since it was in a response to me.

    DRJ (15874d)

  398. Beldar, actually, I don’t think you have been as fair today with other peoples’ arguments as you usually are.

    DRJ (15874d)

  399. He was too fair with Dave, in my opinion. Very patient. It reminded me of the time when I was twelve and a lady tried to explain to me that the real estate syndicate she had invested in had nothing to do with the Mafia.

    nk (dbc370)

  400. The Constitution you have in your head seems to differ from the one in mine. Mine’s not about protecting professions, which of necessity would require someone deciding who is a member of the protected profession — and more importantly, dangerously, who’s not.

    We don’t disagree on that, despite my inability to convince you otherwise.

    Thanks for the reasonable and good-humored discussion

    Likewise, always a pleasure!

    Dave (9664fc)

  401. Is this one of those special First Amendment rights that the “press” has? https://abcnews.go.com/US/person-shot-security-guard-break-news-station/story?id=58670704

    nk (dbc370)

  402. I suspect Dave & I could track down and reconcile whatever communication difficulty we’re having, but it would best be done in person over a round of adult beverages.

    I would make an honest effort to do that with Gryph or Skorcher, and would even buy the first round.

    There are several other folks who’ve commented here today whose comments I have studiously avoided discussing, and about whom silence is the very best goodwill I can muster. But I confess to being in an argumentative mood today, DRJ.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  403. That character is a beaut, nk a wannabe christine Ford with a whole subscription of issues.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  404. Sigh all you like, but I chose those words deliberately. That’s how I feel about people who laugh at jokes about violence to reporters.

    Suppose a commenter here was in that crowd, and participated in the laughter. They might take these words as a personal attack, and feel it unfair that they can’t reply in kind. Of course they can reply without personal attacks, by pointing the issue out and complaining about it.

    The same might also be true of those who weren’t at this rally but would have laughed had they been there. They may also take your words as a personal attack. Or, since you’ve made it clear how you feel about someone who would do so, they may be afraid to say that they fall into this category.

    Or put it another way: suppose a commenter were to express themselves the way you did, about people who do such-and-such, or who think thus-and-so, and you then reveal that you fall into that category. Would you take what they’d written as a personal attack, and put them in the penalty box? Or would you read an implied “Present company excluded” into such general criticisms, and expect them to do the same?

    I think the proper response in each case is to identify oneself as falling in that category. Then you can discuss it.

    I see rcocean has outed himself as one of the people who thought this was funny. Well, the post doesn’t attack him, but it certainly attacks people with a similar mindset. I have read his comments about it and his comments from the past, and I’m just not really interested in having a conversation with him. So be it. I don’t think this is as hard as you’re making it sound.

    As for Leo Frank, anyone truly interested in the case should read this book by my friend Steve Oney: And the Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank (affiliate link). I read it about 11 years ago and found it a great read. I don’t remember the details, but I remember Steve was very thorough and fair, and my impression (IIRC) is that Frank was innocent. But I think Steve brought out all the facts that might make one suspect him.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  405. I’ve not had a chance to read every comment in this thread, but over 400 comments in, I’d have to declare my ruthless enforcement of an edict against personal attacks to be a Great Success, as Borat would say. Typically, a thread like this (especially after a quite polemical post) would be a trainwreck. But I have been heartened by very thoughtful comments here. Including some sympathetic to the people I roasted in the post.

    I think the kindness and empathy people like Haiku and RL formerly from Glendale displayed towards these folks is interesting — and it while it does not cause me to approve of these people’s actions, it might cause me to blame them, maybe not less, exactly, but in a different and slightly less judgmental way.

    Again: if “[t]he line separating good and evil passes … right through every human heart” then we should be looking for ways to fix the system, knowing that people respond to incentives. I think the display at Trump’s rally shows us that something is badly broken. But empathy might help us find a better solution, and I truly do appreciate the perspective offered by some here.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  406. While I can’t read every comment here, I am going to make sure I see the ones from the worthwhile folks. In that regard:

    I am about halfway through Steven T. Usdin’s brand new book, Bureau of Spies: The Secret Connections between Espionage and Journalism in Washington. Usdin spends a lot of time, of course, on American spies and fellow travelers of the Soviets (extremely pervasive, extremely successful) and the Nazis (comically ineffective for the most part) in the years before the outbreak of WW2. But the two chapters on intra-U.S. operations of the British Intelligence Service between Dunkirk and Pearl Harbor are worth the purchase price all by themselves, both in terms of general manipulation of American public opinion and politicians from both major parties, couples with carefully targeted push-back (and worse) against particular American isolationists, including meddling in key primary campaigns.

    Thanks for the tip. I’ll add it to my pile.

    Reading Ben Sasse’s latest book now. It’s actually far more interesting and thought-provoking than I had expected. I had expected a predictable sort of “can’t we all be civil?” read. Not so much! Guess what he thinks the main problem with American is these days. Summed up in one word. No cheating or Googling. I’ll bet you can’t guess! Try! I think he has a point, and it’s surprising.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  407. That reporter pushed it too far and deserved that bodyslam

    Keeping an eye on “WompWomp.” My guess is it won’t take him long to screw up, assuming he’s not a drive-by.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  408. 379. Pat? You there? Does that count as a personal attack? Sure sounds like one to me…

    Calling a comment a “weak-minded comment”? Nah. It’s approaching the line, but I think he’s taking care to attack the comment and not the commenter. Not the phraseology I would use or even encourage, but the yellow flag is remaining in my back pocket, even if my hand drifted in that direction.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  409. 381. That is precisely the kind of mischaracterization of one’s views that Pat has warned us about here.

    Disagree. Beldar was asking questions. Asking questions is fine. Mischaracterizations can be embedded in questions, but no such thing occurred here.

    By the way, Gryph, recall that I work during the day.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  410. I tend to subscribe to Beldar’s view on the issue of an act of war.

    I also agree with him that people receive the Constitution’s protections regardless of profession, while also agreeing with Dave that journalists’ professional actions receive a constitutional protection that many professional actions do not receive.

    Kumbaya.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  411. Allllll that aside, why is Trump praising bodyslamming reporters?

    we can’t assume that’s what President Trump’s doing at all Mr. Dustin

    we *can* say he’s perhaps a bit chuffed that this *particular* reporter was treated somewhat roughly

    i wonder why this is

    i think maybe it has something to do with…

    I would bet President Trump has a fairly robust amount of confidence that were he himself a reporter, he’d have had no trouble having a professional exchange with Mr. Gainforte

    i feel like if I’d been a reporter talking to Mr. Gianforte at that time on that day I’d have emerged unscathed too

    and indeed many many reporters interacted with Mr. Gianforte over many many months and came away without any lugubrious tales of bodies or slammings to tell

    there’s something peculiar about this reporter

    there’s something we’re not being told here

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  412. I had read, in a review elsewhere, the answer to Patterico’s question in #413, and confess to having been surprised upon hearing it. But not too surprised: There’s a fairly famous antecedent from a few years ago, a book whose name became something of a meme and would be a spoiler were I to name it here. I’ll read Sasse’s new book to see how he develops the premise.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  413. I’ve been saying it for a long time (and I even used that word talking to my daughter about it a few weeks ago) and I suspect the germ was Peter O’Toole saying it about England in Lawrence Of Arabia.

    nk (dbc370)

  414. Keeping an eye on Womp Womp…. so we can’t have a different opinion than you??? The reporter went in there arrogant, confrontational and got a taste of the democratic mob playbook. Hope that politician WINS his race.

    WompWomp (493b9b)

  415. Guess what he thinks the main problem with American is these days. Summed up in one word. No cheating or Googling. I’ll bet you can’t guess! Try! I think he has a point, and it’s surprising.

    I haven’t Googled or cheated (or read the book), but based on his speech a month or two ago, I would guess the word might be “congress”, but that doesn’t seem especially surprising so it’s probably not right.

    Dave (9664fc)

  416. team R’s much much more chipper about its midterm prospects than anyone ever imagined they’d be and President Trump’s pugnaciousness has a lot to do with this

    ben sasse’s limp-wristed mewlings not so much

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  417. Ben Sasse is not representative of normal Americans. Normal Americans do not home-school their kids. And they consume a lot.

    nk (dbc370)

  418. Ben Sasse: I’ll be flying home this weekend. My oldest is graduating from high school.
    Ted Cruz: Congratulations! Where is he going for college?
    Ben Sasse: The living room.

    nk (dbc370)

  419. Sassy!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  420. Allllll that aside, why is Trump praising bodyslamming reporters?

    we can’t assume that’s what President Trump’s doing at all Mr. Dustin

    we *can* say he’s perhaps a bit chuffed that this *particular* reporter was treated somewhat roughly

    i wonder why this is

    i think maybe it has something to do with…

    I would bet President Trump has a fairly robust amount of confidence that were he himself a reporter, he’d have had no trouble having a professional exchange with Mr. Gainforte

    i feel like if I’d been a reporter talking to Mr. Gianforte at that time on that day I’d have emerged unscathed too

    and indeed many many reporters interacted with Mr. Gianforte over many many months and came away without any lugubrious tales of bodies or slammings to tell

    there’s something peculiar about this reporter

    there’s something we’re not being told here

    happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/22/2018 @ 7:30 pm

    I thought you were just goofing off before, but you’re serious. Sometimes I can be very uncharitable with others that I can’t see in person. Without body language, I just kinda assume and dismiss. My apologies.

    Obviously you raise a point. Accountability isn’t always alone on the person who did the bad thing. I think Gianforte is 100% responsible for his mistake, and he took responsibility for all of the mistake. But yeah, of course the victims of many assaults could have avoided them by keeping their mouth shut or not being in a certain place at a certain time. I believe the words for this are “chilling effect”. This country is set up intentionally so that journalists (and anybody) can be a total troll in their speech without being physically assaulted, even though that restraint can be very difficult. And if someone does mess up, we only know who to criminally blame. By doing this, and not being wishy washy and blaming the reporter for instigating the fight, we maintain peace and order… the very real sense that people can say what they want (short of fighting words). That doesn’t mean the reporter didn’t walk away with a lesson too, about how to avoid escalating. though he also walked away learning how to get a lot of positive attention in his profession.

    It’s bad politics to react badly. It’s great for journalists to make a good story.

    As for Trump, I think we know what he’s up to. He likes to cross the line a little. I don’t think it’s a strategy. I think it’s just his personality. He likes to show people can get away with a little more, that he’s not afraid of convention, and that he’s powerful enough. That goes back to that talk about grabbing women you know where. He has learned that this is actually a good policy for conduct because people think he is tougher than he really is, and it diverts attention from details. It’s easy to give a speech and laugh about a reporter being bodyslammed, knowing the only people who are going to call Trump a thug are going to be people who didn’t support him, and everyone else will see it as another sign that Trump is beyond PC.

    And it’s a shame. It’s not good. Maybe we can’t realistically punish Saudi Arabia that much for being thugs to reporters, but we can be a better example.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  421. i’m not sure there’s a chilling effect at all

    there was no reason for this little guardian fellow to have anticipated a physical confrontation

    and yet he somehow managed to engineer one against almost impossible odds

    most of us go our whole careers without having a physical confrontation in the workplace, so this is for sure some kind of anomaly

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  422. i’m not sure there’s a chilling effect at all

    The President changed that. He characterized it as a tough Montana man issuing a bodyslam. That’s the only reason most of us are talking about it.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  423. i love President Trump and i think he’s absolutely correct to signal a lack of respect for our tawdry “journalist” class

    i share this lack of respect, and i’ll gladly stand with him in scorn of these tacky fake newsers2

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  424. 2

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  425. But Johnny Strong was not a Stand-Up Guy, happyfeet. He did not fight the charges and let the chips fall where they may. He rolled over and pleaded guilty and apologized like he was Michael Cohen or something. What kind of mixed message is that for #A-President-Who-Fights to be sending?

    nk (dbc370)

  426. Sasse’s book has a glowing endorsement from Eric Schmidt which, if you know what the book is about, is akin to Bork’s “Slouching Towards Gomorrah” getting a glowing write-up from Larry Flynt.

    Munroe (f4cfed)

  427. Sasse will be lobbying for big bucks, soon.

    mg (9e54f8)

  428. But Johnny Strong was not a Stand-Up Guy, happyfeet. He did not fight the charges and let the chips fall where they may.

    you have to remember at the time all the fake news media were making it sound like Mr. Gianforte had done something wrong

    he was faced with a difficult dilemma

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  429. Point taken, Munroe. Myself, I was thinking, that an NYT book review might not be best cover to judge Sasse’s book by.

    nk (dbc370)

  430. i love President Trump

    I’m genuinely curious – do you consider Kim Jong Un a romantic rival?

    Dave (9664fc)

  431. At some point the possibility of diminishing returns in the lobbying game, due to the glut of less-than-enthusiastic-for-Trump Republicans, has to be recognized.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  432. People laugh or “yuuk it up” for all kinds of reasons, at inappropriate times at inappropriate things.
    I laughed during Pulp Fiction at 2 out of 4 violations of gun safety rules. I laughed when a friend of mine went over the handlebars on his mountain bike. I laughed when my mom was cleaning out the coat closet and my brother ran in through the front door and caromed her into the back wall of the closet and gave her a concussion (she’s forgiven my brother).

    So, in my opinion, you’ve over generalized. Out of the laughers, likely only a small minority are the type of evil idiots the never trumper constantly data mine for and there has been no huge uptick in right wing violence that would justify their hope either.

    You’ll probably ban me for saying this, but while I do think you have a justified bias against evil idiots, but in my opinion again, you sometimes seem to confuse unwashed, uneducated, yokels with actual bad people and you extend an unseemly bias towards average Joe Trump Fan who yuks it up.

    The numbers of truly amoral violent idiots on either side of the political world ebb and flow, so sometimes one side has more than the other, but its like the rest of the criminal world where less than 5% of the people commit over 95% of the violent crime and they are always there. Neither Trump or Hillary have any control over the attendance of these outliers at their rallies.
    Trump should not fire them up on purpose (I don’t think Trump is) and Soros shouldn’t pay for bad actors (he or his fellow believers are)

    Anyway, I do think you have a bias, If the past is any indicator, I don’t think you’ll reflect on it for more than an instant and if anything your position will be solidified, but I typecast and could be wrong.
    Depending on the ban, I’ll see you in November because I think a ban will be worth it if any nevertrumpers can tap into what makes them bitter about a certain type of person who is innocent of everything but the mortal sin of being a Trump superfan.

    Oh. And if anyone replies please don’t call me a “trumphumper” we rarely use it but I find it deeply offensive… well I’d be OK with someone funny writing “trumphumper, trumphumper” 50 times mocking my fragility, toughening me up a little but what do I care? I won’t be here to read it

    steveg (a9dcab)

  433. only a small minority are the type of evil idiots the never trumper constantly data mine for

    I’m talking about the president saying something to the nation… That’s not data mining. He’s not a victim here. There’s no plot.

    Dustin (f72cb3)

  434. WompWomp (493b9b) — 10/22/2018 @ 10:35 pm

    sir, There are more commenters here that differ in opinion with our esteemed host, than share his opinion.

    felipe (5b25e2)

  435. Anyway, I do think you have a bias

    During the next two weeks, as you are moderated, reflect on how easily you could have made a similar and valid point about my argument without making it about me as a person. It’s such an easy thing to do, but you didn’t even try.

    Why two weeks instead of one? You did it deliberately.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  436. People laugh or “yuuk it up” for all kinds of reasons, at inappropriate times at inappropriate things.
    I laughed during Pulp Fiction at 2 out of 4 violations of gun safety rules. I laughed when a friend of mine went over the handlebars on his mountain bike. I laughed when my mom was cleaning out the coat closet and my brother ran in through the front door and caromed her into the back wall of the closet and gave her a concussion (she’s forgiven my brother).

    So, in my opinion, you’ve over generalized. Out of the laughers, likely only a small minority are the type of evil idiots the never trumper constantly data mine for and there has been no huge uptick in right wing violence that would justify their hope either.

    Good points, and not personal…

    And then you said:

    You’ll probably ban me for saying this…

    And you got personal.

    The distinction is very, very simple, and I think you understand it but you made a conscious decision to flout it. I’m surprised I’m going with only two weeks, but rest assured two weeks is a one-time leniency.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  437. Oh. And if anyone replies please don’t call me a “trumphumper” we rarely use it but I find it deeply offensive

    If anyone called you that here, that would be a personal attack and would be dealt with accordingly.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  438. 389. Our host has spoken. And as per usual I will abide by his declarations. In re: personal attacks, that is all.

    Gryph (08c844)

  439. Bloomberg article from June 2017 by a man sued by Trump who says hsi lawyer got Trump in adeposition to admit he lied 30 tiems (and he says there was an additional lie Trump didn’t admit

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-06-12/trump-s-history-of-lies-according-to-biographer-timothy-o-brien

    “Have you previously associated with people you knew were members of organized crime?” one of my lawyers asked.

    “No, I haven’t,” Trump responded.

    Trump had actually told him personally on his plane about twoo people Timothy L. O’Brien had asked about”

    They were tough guys,” Trump told me. “In fact, they say that Dan Sullivan was the guy that killed Jimmy Hoffa.” [Here maybe Trump was lying the other way]

    Sullivan “probably wasn’t an honest guy,” Trump added, and Shapiro “was like a third-rate, local real estate Mafia.”

    What’s “real estate Mafia?

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0643 secs.